The Version 6.0 global average lower tropospheric temperature (LT) anomaly for November, 2017 was +0.36 deg. C, down substantially from the October, 2017 value of +0.63 deg. C:
The global, hemispheric, and tropical LT anomalies from the 30-year (1981-2010) average for the last 23 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 +0.54
2017 10 +0.63 +0.67 +0.59 +0.47
2017 11 +0.36 +0.33 +0.38 +0.26
The linear temperature trend of the global average lower tropospheric temperature anomalies from January 1979 through November 2017 remains at +0.13 C/decade.
The UAH LT global anomaly image for November, 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
Quite a significant drop in 30 days globally. Is this corralated to ENSO?
You can’t determine a meaningful correlation from just two data points.
IPCC’s First 1990 1992 report expected its Business as Usual case would result in 0.3 C/decade (0.2C/decade to 0.5C/decade). (Working Group 1 Executive summary item 3.)
Roy Spencer above reports the average 38 year UAH “linear temperature trend of the global average lower tropospheric temperature anomalies from January 1979 through November 2017 remains at +0.13 C/decade.”
Trends greater than 30 years have been considered “climate”.
The actual 38 year trend of 0.13 C/decade is only 43% of the IPCC’s predicted 0.3 C/decade Business as Usual trend!
Why focus on 25+ year old documents? Why not instead look at more recent IPCC publications?
The growth of fossil fuel emissions has not kept up with the BAU growth projections of 25 years ago. There has been a global shift that has reduced emissions growth, which would correlate with less warming than predicted by BAU growth models. Simple, neh?
From the 2007 report:
“Since IPCC’s first report in 1990, assessed projections have suggested global average temperature increases between about 0.15°C and 0.3°C per decade for 1990 to 2005. This can now be compared with observed values of about 0.2°C per decade, strengthening confidence in near-term projections.”
The observed trend of 0.2 is from a different data set to the satellite trend of 0.13, but 0.13 and 0.2 aren’t as far apart as climate change denialists would like to believe.
On a global scale, the challenge of adapting to a (for example) 2 degree temperature rise in 150 years is not too dissimilar to the challenge of adapting in 100 years. An extra 50 years would be nice, but it’s still an immense challenge. And there’s no guarantee the warming would end there.
“Why focus on 25+ year old documents? Why not instead look at more recent IPCC publications?”
Yes, only look at the IPCC documents that fit the latest scare tactic.
And there’s no guarantee the pseudoscience would end there.
“And theres no guarantee the pseudoscience would end there.”
Nailed it! Because you and your “skeptic” friends would rather follow a pseudoscientist, Dr. Roy Spencer who feels peer review isn’t worth his time than actually learn from real scientist that have long ago moved on from trying to “prove” climate change and have for decades now being looking at how its impacts will be manifest. But hey all you old white men on this site with investments in coal and oil will never change. We just need you to roll over so the next generation can get on with trying to fix all the baby boomers problems…thanks
I didn’t know we now do significance on two points over the preceeding 100-odd points…
Amazing. Everytime I come onto Dr. Roy Skeptical’s website I learn some new amazing way people are proving scientific facts. Peer-review is for chumps. Who needs large data set when you have two data points that form a perfect story line for your narrow minds?
Just as expected the lagged influence of the El Nino conditions last spring and summer has ended and the satellite temperature anomaly drops like a rock. This will of course be denied by climate alarmists.
‘…and the satellite temperature anomaly drops like a rock.’
Typical blah blah of stubborn skeptics thinking all people who do not share their ideas are by definition alarmists.
– https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/psd/enso/mei/table.html
– https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/psd/data/correlation/nina34.data
– http://origin.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/ensostuff/ONI_v5.php
– http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/enso/index.shtml#tabs=SOI
Drops like a rock… so what.
binny…”Typical blah blah of stubborn skeptics thinking all people who do not share their ideas are by definition alarmists”.
And you are a typical alarmist, referencing the corrupt NOAA. Why would you reference temperature data that has been fudged by NOAA, who discarded over 75% of the global data then used a climate model on the remaining less than 25% to SYNTHESIZE the data they discarded?
Why have you failed to acknowledge the confidence levels provided by NOAA, which they are required to provide since their temperature database is now statistically derived? They declared 2014 a record warming year based on a confidence level of 48%. Only charlatans would try such a ploy.
NASA GISS, who get their data from NOAA, have been known to use confidence levels in the 30% range. NASA needs to distance themselves from those climate modelers before they drag NASA’s good name into the mud.
Gordon, we have heard this NOAA did yada yada from you at least 50 times. It lost all of our interest around the 10th time. Pls try something new..
Nate, are you saying that you’re bored with the truth? Try something new? Like what, exactly?
His statements are highly repetitive, boring indeed, and have been debunked countless times. Each time- he simply covers his ears and says ‘I cant hear you!’.
Nate…”Gordon, we have heard this NOAA did yada yada from you at least 50 times”.
You’ll hear it 50 more times as long as alarmists like Bindidon keep pushing corrupt NOAA data to counter the data in the NOAA satellite data used by UAH.
The NOAA satellite data is not tampered with using climate models. Anyone who defends such chicanery does not understand science. If you have 6000 reporting surface data stations and you receive that data, then you slash over 75% of that data and use less than 25% of it to synthesize the lost data, something is seriously wrong.
Bindidon has defended that nonsense then has the temerity to come on this blog and criticize the UAH data with comparison to the fudged NOAA surface data.
Alarmists are known to troll skeptic blogs introducing uncertainty using pseudo-science. Why should I sit by and watch him do it?
“keep pushing corrupt NOAA ”
Your conspiratorial mindset means you are unable to process what the legitimate reasons for NOAAs adjustments are.
These legit reasons have been explained to you ad nauseum. But, you seem immune to counterfacts.
At best, the discussion is a stalemate.
Time to be done.
My suggestion, ignore NOAA, pay attention to other surface data. They show = or > warming.
nate…”His statements are highly repetitive, boring indeed, and have been debunked countless times”.
I pointed anyone interested to the NOAA website where they admitted to slashing over 75% of the surface data they receive. I have yet to see the debunking you claim.
I also pointed anyone interested to the chiefio site where he has systematically revealed NOAA slashing close to 90% of surface stations since the 1990s.
Give us the link to the specific page, Gordon.
I suppose people like Nate also believe that the only law Al Capone ever broke was tax evasion because that’s all he was ever found guilty of. If Karl et al. want to look innocent, they could start by complying with Congress’ request for internal deliberations, but instead we’re fed the B.S. that secretive internal deliberations within NOAA are necessary for scientific research. Sounds like some sophistry a defense lawyer would come up with and something only a rube would believe.
RW. I like your guilty until proven innocent mindset. Should apply to Trump, perhaps?
Almost as funny as Roy Moore’s spokeswoman reminding everyone that there were lots of people who have NOT accused him of sexual misconduct….
Why have they not been convicted?
svante…”https://science.house.gov/news/press-releases/committee-probes-allegations-politicization-noaa-study…”
Because of nonsense like this:
https://science.house.gov/news/press-releases/committee-probes-allegations-politicization-noaa-study
“Over the course of the committees oversight, NOAA refused to comply with the inquiries. This culminated in the issuance of a congressional subpoena, with which NOAA also failed to comply. During the course of the investigation, the committee heard from whistleblowers who confirmed that, among other flaws in the study, it was rushed for publication to support President Obamas climate change agenda”.
I should add that initial requests by Lamar Smith for info from NOAA were blocked by the Obama administration. That leads me to think NOAA and the Obama admin colluded to rewrite the IPCC claim of a warming hiatus from 1998 – 2012.
Why should NOAA fail to comply if they are innocent? This is a US government ordering a US funded scientific organization to release information and NOAA has failed to cooperate.
This smacks of the Climategate email incident where the head of Had.crut, Phil Jones, was seen advising cronies to block efforts of Steve McIntyre to file an FOI request to the UK government, forcing Had.crut to release their data for independent audit.
Appell has called me a liar on this several times but here we have a US government investigating the same claims I am making and Appell calls me a liar.
That raises questions in my mind as to what Appell really represents. He doesn’t even have the guts to make it clear that he has called me a liar, he now blames it on Barry.
Unfortunately Roy’s blog has become riddled with alarmist trolls.
You are a liar, Gordon. That’s been firmly established here.
And you have never once defended your claims against barry’s numerous rebuttal.
Gordon,
I pointed anyone interested to the NOAA website where they admitted to slashing over 75% of the surface data they receive. I have yet to see the debunking you claim.
I have provided it numerous times (about 20) specifically for you, and you have never dealt with it. I now consider you to by lying about this.
NOAA did not say they had “slashed”, removed or cut the data. This is entirely your invention.
Chiefio, who you have cited on this, says specifically that he did not claim that NOAA deleted data. I’ve quoted that for you, and you’ve responded to it once by backtracking – but keep coming back with the same old LIE.
NOAA did not have the data to slash. For the umpteenth time, they retrospectively added data that is not available to them electronically – millions of hand-written records. This project finished at the end of the 1990s, even while NOAA was still receiving the data from 1500 weather stations via the automated process.
THEY DID NOT SLASH, CUT, REMOVE OR DELETE ANY DATA.
You. Are. A. Liar.
Gordon is going to again ignore these counter-facts for the 20th time. He will have no answer for them.
Then he will say ‘I have yet to see the debunking’
He will rinse and post the same smelly laundry in the next posting.
As barry always points out here, Gordon is lying (again).
Gordon, you’d fit right into the Trump administration.
davie, how much has Earth warmed the Sun this year?
g*e*r*a*n says: “maybe one tenth of a degree”.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/12/uah-global-temperature-update-for-november-20170-36-deg-c/#comment-274636
binny…”Drops like a rock so what”.
You don’t say that when the temps rise temporarily and suddenly. You claim it as clear evidence of anthropogenic warming.
Furthermore, you are in denial of the IPCC claim that the 15 year period from 1998 – 2012 showed no significant warming. The IPCC called it a warming hiatus. You defended NOAA when they retroactively rewrote the record to erase the flat trend, using their junk math.
“You dont say that when the temps rise temporarily and suddenly. You claim it as clear evidence of anthropogenic warming.”
I challenge you to link to a post where he has said anything like “THIS particular month’s anomaly is clear evidence of anthropogenic warming”.
des, you are so desperate.
Really? Because the way you have posted this same nonsense in response to my comments throughout this thread suggests that the desperation is comment from you. “Why won’t anyone laugh at my AMAZING Des joke?”, he asks in desperation.
As I commented, you are so desperate.
As I commented, the way you have to resort to childish name altering smacks of desperation.
Careful dude. Your Warmunist Syndrome is acting up today and you are making a fool of yourself.
Richard: why do El Nino years keep getting warmer?
That’s a simple question, David. It’s called the positive phase of the AMO on top of the warming from the Little Ice Age.
Here’s one for you. Why was the Little Ice Age colder than almost all of the Holocene?
Because the level of CO2 dropped.
https://www.nature.com/articles/ngeo2769
Are you sure that’s what the article indicates, Svante?
LOL
Yes, you have cause and effect the wrong way around there, Svante.
LIA cause is still debated. Most popular theory is hugely extended low solar activity (Maunder Minimum) plus high volcanic activity.
AMO seems to alias global temps, not lead them.
Yes, bad choice of paper, I’m completely wrong!
A drop, but still the second warmest November on this record.
TFN
tfn…”A drop, but still the second warmest November on this record.
There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics….Mark Twain.
Mr Radio Shack technician,
Please EXPLAIN why this is a “lie”.
Is there something about the concept of “second warmest” which is troubling your brain?
des-perate!
Gordon – ignore your non-contributing brother and please answer my question.
Of course it’s not a lie. Gordon always dumps actual facts in preference of the ones he manufactures himself.
800,000K
dT = dQ/mc
dQ/dt = 1.22e17 J/s (given) => dQ = 3.85e33 J over 1 Gyrs.
m = mass of Earth = 6.0e24 kg
c = specific heat of Earth = about 850 J/kgK (Table 2.6, http://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007%2F978-3-642-34023-9_2) for both mantle and outer core (together they comprise over 99% of the Earths volume).
so
=> dT = 760,000 K
quantum physics
Classical physics, d*u*m*b*o.
davie, my comment went right over your head. But, most things go right over your head.
The reason the Sun can NOT heat the Earth to 800,000K is due to quantum physics.
And, QP is definitely over your head.
“The reason the Sun can NOT heat the Earth to 800,000K is due to quantum physics.”
Why?
My calculation was purely classical. The Sun and Earth were treated as classical objects. So was the heat.
davie, you make the false assumption that ALL infrared is ALWAYS “accepted”. Of course, you must believe that, or your GHE nonsense would collapse.
But, it’s just WRONG.
Study up on QP, and maybe in about 15 years, you will understand how stupid your position is.
You can’t produce a reason. What a C*h*u*m*p.
La Nina conditions appear to be just developing, and the satellite appears to be less sensitive to La Nina, than it is to El Nino, perhaps because with El Nino increased convection takes warm air up to the altitude at which the satellite takes its sampling.
There is of course a significant lag between cold ENSO conditions and the satellite responding, so it is likely that November is not yet significantly influenced by La Nina, just a lagged erosion from the El Nino highs.
If La Nina strengthens, and there is a full blown La Nina, maybe this will really show up in January/February data next year
I don’t expect the satellite data to really see much of the La Nina until at least February.
In addition, the +AMO is still keeping Arctic sea ice low enough to vent a lot of energy over the NH winter months.
Finally, the PDO still hasn’t revert back to a negative profile which will also promote a higher GAST.
“PDO still hasnt revert back to a negative profile”
Why do you assume that it will”??
It usually does once you further into a La Nina.
PDO stands for Pacific *DECADEL* Oscillation. It oscillates on DECADEL time scales. It does not switch every time you get El Nino or La Nina.
“des” stands for “Desperately Evading Science”.
It just means he oscillates between “wrong” and “mostly wrong”.
It’s fun to watch.
Des, you obviously have never examined the PDO. The positive and negative phases are essentially an average of the conditions in the Pacific over decades. The actual profile during any year, however, is more dependent on ENSO.
Bob Tisdale was one of the first to point this out. Maybe you should read some of his work. He thinks that the phases are simply an after effect of ENSO and there is nothing else to them.
So, yeah, as far as I know it has switched every time there is an ENSO event. If it didn’t this time that would be very interesting.
Investigations of links between PDO and ENSO is in the literature well before (1990s) Tisdale took up blogging (2008).
Barry, the PDO wasn’t defined until 1997. I think there’s a good reason you didn’t post any references to support your assertion. It is obviously a complete lie.
Oh really?
https://tinyurl.com/yd4esjg9
Perhaps you should do a simple google before posting assertions.
Barry, all of those links are from the late 1990s exactly as I stated.
Typo: second word on the second line should be November.
There were 44 consecutive months with a negative ONI following the 1998 el nino. Something similar could happen again. If so, would make an interesting comparison.
They are predicting only a weak and short-lived La Nina.
Here’s a prediction for negative values (not necessarily la nina) through July:
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/people/wwang/cfsv2fcst/imagesInd3/nino34Mon.gif
Yes – and the ensemble mean stays weak throughout that period. And given that three consecutive months of -1.0 or below are required to qualify for a “moderate” La Nina, only a few ensemble members suggest we will reach moderate levels. And since the average La Nina lasts about 15 months, this looks like the most likely scenario is a short La Nina, with La-Nina-like conditions lasting a bit longer.
Des
I think there’s a reasonable chance for an extended negative/neutral and or la nina period. There’s historical precedent, starting in the following years:
1954: 34 consecutive months
1973: 38 ”
1983: 34 ”
1998: 44 ”
2007: 25 ”
2010: 25. “
It appears Des is scared of what might happen with a La Nina. Otherwise, he wouldn’t be so nervous. ENSO models have been famously wrong and were predicting El Nino just 6 months ago.
Most people would like to see a real La Nina to balance out the recent El Nino and give us an idea of whether this EL Nino has led to a step up in global temperature as happened in 1998-2001. Either way is not good for alarmists.
If it does then they need to explain the mechanism and if it doesn’t then the pause will have resumed and any chance of dangerous warming from CO2 would be extremely doubtful.
Richard
You’re not making sense. If the TLT/surface is warmer during the next la nina than previous ones, you think this is bad news for the AGW argument?
Isaac, I didn’t say a word about the temperature during the next La Nina. Try again.
Most people would like to see a real La Nina to balance out the recent El Nino and give us an idea of whether this EL Nino has led to a step up in global temperature as happened in 1998-2001. Either way is not good for alarmists.
If it does then they need to explain the mechanism and if it doesnt then the pause will have resumed and any chance of dangerous warming from CO2 would be extremely doubtful.
Ha! Great positioning – no matter what happens, it cannot possibly be due to AGW.
This is the skeptic version of every weather anomaly, hot or cold, being ties to global warming.
Low temps during a la Nina do not in any way necessitate a return to to the pause. I’ve calculated it out to 2020, and the odds are extremely low that the temp trend since 1998 will flatline.
What’s that? You want me to calculate from 2002? Or from 2010? Or from 2016?
Whatever cherry-pick it takes to satisfy the preconception I suppose.
Well Barry it is a theory you support and as such it is your responsibility to explain how it operates. I’ve pointed out your problem. You may not like it but that is tough.
If all you have is warming every 20 or so years which occurs precisely after a super El Nino then I think you have a problem. What is funny is all you can do is blame skeptics for pointing out the problem yet you offer no reasonable answers.
I think there’s a word for that …. oh yeah …. denial.
Richard M
Great minds think alike.
The Denver Broncos won the super bowl in 1998 and 1999. This was precisely followed by a step-up in global temperatures.
Guess who won the super bowl in 2016? Yep, the Denver Broncos. And once again we’re seeing a step up in global temperatures. Coincidence? I think not!
I’ve challenged my warmist friends to come up with an explanation, but they have failed to do so. Instead, they ridicule me for pointing out the problem.
“I think theres a word for that . oh yeah . denial”
Richard,
Your comment was non-responsive to my point. That’s a hallmark of… denial.
Let me show you how responding to a point works.
If all you have is warming every 20 or so years which occurs precisely after a super El Nino then I think you have a problem.
My problem is that if global temps goes up every 20 years by, say, 0.1C, then 2000 years ago it was 10 C cooler than today.
6 Months ago “They” were predicting El Nino. I wouldn’t put much value in anything from “They”.
Who is this “they?” The institutes monitoring and forecasting ENSO events forecast their probability. They never 100% ‘predict’ what will happen.
And the probabilities put forward favored El Nino. That is what I said. Face-palm.
So you have problems with English.
Prediction: “the act of saying what will happen in the future”
Probability: “the extent to which something is likely to happen or be the case”
I have problems with pedantic nonsense.
La Nina is already.
http://www.ospo.noaa.gov/data/sst/anomaly/2017/anomnight.11.30.2017.gif
Southern Oscillation Index
http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/enso/monitoring/soi30.png
I do not regard BOM highly. The top layer of BOM are Climate alarmists. I find this site better for SOI
https://www.longpaddock.qld.gov.au/seasonalclimateoutlook/southernoscillationindex/30daysoivalues/
Ren from the longpaddock web site
“Years in history with the same SOI phase over OctNov
1878, 1879, 1880, 1883, 1886, 1892, 1893, 1894, 1908, 1909, 1910, 1916, 1917, 1921, 1922, 1924, 1928, 1929, 1933, 1935, 1938, 1943, 1948, 1950, 1955, 1961, 1962, 1964, 1970, 1971, 1975, 1988, 1998, 1999, 2000, 2007, 2008, 2010, 2011, 2017”
I have not looked at all the years but I know around my place in Queensland there was very heavy rain and floods in 1893, 1974-5 and 2010-2011. Dec. 2010 had an all time record rainfall of 668mm which filled dams to overflowing. There floods in Brisbane in Jan 2011 (a normal wet month with average of 250mm but then received 566mm) with loss of life due to government inaction on release of water listening to climate alarmists predicting drought.
The record of accurate data on SOI and rainfall (which is now being messed up by inaccurate electronic instruments) is available for anyone to note the cycles of weather.
A bit more information -after a very dry 9 months the combined Oct & Nov rain at 650mm is 2nd or 3rd highest in 125 years and this month have had already more than 100mm with local flooding. So I suggest that La Nina is here.
Another, point of interest there is a class action case against the Government water authority over the 2011 floods. 100’s of millions involved.
‘… the +AMO is still keeping Arctic sea ice low enough…’
This reminds me all the stuff submitted ad nauseam at WUWT concerning a pretended correlation of AMO with Arctic sea extent.
Here is a chart showing absence of this correlation, within both the monthly anomalies and their 60 month running means:
4GP.ME/bbtc/1512153796133.jpg
Of course the Colorado sea ice extent data was inverted here to produce a plot comparable to the two other ones.
It is visible that Arctic sea ice extent has since 1979 rules independent of any oscillation. It shows linearity akin to constant warming, whichever its origin, Mankind or Nature or both.
All data are anomalies wrt UAH climatology and scaled, again to obtain comparable data.
A correlation of AMO with something indeed exists: but that is one with UAH6.0, for reasons nobody was able to correctly explain until now.
Sources
UAH: http://tinyurl.com/y997zl7w
AMO: http://tinyurl.com/y8gv67w3
SIE: http://tinyurl.com/p9v5eby
binny…”This reminds me all the stuff submitted ad nauseam at WUWT concerning a pretended correlation of AMO with Arctic sea extent”.
Pretended???
A study by Tsonis et al, which covered a century of temperature data and correlated the temps to the phases of ocean oscillations like the AMO, PDO, ENSO, AO, etc., showed conclusively that global temps are synced to the phases of those oscillation. When they are in phase, global temps rise and when out of phase they drop.
Tsonis advised that we put away out theories on AGW and begin studying the ocean oscillations as a source of warming/cooling. Based on the scant amount of warming we’ve had since 1980, I think he’s onto something.
There is ample evidence, even from NOAA, that Arctic ice is affected by two main circulations in the Arctic Ocean, The Transpolar Drift and the Beaufort Gyre. The Drift sweeps ice west to east, right into the North Atlantic. It also warms temperatures occasionally at the North Pole while the rest of the Arctic is -30C or below.
The ice melting would depend on the AMO, which governs North Atlantic temps.
Why did he have to detrend his data?
“Prior to analysis, all raw indices were linearly detrended”.
Which line numbers should I check again?
https://tinyurl.com/y9ya3wgw
Because the goal is here, as usual, to pretend that an integration of the cyclic behaviors of natural events explains the temperature increase using exclusively natural factors.
It is the same nonsense as if you would pretend that temperature increase is solely due to anthropogenic factors.
Except natural is real, and anthropogenic is unreal.
binny…”Because the goal is here, as usual, to pretend that an integration of the cyclic behaviors of natural events explains the temperature increase using exclusively natural factors”.
Natural events do explain the warming, why would anyone concoct a lame theory like AGW unless they had a political agenda for it?
Gordon Robertson says:
“Natural events do explain the warming.”
Prove it.
svante…”Why did he have to detrend his data?”
That’s not the study to which I referred. This is the study, Tsonis et al 2007:
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2007GL030288/full
Conclusion:
“the climate shifted after the 1970s event to a different state of a warmer climate, which may be superimposed on an anthropogenic warming trend.”
“When they are in phase, global temps rise and when out of phase they drop.”
Within a long-term warming trend.
DA…”Within a long-term warming trend”.
On top of a global cooling caused by the Little Ice Age. I call it a re-warming.
Why has it “rewarmed” to higher temperatures than were seen before the LIA?
Natural aviation, combined with GOV “forcings”!
Gordon Robertson says:
“A study by Tsonis et al, which covered a century of temperature data and correlated the temps to the phases of ocean oscillations like the AMO, PDO, ENSO, AO, etc., showed conclusively that global temps are synced to the phases of those oscillation.”
False.
This is how Tsonis et al ends:
“[Their finding] …suggests an alternative hypothesis, namely that the climate shifted after the 1970s event to a different state of a warmer climate, which may be superimposed on an anthropogenic warming trend.”
Tsonis, A. A., K. Swanson, and S. Kravtsov (2007), A new dynamical mechanism for major climate shifts, Geophys.Res. Lett., 34, L13705, doi:10.1029/2007GL030288.
DA…”False. This is how Tsonis et al ends:”
Cherry picking at it’s best, the hallmark of cheating alarmists.
You have deliberately cherry picked information presented as an alternate hypothesis for warming since 1970. Even at that, your cherry picked quote upholds the ‘hypothesis’ of a climate shift due to ocean oscillations.
This is how it ends in my ‘FULL’ version:
“The above observational and modeling results suggest the following intrinsic mechanism of the climate system leading to major climate shifts. First, the major climate modes tend to synchronize at some coupling strength. When this synchronous state is followed by an increase in the coupling strength, the network’s synchronous state is destroyed and after that climate emerges in a new state. The whole event marks a significant shift in climate. It is interesting to speculate on the climate shift after the 1970s event. The standard explanation for the post 1970s warming is that the radiative effect of greenhouse gases overcame shortwave reflection effects due to aerosols [Mann and Emanuel, 2006]. However, comparison of the 2035 event in the 21st century simulation and the 1910s event in the observations with this event, suggests an alternative hypothesis, namely that the climate shifted after the 1970s event to a different state of a warmer climate, which may be superimposed on an anthropogenic warming trend”.
I simply quoted the paper you cited, and that wigged you out.
Sorry, but you were wrong about that paper.
“…superimposed on an anthropogenic warming trend”
One shouldn’t expect any kind of short term correlation between the ice extent and short term temperature swings. The ice will react very slowly over time. It is a cumulative effect or in a sense a smoothed response which is exactly what your graph shows. Short term effects in ice are driven mostly by wind.
Richard M…”Short term effects in ice are driven mostly by wind”.
The Arctic is a mammoth expanse of moving ice in the Arctic winter. No one has ever gotten out there and thoroughly checked old ice versus new ice. Satellites cannot do that accurately and most Arctic weather and ice studies are based on models.
In the 1940s, the Canadian RCMP boat, the St. Roch, under Captain Henry Larsen, made the first two-way traverse of the Arctic Ocean via the Northwest Passage. On the first leg from Vancouver on the west coast of Canada to Halifax on the east coast, they were hemmed in for two years in the Arctic by the ice. On the return leg a couple of years later, they sailed straight through in 87 days.
Larsen explained that the Arctic ice is subject to winds and currents in the ocean and is highly unpredictable.
I have read several stories by Arctic explorers ranging from the 1980s. All of them were able to walk on solid ice from the north shore of Canada to the North Pole.
One of them, Pat Farmer, reported from a Russian station near the NP that the ice was 3 metres thick at the Pole in March. Another Ranulph Fiennes, made it to the Pole just as the ice over the Pole was breaking up and he was able to sail an entire slab of ice, like a small island all the way to Greenland, where he was rescued by a support ship.
There is far more affecting Arctic ice than what climate alarmists are conceding. It’s the outright lies about the Arctic that bothers me most.
It’s far more likely that Arctic ice is being swept into the North Atlantic and melted by the Transpolar Drift than it is the lame theory that 0.04% of CO2 in the atmosphere is causing it to melt. I want to see a one to one correlation between anthropogenic CO2 and global warming. I am not holding my breath.
If you were smart, you’d know to ask for a correlation between ln(CO2) and Arctic sea ice volume.
Here you go:
http://psc.apl.uw.edu/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/schweiger/ice_volume/BPIOMASIceVolumeAnomalyCurrentV2.1.png
Pressure forecast over Greenland.
https://earth.nullschool.net/#2017/12/06/0000Z/wind/isobaric/1000hPa/overlay=mean_sea_level_pressure/orthographic=-55.80,72.98,596/loc=-40.119,72.410
Thank You Dr. Spencer for the update.
Been freezing across in the Uk, I see another 2010 coming.
This year, the ONI was positive from March – July:
+0.1
+0.3
+0.4
+0.4
+0.1
The same five months also had a positive ONI in 1983:
+1.5
+1.3
+1.1
+0.7
+0.3
The lagged response in UAH TLT (September – November, 2017):
+.54
+.63
+.36
The lagged response in UAH TLT, (September – November, 1983):
-0.01
-0.10
-0.08
1983 was well into the negative AMO and just starting the upswing into a positive PDO. It was also just after a major volcanic eruption (El Chichon in 1982). Did you expect those would have no effect?
El Chichon, good catch! Then let’s go back a few years. ONI from March to July, 1980 (very similar to this year):
+0.3
+0.4
+0.5
+0.5
+0.3
UAH TLT (1980)
September -0.01
October. -0.16
November. -0.14
He will now falsely claim that Mt St Helens had an effect on global climate.
Even deeper into the negative phases of the AMO and PDO.
Note that the recent paper by Christy et al do find a warming trend even after taking these into account. It would come out to around .6 C / century if applied to UAH 6.
The AMO should go negative in the 2020s. We should get a better handle on it in just a few years. If I’m wrong it will be obvious.
Richard says: “Even deeper into the negative phases of the AMO and PDO.”
No. In 1980 the AMO was nearly flat and the PDO was positive.
https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.files.wordpress.com/2015/01/tsgcos-corr_-86-181-251-14-27-8-43-43.png
Here is another chart showing PDO phases:
https://www.nwfsc.noaa.gov/research/divisions/fe/estuarine/oeip/figures/Figure_PDO-01.JPG
Isaac, obviously you don’t understand these oscillations. Just looking at numbers will not tell you much. Essentially, the effects are additive/cumulative over time. The longer the AMO or PDO is positive the greater the effect. Same with negative.
So, even though the PDO switched to positive in the late 1970s the effects of the PDO were still on the negative side. The AMO had gone negative in the mid 1960s so had plenty of time to build up an influence.
I probably should have said negative impacts instead of negative phases.
Been freezing across in the Uk…
https://www.wetteronline.de/?pid=p_city_local&sid=Pictogram&diagram=true&fcdatstr=20171202&daytime=night&iid=UK
And this shows night temperatures over UK…
Tim Wells comment posted Friday afternoon was “BEEN freezing across in the UK”. This is totally correct. Frosts on Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday night here in the South and colder in the Midlands and North. Tonight is slightly warmer due to some cloud cover.
Oh my apologies to leave the millionth discussion where some people seem to confound climate and weather…
steve…”Tim Wells comment posted Friday afternoon was BEEN freezing across in the UK. This is totally correct”.
Semantics. As you must know, living in the UK, the word freezing is used in different ways. It does not always mean sub-zero temps.
Semantics, oh you mean facts.
Steve…”Semantics, oh you mean facts…”
I am not doubting your facts, I am claiming that people using English use the term freezing in different ways. If I claim it is freezing out I don’t necessarily mean the temps are under 0C.
The temps on the supplied graphic showed temps around 2C. That’s close enough to freezing for my likes. When I experience temps of 2C here in Vancouver, I have been known to declare, “It’s freezing!!”.
That’s what I meant by semantics.
This is a science blog, not a semantics blog.
binny…”Been freezing across in the Uk”
In English, we tend to claim it’s freezing when it’s uncomfortably cold. It could be 40F and we will claim it’s ‘freezing outside’ even though we are 8F above freezing.
If the temps you show on your graph are in degrees C, I’d say the claim of it being freezing across the UK is correct, given our penchant in English for using colloquial expressions.
Wow 2 degrees C. If it was 2 degrees F I would be impressed. However as 3 C is the average minimum for the UK at this time of the year, it would be hard to characterise this as unusually freezing.
mike r…”However as 3 C is the average minimum for the UK at this time of the year, it would be hard to characterise this as unusually freezing”.
Since 0C is officially freezing, I am not quibbling for 2 C.
And yes, 2 F is cold. It’s about -17 C.
tim…”Been freezing across in the Uk, I see another 2010 coming”.
Did you mean 2008? 2010 was a strong EN year, not that far behind 1998 and 2016. 2008 was the strongest La Nina year since 1995 at most.
Gordon
Tim is doing the same thing you do every winter……thinking if it’s cold locally it must be cold globally:
“The winter of 2010-2011 was a weather event that brought heavy snowfalls, record low temperatures, travel chaos and school disruption to the islands of Britain and Ireland. It included the UK’a coldest December since Met Office records began in 1910……”
snape…”Tim is doing the same thing you do every winterthinking if its cold locally it must be cold globally:”
I am well aware of globality versus locality. If you look at the UAH graph, 2010 was very warm, ranking about 3rd behind 1998 and 2016. It was an EN year and if there was record snowfall it was due to increased precipitation due to the EN.
2008 on the graph is easily the coldest year on the UAH record from 1998 – present.
“2008 on the graph is easily the coldest year on the UAH record from 1998 present.”
So what?
Gordon looks at the GLOBAL anomalies, sees they were high, and says “You guys in that tiny part of the world called England MUST have bee warm in 2010”.
Great powers of inference there.
des…”Gordon looks at the GLOBAL anomalies, sees they were high…”
Gordon looked at the UAH graph, particularly at the red running average curve. If des knew how to read graphs he’d see the same thing as Gordon.
What did Des miss?
2010 was colder than 2008 in the UK.
https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/had.cet/cetml1659on.dat *
Nov 2008 was 2 C cooler than Nov 2010.
It’s virtually certain that 2017 annual will be warmer than both those years.
(Remove the dot between ‘had’ and ‘cet’ to make the link work)
Nov 2008 was 2 C cooler than Nov 2010
Sorry, it’s the other way around.
Point is Tim Wells was right and Gordon was wrong that 2010 was a cold year in the UK.
The result for last month’s sweep is in – 0.36C.
PhilJ 0.24
gbakie 0.31
MikeR 0.39
barry 0.41
Svante 0.41
MikeR gets the car again. But he helped himself by waiting til the end of the month and looking at data.
We guessers get a goat apiece.
Rats.. Ive got no room for a goat…
But ill try again 0.19 for Dec..
With solar min continuing i expect the anomoly to continueto fall throughout the winter and ifsolar activity doesnot pick up we will be back to zero or neg values by spring …
I shall prepare two guesses and put one forward. When MikeR reveals his answer I will swap my guesses. That will double the size of my goat.
Pretty sure there will be another drop. I’ll go with 0.21.
For no other reason than for fun.
barry…”Pretty sure there will be another drop. Ill go with 0.21″.
Pretty risky business the way the anomalies have been wildly oscillating.
Nothing out of the ordinary.
I am just doing a Ren and letting you everyone that there still no sign of La Nina in the aqua satellite data. It is currently running at about 0.43C based on the first 11 days of data.
As I have an unfair advantage I will not formally participate in the betting and handing back my trophies from the past two months.
It is a pity that as, a fellow antipodean, I would not have needed to travel far to join Barry for a drop of his Grange.
Too bad MikeR, I shall copy Salvatore instead, and add a bit from what you just said: 0.34.
Svante,
You may need to add a lot more. Based on fhe first 20 days of this month, the current data for the aqua satellite corresponds to 0.5 C for UAH v6.
A figure above 0.46 C would make it the warmest December on record, breaking the record for December 2015 (which was set during the run up to the 2016 El Nino).
This is particularly disconcerting as we have had La Nina or near La Nina conditions for several months now.
BoM ENSO watch has upgraded the chance of full la Nina in the months ahead to 70%.
The tropical Pacific is approaching La Nia thresholds. If the current progression continues, and thresholds are exceeded for a sustained period, 201718 will be considered a La Nia event. As a result, the Bureaus ENSO Outlook has been raised to La Nia ALERT meaning there is approximately a 70% chanceor triple the normal likelihoodof La Nia occurring. Climate models suggest that any event is likely to be weak and short-lived.
http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/enso/#tabs=Overview
(NB: This is weather watching rather than a climate analysis)
Trade winds are having quite a battle right now (more weather watching). Apparently, the ENSO models think the blue team will win:
http://www.atmos.albany.edu/student/ventrice/real_time/timeLon/u.anom.30.5S-5N.gif
Similar battle underwater:
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/ocean/anim/wkxzteq_anm.gif
Yes barry, but for me La Nina will start when the Japanese JMA confirms it, because they include more data. Actually, there is no such confirmation:
http://ds.data.jma.go.jp/tcc/tcc/products/elnino/elmonout.html
There you see that for the forecast period from JAN 2018 till MAY 2018, ENSO is returning back to 50% normal vs 50% Nina.
JMA ENSO index system is based on the SSTs from the NINO3 region.
MEI index is based on:
sea-level pressure (P), zonal (U) and meridional (V) components of the surface wind, sea surface temperature (S), surface air temperature (A), and total cloudiness fraction of the sky (C)
Please barry, read the stuff again, especially:
http://ds.data.jma.go.jp/tcc/tcc/products/model/outline/cps2_description.html
Believe me: I’m aware of how Klaus Wolter computes his MEI. I read about his work at least five years ago.
Japan as a set of islands in the Pacific depends far more on valuable ENSO prediction than do rock solid countries like USA or even Australia.
Thus if they mainly focus on NINO3 while keeping an eye on other ENSO regions, there will be a reason for them to do.
The forecast model that you’ve linked to is not how JMA will confirm la Nina, it’s how they predict them. JMA will confirm (or not) la Nina based solely on NINO3 SSTs.
JMA latest forecast:
Below-normal NINO.3 SST and other common features of past La Nia events persisted in October.
It is more likely (60%) that continuation of these features until boreal winter will meet the JMA’s definition of La Nia event, although it is possible (40%) that the criterion will not be met.
http://ds.data.jma.go.jp/tcc/tcc/products/elnino/outlook.html
It’s been unseasonably warm in Oklahoma, that’s for certain.
Plants that shouldn’t be blooming this time of year are doing so.
Incidentally, there are some discrepancies with the data above with… um… itself?
2017 1 0.33 (says 0.32 up there)
2017 2 0.38
2017 3 0.23 (says 0.22 up there)
Greven, this is correct.
1. When you include new data e.g. due to readings originating from additional instruments, your absolute data resulting from the averaging over all instruments may vary and so the anomalies.
2. If by the way you happened to modify absolute data within your climatology (i.e. the period used as a baseline) the entire anomaly sequence has of course to be recomputed.
The question that should be asked is what is really going on. These wild swings in temps over the short range have nothing whatsoever to do with anthropogenic warming or climate change.
Last December in Vancouver, Canada set records for cold and this December is back to normal, with temps between 5C and 10C during the day. We are prone here to freezing Arctic air descending on us but that is due to weather conditions in the Pacific creating conditions for the Arctic air to reach us.
It happens several times per winter, but generally, we are the banana belt of Canada, with mild temps while the rest of Canada goes through freezing weather and blizzards. Atlantic Canada is milder, I understand, but they get their share of blizzards and storms which we manage to evade for the most part.
The swings in weather the world has been experiencing as of late could not possibly be related to CO2 in the atmosphere at 0.04%. That concentrations has been with us for centuries and ACO2 has added a tiny percentage to the value.
The IPCC confirmed that ACO2 is a small percentage of the 0.04%, which is 96% from natural sources.
Uh no. The natural fraction, 270/400 is 67%, last I checked.
Your .04% is to small to matter meme has been debunked at least 100 times.
The natural cycle has a large turnover, but it was in balance.
We add a small part of the turnover, but all of the increase.
Exactement / exactly…
Nate, Svante, and Bin–sorry gents. You keep believing, but CO2 does not heat the planet.
You’ve got a much better chance believing that Santa is real.
“CO2 does not heat the planet”. And G* your proof for this is what???
Oh yeah, made-up physics.
Nate, my poor desperate little buddy, it is not I that must “prove” anything. Do you not understand “null hypothesis”? It is YOU that has the burden of proof.
Have fun.
g*e*r*a*n proved it here:
https://s20.postimg.org/av6u36vbh/I_m_with_stupid.jpg
Identical plates, identical temperature, asymmetric radiation.
Shaded objects in space stay warm thanks to doubled back radiation in reverse.
Hilarious.
Well, not exactly. The green plate acquires the same temperature due to physics.
But, at least you and miker got the graphic right this time.
g*e*r*a*n
Do an experiment to prove your statement correct or Shut Up already with your stupid make believe physics. People are really getting tired of you making up crap and trying to sell it as reality.
PROVE YOUR NONSENSE: “Well, not exactly. The green plate acquires the same temperature due to physics.”
This goes against established physics, relies on complete ludicrous ideas that blue plate at same temperature than the green plate will not absorb any backradiation from the green plate.
Really stupid physics that if you have the need to continue to post then prove with a valid experiment. Ball4 has already done your apple experiment proving you are an idiot.
Prove your crap or quick your yapping, your bark is more a yap and getting very redundant.
Someone took the muzzle off the toothless, emasculated chihuahua.
Hilarious.
norman…”This goes against established physics…”
It goes against YOUR version of established physics.
Svante posted a link in which it is explained that electrons are responsible for all EM absorp-tion and emission yet you still continue to argue that electrons are not involved. When I ask you what else could be involved, since the only charge carriers in an atom are the proton and electron, you have no answers.
You don’t get it that atoms are protons and electrons, that atoms are held together by electrons, and that molecules are simply collections of electrons and protons. Even the legend in his own mind, Appell, who boasts a degree in physics, cannot begin to comprehend that actuality.
I have laid out a scientific argument as to why radiation from a cooler body cannot affect the temperature of a warmer body and you have no comeback. Even Appell doesn’t get it, resorting to mumblings about quantum mysteries.
If the science of electronics depended on the likes of you and Appell, it would have to be disbanded forthwith. Sorry, folks, move along, there are no electrons, so electronics is being disbanded.
Get real, the 2nd law states that heat cannot be transferred from a cooler body to a warmer body. The means of heat transfer in radiation is radiation. How can radiation from a cooler body be absorbed by a warmer body and still satisfy the 2nd law?
Gordon Robertson wrote:
“Get real, the 2nd law states that heat cannot be transferred from a cooler body to a warmer body.”
Liar.
I think that’s now Gordon’s 945th lie. Soon he’ll be at a thousand.
Gordon Robertson wrote:
“If the science of electronics depended on the likes of you and Appell, it would have to be disbanded forthwith.”
Gordon, undergraduate physics majors spend about 3 weeks on circuit theory, and then move on to much more interesting stuff.
By not it’s a gazillion years old. Sure, modern electrical engineering is an interesting and important field, but you’re just connecting wires. You are (or were) just a technician.
Gordon Robertson
Sadly it is true. David Appell calls you a liar and so it seems you are.
Here you falsely make this claim (which you know is not at all true!): “Svante posted a link in which it is explained that electrons are responsible for all EM absorp-tion and emission yet you still continue to argue that electrons are not involved. When I ask you what else could be involved, since the only charge carriers in an atom are the proton and electron, you have no answers.”
How dishonest do you have to be to peddle your make believe physics.
As a master of the art of deception it is strange you are accusing NOAA of deception when you show great dishonesty. I thought g*e*r*a*n was the only intentional liar on this blog. Please don’t sink to that low level. You are a better person than that!
I have stated many times that electrons do not transition in the generation of Mid-IR!! I did not say electrons were not involved in the generation!!! They create the dipoles (along with the positive nucleus) that generate the Mid-IR. The atoms, with slight charge difference, in a molecule vibrating in different modes (that are clearly shown in Svante’s link to you that you seem to totally ignore) are what are generating the Mid-IR.
Here is a second lie from you (quit lying, it is below your character!). YOU: “I have laid out a scientific argument as to why radiation from a cooler body cannot affect the temperature of a warmer body and you have no comeback. Even Appell doesnt get it, resorting to mumblings about quantum mysteries.”
I have given you several comebacks on multiple threads. Maybe you have advanced dementia and forget all that has been written to you. Maybe you only retain information for a short time and have no long term memory. This could be the case, then any point I make with you is wasted effort.
Since you have poor memory, I have given you Kirchhoff’s law. I have posted quotes clearly stating that objects at room temperature have a majority of their molecules at ground state and can easily absorb all the energy they are able to absorb. Room temperature is not enough to effect emissivity/abosrbitivity to any significant degree. You need much hotter temperatures to start effecting them.
Since you may have dementia, you may read this, and a minute later forget you read it and then claim I never gave you a valid comeback.
g*e*r*a*n – But, at least you and miker got the graphic right this time.
Yes I am glad my latest portrayal of g*e*r*a*ns blue/green plate concept ( https://s20.postimg.org/av6u36vbh/I_m_with_stupid.jpg ) meets his approval. I think this stupidity could be an accurate representation of his state of mind. I did suggest previously that Jackson Pollocks drip paintings was a good representation of his thought disordered mental state (especially his work titled blue/green poles). However a Reinhardt black on black or just simply a blank canvas could be also used to represent his intellect.
But returning to g*e*r*a*ns interpretation of the plates, he appears to
1. persist in his belief that simply changing the colour of an arrow changes the energy accounting ,
2. that an arrow pointing in towards a plate is a valid way of representing radiation leaving the same plate and
3. not understand that according to he diagram above, the net radiation for the green arrows entering and leaving the green plate from the left is zero, leaving 200 W (blue) arriving at the green plate and all 200 W leaving the green plate on the other side. It kind of makes sense to g*e*r*a*n but Stefan and/or Boltzmann would have a very different opinion on the matter.
G*e*r*a*n * thinks this all hilarious and I have to agree but I would be very interested in his detailed response to these three points.
miker, your items 2 & 3 seem very confused.
But, at least you finally got the graphic correct.
3. not understand that according to he diagram above, the net radiation for the green arrows entering and leaving the green plate from the left is zero, leaving 200 W (blue) arriving at the green plate and all 200 W leaving the green plate on the other side.
Yes, its called heat flow. The heat can only be lost on the right side of the green plate. Energy can flow from the left of the green plate, but not heat.
Heat CAN be lost to the left side of the BLUE plate because the sun is as a point source to the blue plate, so heat can be lost in the hemisphere of possible directions other than perpendicular to the blue plate.
So, overall, you have 400 W coming in, and 400 W going out. Same as with Elis solution. The only difference is that the correct solution (G*e*r*a*ns) takes account of all the laws of thermodynamics.
Another way you could show the exact same thing is to remove both green arrows that are to the left of the green plate (so there is only one blue arrow pointing to the right, coming from the blue plate) and provide a legend that makes clear all arrows are showing directionality of HEAT flow.
But I would recommend (for clarity) a diagram with g*e*r*a*ns to start with (to show directionality of energy flows) and then the one I just explained below it (to show directionality of heat flows). If g*e*r*a*n agrees.
Tony,
g*e*r*a*n*s plot violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics.
There is a net energy flow between the plates, but their temperature is the same.
You guys are welcome to have another 1,000+ comment discussion about it, where the exact same things are said by each side over and over again. Other than seeing the visualisations, I have no interest in that. Id quite like to see Elis solution as well (you can see diagrams of it developing, but the diagram with the final numbers – at equilibrium). Put all the different solutions side by side, Id be grateful, absolutely. But, other than that, no interest.
Svante muffs it again!
Svante, you are confused. You believe that energy cannot flow between the two plates because they are essentially at the same temperature. There are at least two ways to understand it.
1) Think of the green plate as always at a slightly lower temperature, maybe one tenth of a degree, or
2) Realize that the energy flow is due to the “forcing” from the source. Energy out must equal energy in.
Your lack of experience in real-world thermodynamic systems is showing.
Excellent idea Tony as you stated here –
You guys are welcome to have another 1,000+ comment discussion about it, where the exact same things are said by each side over and over again. Other than seeing the visualisations, I have no interest in that. Id quite like to see Elis solution as well (you can see diagrams of it developing, but the diagram with the final numbers at equilibrium .
Here is the calculation of the steady state solution –
https://s20.postimg.org/fxekakdnh/Rabbet_Excel2.jpg .
I would love to see g*e*r*a*n’s solution.
Over to him and he can obtain assistance from the rest of the brains trust (i.e Gordon, Skeptic etc.). He may need to explain the necessity to either forgo the conservation of energy or the Stefan Boltzmann Law or both.I guess he could also add some more arrows of various colours. Anything is possible.
G*e*r*a*n,
With regards your statement – miker, your items 2 & 3 seem very confused.
Could you please elaborate further. I think I would, along with many others, be fascinated by a more detailed response.
However, it is good sign of progress that we have sorted out item 1 regarding you confusion about the significance (or non-significance) of the colours of the arrows.
I await your answer (and the calculations referred to immediately above).
Thanks MikeR. Yes, that makes the problem with Elis fairly clear. It would be even clearer with g*e*r*a*ns and Elis on the same image. The blue plate received 400 W from the sun (the only possible energy source) but emitted 534 W!? More power out than in!?
Well, Ill let you guys duke it out.
miker, firstly item 2 is poorly worded. Here’s the exact quote:
“2. that an arrow pointing in towards a plate is a valid way of representing radiation leaving the same plate and”
I think you are trying to imply that I somehow agree with that. You have done this before. You have tried to falsely represent the facts. That just means you are desperate, and cannot face the truth.
You try the same tactic, again:
“3. not understand that according to he [sic] diagram above, the net radiation for the green arrows entering and leaving the green plate from the left is zero, leaving 200 W (blue) arriving at the green plate and all 200 W leaving the green plate on the other side. It kind of makes sense to g*e*r*a*n but Stefan and/or Boltzmann would have a very different opinion on the matter.”
I understand perfectly. In fact, it was I that calculated the flux values and provided them to you. You are falsely representing the facts, due to your pathetic knowledge of physics.
But, you have other climate clowns to support you, so you will continue with your illiterate and dishonest methods.
Proceed.
I am certain Eli is correct with his math and g*e*r*a*n is wrong.
The only thing that will be accepted is a valid test in a vacuum chamber surrounded by chilled walls. Have an Eli arrangement of plates (fairly large in size and very close to each other so the view factor gets as close to one as possible)
Tony misses the big picture with his little picture view.
He sees the blue plate emitting what he thinks is more energy than is received. It is not at all doing this. The system is receiving 400 watts and losing 400 watts. The EM the blue plate emits has a portion returning from the green plate and that is why its temperature rises so the whole system can emit 400 watts.
If I owned a vacuum chamber I would end the nonsense and do the tests. I have looked for valid tests of this setup on the Web but so far have not found any. Not a hard or expensive test to perform.
Wonder why some blog group has not done it yet. Maybe Myth Busters should set it up. They seem to have funding for this type of experiment.
The debate has gone on years with the same point counter point..
Established science clearly favors Eli. Pseudo made up science of Joe Postma is wrong but has a very strong influence on many.
A good valid test will end this debate but good. If it comes up a link to YouTube will shut it down. With good testing the results will be fairly close to Eli calculations.
Anyone with access to a vacuum chamber that can set up an experiment to demonstrate that a heated plate will get warmer if surrounded by a nonheated object? Provided the surroundings are much colder (walls of the chamber) than the heated object or the nonheated object.
Tony, I can see where you are coming from.
Yes the blue plate, because it is at a higher temperature than 242 K (this is the figure if the green plate was not present) and will naturally radiate the extra radiation. G*e*r*a*ns model has both plates at 242 K.
The correct model has the blue plate at higher temperature at 262 K radiating (more than it would at 242 K ) at 533 W.
As you correctly point out this is 133 W more than the 400 W coming in, just from the input from the sun. The additional amount (133 W) is absorbed from back reflection from the green plate.
The green plate is at a lower temperature of 222 K and therefore radiating 267 W ( 133 W less than the amount it would be radiating at 242 K). It all balances out neatly.
With regard to doing the exact same calculation for G*e*r*a*ns model, I am letting him and/or his colleagues attempt it. I want to see the fun.
If it helps, the first paragraph of my comment at December 3rd, 8:34, is a quote from MikeRs comment, and despite my response beginning Yes, Im not actually in agreement…
G*e*r*a*n above states above the following –
2. that an arrow pointing in towards a plate is a valid way of representing radiation leaving the same plate and
I think you are trying to imply that I somehow agree with that. You have done this before. You have tried to falsely represent the facts. That just means you are desperate, and cannot face the truth.
So g*e*r*a*n what was http://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/11/uah-global-temperature-update-for-october-2017-0-63-deg-c/#comment-273999 all about? In which you comment-
g* responds: It doesnt matter which of the two right-going arrows you change. No, it does not mean that. It means that the IR was emitted by the green plate, instead of the blue plate.
So you referred to the incoming (to the green plate) arrow as meaning emitted (in your words) by the green plate. Do you want to trip now change the direction of this arrow or its colour again?
As g*e*r*a*n is so slippery, he can easily slip and be caught out, but g*e*r*a*n will of course soldier on. It is eerily reminiscent of another who chooses to ignore facts. G* do you happen to write Donald Trumps tweets by any chance?
With respect to point 3. You state that
I understand perfectly. In fact, it was I that calculated the flux values and provided them to you.
Good g*e*r*a*n , then show how these figures can be reconciled with energy balance equations for the blue, green plate and the system and simultaneously satisfy the Stefan -Boltzmann Law for each surface. This is the basis of my request for you to perform a similar set of calculations to those that I have presented.
To assist you I need to point out that you have balanced the blue plate perfectly ( 600 W in and 600 W out) which is excellent news. The bad news is that with 600 W being emitted by the blue plate (ie. 300 W on each side) , this corresponds to a temperature T1 of the blue plate of 269.7 K! This is different to your calculated (?) value of 244 K. So your calculation gives a higher temperature for the blue plate than does Eli’s. G*e*r*a*n must be a closet alarmist.
The even more disastrous mistake was pointed out by Svante. As T1 and T2 are supposed to have identical temperatures and are in equilibrium there cannot be net radiation between the plates must be zero .
The following maybe superfluous and is total overkill, but in the case of g*e*r*a*n, it may be necessary. The Stefan- Boltzmann equation for the net exchange of radiation ( E ) between two bodies at temperatures T1 and T2 is given by E = sigma x (T1^4-T2^4) where sigma is the Stefan Boltzmann constant.
I will pose this question to g*e*r*a*n, what happens when T1 and T2 are identical?
If you do manage to work this out then you have a major problem as you have 3 discrete arrows representing the radiation (all 200 W) . I have to point out that it is extremely difficult to add an odd number of identical arrows (even if you can flip their directions at will) and still add up to zero. If however you can do this then I suggest you can try your hand at squaring the circle, and once you have done that, move onto solving Fermats last theorem.
Apologies for the total overkill but nothing exceeds like excess, especially when dealing with slippery crackpots.
The con-man states: “Established science clearly favors Eli.”
No Con-man. If you understood thermodynamics you would know that the “Eli” solution is bogus. You can NOT raise the temperature of the blue plate from flux from a colder plate. You just don’t have the background and experience to understand. All you have are your childish insults that make you appear as a yelping chihuahua.
More please.
miker, your comment at 3:49pm (above) was nearly incomprehensible. I don’t have the time or interest to try to figure out what you believe you are trying to state.
But, I was able to translate enough of your rambling tirade to know that you are confused about the calculations.
1) You keep claiming (FALSELY) that I cannot produce the flux calculations. I did this several times, and even included the values in a reply to you, last topic post.
2) You are very confused as to how to calculate the values. You claim the blue plate is emitting 300 W/m^2. WRONG! The blue plate is emitting 200 W/m^2.
Minor correction to my comment to Tony at 10.08 pm on December 3. The temperature of the blue plate without the green plate present should be 244 K (as in my diagram) not 242 K.
Still waiting for a set of calculations from the g*. In the meantime maybe Tony could have a go if he has Excel handy.
G*, as anyone that has ever been involved with STEM education can attest, a student that provides an answer without providing the calculations normally gets a fail, particularly if their answer is wrong.
Traceability of calculations is also normally a requirement in all scientific and engineering fields.
G*, your unwillingness to provide any calculation of how you derived the answers for both plates means either 1. you are incapable of doing the calculations (please prove me wrong) or 2. you may realise that you are wrong.
G*, admitting you are wrong is not a sin. I have been wrong on many occasions in the past (see above) and I am sure I will be in the future. Admitting to your mistakes is a sign of maturity. Hopefully you will get there one day.
So ends today’s homily.
p. s. On the topics of mistakes, your reference to 300 W is particularly puzzling Surely you would have counted the total number of arrows both entering and leaving the blue plate.
They total 600 W entering (red arrow from the sun at left – 400 W plus 200 W from the green arrow entering from the right) and leaving (200 W from blue arrow leaving to the left plus 200 W each from the green and blue arrows leaving to the right).
I am referencing the diagram that met your approval see https://s20.postimg.org/av6u36vbh/I_m_with_stupid.jpg .
To further clarify the 300W is the radiation leaving each face (total 600 W).
G” If you believe my accounting is incorrect then please show us your version. In other words, to put it bluntly, put up or shut up.
miker, you’re still not getting it.
I’m not going to wade through your mindless, rambling tirade trying to find substance. Here are the rules, if you wish to communicate with me:
1) Omit all personal attacks, including your assumptions of what you believe are my thoughts. You have little knowledge of the science here, so you need to learn, not preach.
2) Limit your comment to 10 lines MAX.
3) Only consider ONE topic or question per comment.
Now, try again.
G*,
“Well, not exactly. The green plate acquires the same temperature due to physics.”
And yet violates 0th and 1st laws of thermodynamics.
Amusing.
Nate believes: “And yet violates 0th and 1st laws of thermodynamics.”
Nate, likely you would like to share your knowledge of those “violations”.
G* your last reply indicates that your willing to try anything to avoid providing any details of your calculations.
On this basis and to avoid any further offence to g*e*”r*a*n, I will hold my tongue and leave it to others to arrive at their own conclusions regarding g*.
However if g* ever reconsiders his position then I would be happy to discuss his calculations. I also promise not to be nasty and will not repetitively use the word hilarious to mock you.
Before I sign off for today I must say to g* that I apologise if I have hurt his feelings.
I am sure if I again read the 700 or so comments that g* has generated for the past 3 months, I can learn to treat g* with same dignity and respect that he affords to others.
For example g*e*r*a*n’s comment above on December 2, to quote –
Someone took the muzzle off the toothless, emasculated chihuahua.
Hilarious.
Forced to behave like an adult, miker flees the scene.
Kids, these days. ..
Well, as MikeRs leaving, guess we wont get to see the image with both g*e*r*a*ns and Elis solution on it. Thats a shame. But, its still immediately obvious that in Elis solution, the blue plate receives 400 W from the sun (red arrow) yet somehow emits 534 W (blue arrows). In g*e*r*a*n*s, the blue plate receives 400 W from the sun (red arrow) and emits 400 W (blue arrows – the green arrows to the left of the green plate just cancel each other out). So, thats settled that, in g*e*r*a*ns favour. Looks like Elis pre-kindergarten-boy error was to treat the backradiation from the green plate as though it were an additional energy source.
Well, with all that absolutely, finally, settled, I guess I could check up occasionally to see if that final image appears. Otherwise, thats that.
“And yet violates 0th and 1st laws of thermodynamics.”
You want plates to come to the same temp and yet considerable heat is transferred between them. (0LOT violation).
I thought you were the thermodynamics expert, and all the rest of us are posers?
Nate, I don’t think I’ve ever called you a “poser”. I have noticed that you are confused about thermodynamics. A lot of people are.
See if this helps:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/12/uah-global-temperature-update-for-november-20170-36-deg-c/#comment-274636
“1) Think of the green plate as always at a slightly lower temperature, maybe one tenth of a degree, or
2) Realize that the energy flow is due to the forcing from the source. Energy out must equal energy in.
Your lack of experience in real-world thermodynamic systems is showing.”
Both of these are complete nonsense.
1. “one tenth of a degree” . If you can’t actually commit to a temperature, than you have no solution.
2. Meaningless gibberish unrelated to real-world thermodynamics.
In real thermo of this setup, a temp difference IS the forcing.
“Think of the green plate as always at a slightly lower temperature, maybe one tenth of a degree”
This is nonsense for another reason.
You seem to acknowledge that plates are at same temp, then no heat transfer, 0. Now with 0.1 degree difference the heat flow jumps to 200 W.
No real-world objects behave in this highly discontinuous way.
If they did, you would find all sorts of absurdities, like a cup of coffee cooling super-rapidly to ambient temp, then abruptly stopping!
Heat flow always increases continuously with temp difference.
Here lies the problem, Nate. You do not understand thermodynamics. When I try to make some type of analogy to help you understand, you pick it apart. You don’t want to understand. You just want to try to discredit the correct solution.
But, I have to make the attempt to respond, until I clearly discern your motive.
Enjoy your career in climate comedy. You have a lot of competition.
G*,
So you admit you have no good answers.
The STOP telling everyone how little they understand thermo!
G*,
“When I try to make some type of analogy to help you understand, you pick it apart. ”
Real problems are not solved by analogy or guessing within a tenth of a degree as you are doing.
Real problems like this one are solving by writing down equations and solving them (as has been shown to you).
You have yet to write down equations that are solved to find your ‘solution’. Why, because it cant be done with fake physics.
Nate explodes in an ecstasy of pseudoscience pyrotechnics.
Fun to watch.
G* thinks saying the magic words:
Pseudoscience, hillarious, climate comedy, etc
gets him out of addressing the real problems with his fake science.
“plates are at same temp, then no heat transfer, 0. Now with 0.1 degree difference the heat flow jumps to 200 W.
No real-world objects behave in this highly discontinuous way.If they did, you would find all sorts of absurdities”
I await your response…
Nate, are you saying you are sober enough that you can obey the rules?
1) Omit all personal attacks, including your assumptions of what you believe are my thoughts. You have little knowledge of the science here, so you need to learn, not preach.
2) Limit your comment to 10 lines MAX.
3) Only consider ONE topic or question per comment.
If so, continue.
G* makes ‘rules’
‘Omit all personal attacks, including your assumptions of what you believe are my thoughts.”
Then immediately violates his own rules:
“You have little knowledge of the science here, so you need to learn, not preach.”
And makes ‘assumptions’ about what I know and need to learn!
Actually pretty funny.
Just get on with what you want to say! Then let me respond.
Nate, it appears you did not pass the sobriety test.
Please don’t attempt to drive home tonight.
How bout this: if you can refrain from making personal attacks and assumptions about what i know and dont know., then i will reciprocate. If you can be brief, then i will reciprocate. If i dsagree i will tell you so, and expect same from you.
Nate, when you sober up, notice that you changed to lower case “i”, instead of “I”. Also, you lost all apostrophes. And, even though you appear to be asking a question, there is no question mark.
All signs of extreme inebriation.
Enjoy stumbling home tonight.
Hilarious.
More games.
Look, I tried to play fair.
Why not just admit that you have no good answers.
Which is fine because the science is what it is.
Tony, I thought you may have had a genuine interest in trying to understand the two plates system. It seems I may have been mistaken.
I have tried my best to indulge you and g*e*r*a*n with tailored diagrams and spreadsheet calculations but to no avail.
Despite this I will try and proceed further to attempt to clarify your confusion. However because of the inconsistencies of the g* model make it difficult for the equations to make sense I have abandoned my futile attempt to analyse it a top down fashion as I did with Elis calculations.
But I have an open invitation for g* and the rest of the gang to help me out. I may be waiting for a long time.
Consequently I have decided to listen to Tony and produce a comparison with the two diagrams and the relevant calculations. I will just use the answers supplied by g* (and the g* approved diagram) to look at it from the other end.
A very common and standard procedure in all fields of science is to see whether the calculations performed are internally consistent. If they are not, it indicates a problem with the model and/or calculations.
I just applied the tests for inconsistencies here for both models. My tests were of course energy balance for the system as a whole, energy balance for both plates, whether the temperatures calculated by Stefan- Boltzmann equation were consistent and finally whether the results violate the 2nd law of thermodynamics. For the results see
https://s20.postimg.org/in6frkozh/Consistency_Tests.jpg .
Elis calculations are internally consistent for all of these tests.
Unfortunately in contrast , g*s version fails two of the tests (see the red ink in the attached image of the spreadsheet) despite it passing on the majority of the tests. Firstly it produces a temperature for the blue plate of about 270 K which contradicts g*s asserted temperature for this plate of 242 K. Secondly neither value of 270 K or 242 K for the blue plate gives a value consistent with his diagram for the net radiation between the plates.
Tony, I am not sure what you will make of this but try and understand this material. I am sure you can do it. I suggest you, or any else who is interested, download it and print it out so you can peruse it at your leisure.
By the way your objection with regard to the increased temperature and energy radiated by the blue plate could be readily understood if you have experienced either of the following.
1. A mirror reflecting the suns radiation onto an area already illuminated by the sun or
2. a related phenomenon of feeling an increase in temperature while standing next to a brick wall (that has been in the sun) on a sunny day.
In both cases the mirror and brick wall have indirectly caused an increase in temperature and internal energy without violating any laws of thermodynamics. However if you are of a contrary opinion then I suggest you take your objections up with mirror or argue with the brick wall.
A public link to the Excel file containing the calculations of Eli’s and g*’s versions is on my Google drive at https://drive.google.com/file/d/11JnLJn1Mgh-eBteiGNPT__q7dVeTaidm/view?usp=sharing .
Tony or anyone else, please feel free to download,peruse and modify if you are so inclined.
Thanks for putting the visualisations together. I think that settles it, in g*e*r*a*ns favour.
By the way, youve made a mistake in your comparisons. In g*e*r*a*ns case you have written that the blue plate emits and absorbs 600 W. As explained earlier, it is shown as emitting 400 W (blue arrows) and absorbing 400 W (red arrow).
Please do carry on arguing against yourselves for another 1000+ comments, but the visualisation was all I was interested in. Thanks again.
Tony, did you actually look at the graphics? Did you understand the calculations? Can you download the spreadsheet? Can you open it?
Do you have a calculator handy? Does 400+200=600?
So many questions.
Tony (and g*).
As I have to repeat yet again for those who are intellectually challenged, the results of using Eli’s calculations should not be surprising. We have an asymmetrical situation with the sun incident on the blue plate only, with the green plate in the shadow of the blue plate (the view factors which would be close to 1 if the ratio of the separation to plate dimensions was small enough) .
How the hell would anyone with any discernible brain activity expect that the steady state solution would have the blue and green plate at the same temperature?
Maybe you could answer that and explain why you appear to be also content that the results of g*s equations are not internally consistent ie. they contradict each other.
As I am about to retire for the night, I think I will just clarify one other thing with regards to Tony’s interpretation of g*’s concept.
Tony somehow believes that, according to the arrows that represent the radiation in the appropriate diagram (the one that met g*’s approval), the only radiation the blue plate absorbs is from the sun.
If this is the case, where does the 200 W from the green plate go that is emitted in the direction of the blue plate? Does it self destruct? Does it try and go around the blue plate or does it just go straight through it? Is green radiation rejected by the blue plate based on colour? Is this just racist behaviour by the blue plate?
There is however a more sane and well known alternative. It is simply absorbed by the blue plate.
So we have 400 W absorbed from the sun plus 200 W of back radiation from the green plate. I will let Tony, if he has found his calculator, to work out the sum.
I am sorry to sound so dismissive of Tony, but he gives me little choice in the matter.
Tony,
This makes sense to you? How so? G* can not explain it.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/12/uah-global-temperature-update-for-november-20170-36-deg-c/#comment-274845
Yes Tony, you are correct. The blue plate is emitting 200 W/m^2, not 600, as miker claims. He just doesn’t understand radiative heat transfer. I had to help him get the color-coding correct, on his graphic, and he still doesn’t understand!
Nate and miker don’t want to understand, they just want to run from the truth. That’s why I require they conform to the rules before I will address their nonsense.
The invalid solution fails because it has the cooler green plate warming the blue plate. That’s impossible. The only incoming energy is 400 W/m^2. So the MAXIMUM temperature the blue plate can ever achieve is the S/B temperature of 244K. To achieve a higher temperature, there would have to be ADDITIONAL energy from the outside source. Reflected energy from the green plate is not NEW energy to the system, and can not cause any increase in temperature.
The climate clowns do not want to learn. All we can do is enjoy their humor, while it lasts.
“Nate and miker dont want to understand, they just want to run from the truth.”
No, we simply dont agree with your beliefs. We dont think they make sense. Nor do ordinary physics textbooks. Nor do the teachers who’ve taught me this material. Nor do known experts, Lindzen, Spencer, Christy, Dyson, etc. Nor do rocket scientists.
It is unlikely that all of us do not understand thermodynamics, as G* weirdly insists.
Given plenty of opportunities to explain to us how your beliefs agree with known science, you have not succeeded. That should concern you.
Tony,
In G* version the BLUE plate emits 200 W/m2. But at the same time it perfectly reflects 200 W/m^2 like a mirror.
He would have you believe that the blue plate is a perfect emitter while also being a perfect reflector. You ok with that?
There are no such magical plates in the real world. A plate is either a good reflector (like silver) or a good absorber and emitter (like charcoal).
He will undoubtedly say that when the BLUE plate’s temp slightly exceeds that of the GREEN, it reflects radiation from GREEN.
It swtiches from being charcoal into silver with that slight temperature difference!
Again this is magical behavior not found in the real world. Not even close!
You ok with this?
“The invalid solution fails because it has the cooler green plate warming the blue plate. Thats impossible.”
Here is your key confusion.
The cooler GREEN is not warming the warmer BLUE. The sun is! So it is not impossible.
You are over thinking 2LOT. 2LOT says heat flows from hot to cold. It does here. It flows from BLUE to GREEN, requiring BLUE to be warmer. It is! No 2LOT violations!
“To achieve a higher temperature, there would have to be ADDITIONAL energy from the outside source. Reflected energy from the green plate is not NEW energy to the system, and can not cause any increase in temperature.”
Nonsense! You are denying what insulation clearly can do to make a heated system (eg my house) warmer with the same heat input.
I know it is a truism but g*’s latest comment emphasises that it would be more productive to argue with a brick wall, (which was one of my suggestions to Tony) than with g*. It definitely would elicit a more sensible response.
As Scotty wisely said . You canna argue with laws of physics (and mathematics ). If you try you will definitely come off the worse for wear.
I suggest that G* either just clicks on the link or download the spreadsheet (if he has the capability, he could use the free Google Sheets if he doesn’t have Excel) that I provided upstream for Tony, and then comment.
Otherwise it’s just regurgitation of g* evidence free assertions which appears to be his specialty. Actually it is not that special, as he has many colleagues who are quite willing to also unashamedly display this behaviour. The world is a strange place.
I know I may be labouring the point but It is abundantly clear that G* appears either, not able to understand, or alternatively unwilling to deal with material that might challenge his assumptions.
Rather than being hilarious, it is starting to get sad and pathetic.
It’s going to take all of my self-discipline to comment here without mentioning things like “Dumb and Dumber”, “pseudoscience”, “climate comedy”, and such.
Instead, I going to restrict myself to only facts and logic.
miker states that the correct solution fails for two reasons. He mistakenly calculates the blue plate emitting 300 Watts/m^2. I have told him that is wrong. Tony has told him that is wrong. miker’s own graphic clearly shows only the two blue arrows, 200 Watts/m^2 each. Yet, miker continues to somehow miss the fact that the two green arrows, to and from the blue plate, cancel. His inability to comprehend is just amazing.
So, he erroneously uses the 300 Watt/m^2 to calculate the 270 K. Since he used the wrong flux, he got a wrong temperature. But, that doesn’t stop him.
He now claims that the correct solution fails for “two” reasons. But, both “reasons” involve his incorrect 270 K temperature. He makes a gross mistake, uses it twice, trying to, in his mind, invalidate the correct solution.
Sorry, but that’s just hilarious.
Next up is Nate. Nate wisely avoids any math. He attempts to discredit the correct solution by claiming it is not “real world”. What he fails to mention is the problem is a “thought experiment”. It is NOT real world. So, he is trying to discredit the correct solution by discrediting the original problem, which was presented by Warmists!
Sorry again, but that’s just hilarious.
Maybe Dumb and Dumber will try some new pseudoscience, in their next climate comedy routine. (Darn, I didn’t make it all the way without mentioning those things.)
‘Next up is Nate. Nate wisely avoids any math. He attempts to discredit the correct solution by claiming it is not real world. What he fails to mention is the problem is a thought experiment. It is NOT real world. So, he is trying to discredit the correct solution by discrediting the original problem, which was presented by Warmists!’
Miker is very likely right about the brick wall.
Generalized insults and hand-waving is all G* can muster, since you have no actual arguments to refute my quite specific problems with his ‘solution’.
If you are serious about defending your beliefs then just address one of these problems with without using the words pseudoscience, etc
” A plate is either a good reflector (like silver) or a good absorber and emitter (like charcoal).
He will undoubtedly say that when the BLUE plates temp slightly exceeds that of the GREEN, it reflects all radiation from GREEN.
It swtiches from being charcoal into silver with that slight temperature difference!
Again this is magical behavior not found in the real world or even in an idealized world. Not even close!”
My initial response to G*s latest comments is as follows,
https://tinyurl.com/yaz49zvd .
To elaborate g* wants to eliminate (i.e. cancel the two green rays as they are opposing) which I am in total agreement with and think is very reasonable. So we end up with this
https://s20.postimg.org/r0d1phm7x/new_just_as_dumb_version.jpg
as his new improved (but just as dumb) version. Do we really need to subject this version to the rigours of an Excel analysis for internal consistency?
However if g* insists, then maybe he could commission an independent analysis (maybe the Heartland Institute could suggest someone with the appropriate expertise) to be done of any versions (past, present and future) you would like to generate.
I dont count Tony as independent, if by any odd chance he was capable of performing any of the calculations. Anyway Tony may have left the building which is his first smart move.
I was also highly amused with g*s correspondence with Nate and I have to add my pennys worth.
Talk about creating energy from nowhere. According to g* a difference of 0.1 C between the plates could, according to the g* approved diagram, cause 200 W per sq. m. of radiant energy to be emitted. Can you imagine if it had been 1 degree difference or God forbid 10 degrees? Even more terrifying, what if this process of energy is non- linear, we could all be gone in a puff of smoke.
In reality according Stefan and Boltzmann , 0.1 C difference would produce 0.33 W so maybe we are safe.
However if g*’s view is correct, it could free the world from the shackles of energy dependence upon fossil fuels. G* should pass this information to the relevant authorities so that we can dispense with the expense of blue sky fusion research.
Maybe g*s stupidity (which is an endless resource) could itself be adapted to produce energy.
G* I need to correct you on one matter . You stated above that-
He now claims that the correct solution fails for two reasons. But, both reasons involve his incorrect 270 K temperature.
You obviously did not look at the bottom right hand corner of https://s20.postimg.org/in6frkozh/Consistency_Tests.jpg showing the calculations for T1=T2=243.7. It failed miserably in that scenario as well.
But I grant you one thing G*, you are quite correct. I did audition for a lead role in the latest sequel Dumb and Dumber Free. Unfortunately I failed the audition as they had some numeracy and logic tests involving arrows of various colours and questions about addition of numbers . I failed the audition (I am an awful actor) they said that required someone who is a natural at being both totally dumb and innumerate.
Consequently I did suggest yourself, Tony, Gordon, SkepticGoneWild etc. (they may need understudies) as obvious candidates. The Hollywood movie moguls (if they still exist) would find it doubly appealing as you could perform your own material (just bring your comments along) which would eliminate the need to employ a bevy of screen writers.
“In reality according Stefan and Boltzmann , 0.1 C difference would produce 0.33 W so maybe we are safe.”
Clearly your mistake, Miker, is trying to live in the REAL WORLD, and not where G* lives, in his idealized G*world:
G:”the problem is a thought experiment. It is NOT real world. So, he is trying to discredit the correct solution by discrediting the original problem”
G:Since we are assuming perfect conditions, with no losses, we can assume all of the flux will be reflected.
Unless the ‘real world, is more convenient for him (it all depends on his mood!):
G:”In the real world, there are no perfect black bodies.”
G:”barry, black bodies are used in thought experiments to make calculations easier. They do not exist in reality.”
G: “In the real world, temperature affects both accepting and rejecting of photons.”
G:”You still cant understand the 1st and 2nd Laws of Thermodynamics. They apply, in the real world.”
As usual, it is all quite confusing.
Nate had apparently sobered up yesterday, but was suffering from a bad hangover. All he could come up with was “cut and paste” of his previous inaccuracies. Then, he did a “cut and paste” of my quotes, trying to mis-represent them.
No substance, just desperation.
miker has now eliminated both green arrows between the plates. He’s having such a hard time understanding. Obviously, he has no formal training in QP.
It’s okay to eliminate the green arrows, if it helps him understand the energy flow. There are still “green” photons moving between the plates, but there is NO heat transfer. So showing the two opposing green arrows is the most accurate representation.
At lease miker seems to have dropped the 300 Watts/m^2 nonsense. So, that wipes out his two “reasons” he believed the correct solution was wrong. Now, he has to admit he has nothing, except his false beliefs.
Funny.
G* insists on be quoted directly, then objects when I do. So many G-rules! And so confusing.
G* offers no substance, then complains of no substance.
G*, your SB violations and magical plate behavior are substantive issues that you have failed to address.
Nate spins: “G* insists on be quoted directly, then objects when I do. So many G-rules! And so confusing.”
FALSE. Nate, there is nothing wrong with quoting me directly. But, you must not then mis-represent the quote. It’s NOT confusing, unless you want it to be.
Nate spins: “G* offers no substance, then complains of no substance.”
FALSE: Nate, I continue to explain the correct solution to you. I offer plenty of substance, explaining, and even explaining in different ways, trying to help you understand. You run from the truth.
Nate spins: “G*, your SB violations and magical plate behavior are substantive issues that you have failed to address.”
FALSE. Nate, there are NO S/B violations, on my part. I haven’t “failed to address” anything. The failure is in your ability to understand.
Nate, the above 3 examples are just more evidence that you refuse to understand. You don’t want truth. I can’t help you. From now on, your comments will be ignored. Blab to yourself all you want, if you believe that makes you appear smart.
“FALSE. Nate, there are NO S/B violations, on my part. I havent failed to address anything. ”
Lets be specific. Miker summarized our issues with your solution quite succinctly:
There is simply no way, using the SB relation, to get heat transfer at the rate you desire, 200W/m^2, between two objects with a small temperature difference between them of 0.1K (or less).
If you want to argue that there is a way, then I would ask you do so quantitatively and specifically. Show numbers. What material properties would work (emissivity, absorbtivity etc)?
Hand waving about ‘ideal behavior’ or ‘its coming from the source’ or ‘photon acceptance’ are just words and not sufficient.
G* You can ignore me. I don’t blame you. I’m not being easy on you.
Sorry about that.
But your physics problem can’t be ignored, well not forever. Miker, or someone else will bring it up again.
G*’s comment –
miker has now eliminated both green arrows between the plates.
Yes, but I was just following orders. You are the person who suggested that the green rays cancelled, which yes they do, but this leaves your model displaying its inadequacies in an even more overt manner.
That is why I was very happy to illustrate your latest attempt.
I think it is a sign of total desperation that. G* wanted me to take intellectual ownership of the diagram that I referred to, as just as dumb as the previous version.
Yes, my illustration of g*’s very latest concept does indeed have 200 W being emitted from the blue plate but collapses in a heap if you apply the other thermodynamic criteria such as the 2nd L. O. T. and S. B. Law. That is why I referred to it as just as dumb, but in hindsight I should have referred to it as even dumber.
Finally to hammer in the final nail, it looks like I will have to approach the idiocy from the opposite direction.
Only one of us is correct.
You (or anyone else here) have not objected, at any stage, to the calculations of radiant energies, temperatures etc. using Eli Rabbit’s model.
If so why the silence? However if you want to correct the record speak now or forever hold your peace.
Perhaps follow Tony who had the good sense to head for hills when he realised that the gig was up. I think we have all had enough of your squirming nonsense.
Nate incompetently states: “There is simply no way, using the SB relation, to get heat transfer at the rate you desire, 200W/m^2, between two objects with a small temperature difference between them of 0.1K (or less).”
FALSE!
(Watts/m^2)^4 = 5.67 * (244)^4/10^8
Watts/m^2 = 201
Try your next falsehood. But, don’t expect a response.
miker erroneously claims: “You (or anyone else here) have not objected, at any stage, to the calculations of radiant energies, temperatures etc. using Eli Rabbits model.”
FALSE!
“The invalid solution fails because it has the cooler green plate warming the blue plate. Thats impossible. The only incoming energy is 400 W/m^2. So the MAXIMUM temperature the blue plate can ever achieve is the S/B temperature of 244K. To achieve a higher temperature, there would have to be ADDITIONAL energy from the outside source. Reflected energy from the green plate is not NEW energy to the system, and can not cause any increase in temperature.”
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/12/uah-global-temperature-update-for-november-20170-36-deg-c/#comment-274992
Try another falsehood, miker. That appears to be all you’ve got. But, don’t expect a response.
G*
“FALSE!
(Watts/m^2)^4 = 5.67 * (244)^4/10^8
Watts/m^2 = 201”
Really!?? Are you trying to cheat, or are you just being really dumb?
I don’t see the 0.1K difference anywhere in there? How does that factor in
The correct eqn is this one (19.3). Try again:
http://web.mit.edu/16.unified/www/SPRING/propulsion/notes/node136.html
Just to save you effort, heat flow between 2 plates, one at 244k the other at 243.9K, with e=1, using eqn 19.3 would give
(Watts/m^2)^4 = 5.67 * [(244)^4-(243.9)^4]/10^8
Watts/m^2 = 0.33.
Correction (Watts/m^2)^4 should be Watts/m^2
Nate, you are hilariously ignorant. The equation you have used if for radiative heat transfer between two objects, with NO additional energy entering the system. It does not apply in this situation.
Please continue with your comedy. Don’t let facts and logic stand in your way.
G* your calculation below for the energy transfer between between two plates (ie. The net energy) is just for the energy emitted by one plate!
Your equation is
(Watts/m^2)^4 = 5.67 * (244)^4/10^8
Watts/m^2 = 201.
The other plate is emitting the same amount of energy because it is at the same temperature (if we accept your assumption they are both at 244 K which again is wrong) in which case the net energy transfer is zero, which is the standard and obvious result for two plates at equilibrium. If you can find any reference anywhere that states otherwise please let us all know.
By the way the left hand side of your equation should not have ^4 in it. As you have written it the answer would have been 3.76 W/m^2.
miker, you clowns are hilarious!
I put the “^4” on the left side of the equation so both sides would be equal. If you take the fourth root of both sides, you get the correct answer. You could not even figure out simple algebra!
Hilarious.
And you and Nate continue to be humorously confused about the plates being at the same temperature, yet there is energy flow between them. You fail to understand that the energy flow is causing the temperatures, not the other way around. That’s why the radiative heat transfer equation is not valid here. For the radiative heat transfer equation to be used, the temperatures must be driving the energy flows.
But, you will not understand, and will (hopefully) contribute more of your hilarious pseudoscience.
Carry on.
G* you really need to consider the possibility that you have some wrong ideas, and actually open your mind a bit. That is my suggestion, rather than digging yourself into deeper denial of reality.
“You fail to understand that the energy flow is causing the temperatures, not the other way around. ”
I think you know the 3 main mechanisms of heat transfer. They all relate to temp differences. Energy flow from a source is not a separate mechanism. The source does not just squirt heat in, it does it by the 3 mechanisms.
For example if the blue starts out colder than the green, and 400 w is still input to blue, how does heat flow know what to do?
Only T of plates tells it what to do. Initially heat flows from green to blue. The input is flowing into blue heat capacity. Then as T diff decreases heat flow from g to b decreases, crosses 0 and begins to flow from b to g, slowy inreasing as blue exceeds green until equil.
As you can see heat input was always 400, but at all times heat flow between plates is given by temp diff, nothing else.
“
of course work can produce heat also, but not in this setup
G*
Your statement “Reflected energy from the green plate is not NEW energy to the system, and can not cause any increase in temperature. is just nonsense in this context – see my correspondence with Tony at http://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/12/uah-global-temperature-update-for-november-20170-36-deg-c/#comment-274904.
Just to make it clear, yes the green plate does not add NEW energy to the SYSTEM! , it just backradiates the energy to the blue plate. If the surface of the green plate was a mirror reflecting the energy directly back to the blue plate, would you think it was creating NEW energy for the SYSTEM?
Even in the era of Archimedes, the idea of using reflected light to increase the temperature of an object was well known see https://skullsinthestars.com/2010/02/07/mythbusters-were-scooped-by-130-years-archimedes-death-ray/. I am sure Archimedes knew then that no NEW energy was required.
“Nate, you are hilariously ignorant. The equation you have used if for radiative heat transfer between two objects, with NO additional energy entering the system. It does not apply in this situation.”
Sheesh!
Do you see anywhere in the MIT link that puts that requirement on the validity of the equation? Anywhere else have this requirement? There is no such requirement.
S-B heat-transfer between parallel surfaces is purely about the temperatures and emissivities of the surfaces, G*.
Everything else is irrelevant. It doesnt matter whats going on on the other side of the plates, or what is keeping them at these temperatures.
Can we assign temperatures T1 and T2 to the BLUE and GREEN plates (in steady state)? Yes. Then the equation applies.
You boys are doing great! What fantastic comedy entertainment.
Miker believes that focusing more sunlight is NOT adding new energy! Hilarious.
And Nate still doesn’t have a clue where his equation applies and doesn’t apply.
Hey Nate. What is the flux between an object at 400 K and and object at 300 K, if they are 2 kilometers apart.
Hilarious.
g*, you are getting more and more ridiculous, in order to defend the indefensible. Now you would ask us to disregard ordinary heat transfer as taught everywhere.
Show us any legit source for your claim that eqn is not applicable. Anywhere. Any textbook. Find a web page on rad heat transfer that agrees with you.
So many things would not work in the universe, if you are right.
2LOT. If heat flow does not depend on T1 -T2, then how does heat know what the hell to do? Flow from cold to hot?
No there is mechanism for 2LOT to arise. In this case it is rad heat transfer, via that eqn.
‘Hey Nate. What is the flux between an object at 400 K and and object at 300 K, if they are 2 kilometers apart.’
Uhh..geometry of course matters, dufus. The eqn is for parallel close plates.
Oh g*e*r*a*n, g*e*r*a*n (sounds like a pop group from the 80’s). Why do you keep dumbing down? As Nate has also pointed out your are clearly in error.
Taking the fourth root is only required if you are inverting the S-B to calculate the temperature from the energy not the other way around.
Do I need to attach a spreadsheet outlining this massively complex calculation for g*? I hope not.
This is also another test case for whether g* has the maturity to admit he is wrong. As I have said before, we all mistakes but it often takes an adult to admit to them.
(Hilarious) ^4.
Yes miker, it was a typo. You are correct.
But I wanted to give you a small dose of your own medicine, by attempting to cover the mistake with some “rambling nonsense”.
How did it feel?
As to admitting mistakes, how many have you admitted to on this thread? The “two reasons”, for example.
Hilarious.
No g* reflected light does not add energy to the system of the sun,. mirror, object that receives the reflected light, as this would contravene the 2ND law of thermo. . It does add energy to the object that it is illuminated.
If the plates are 2 km apart the effect is reduced by the relevant view factor. If the plates are 1 cm across then the reduction is enormous but if they were 10 km across the reduction would be minor. It depends on the ratio of the dimensions of the plate relative to the separation of the plates see figure 19.14 at
http://web.mit.edu/16.unified/www/FALL/thermodynamics/notes/node137.html .
G* I am glad you admit to your typo, but the fact you doubled down with the follow up comment was very illuminating.
As for the “two reasons”, I will reluctantly, following g* ‘s example, link to my own link see – http://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/12/uah-global-temperature-update-for-november-20170-36-deg-c/#comment-275162.
I believe the “two reasons” was adequately covered there.
I am afraid I have to give G* another serve. Sorry for the overkill.
His claim that his original was a typo. Was his followup comment also a typo?
“miker, you clowns are hilarious!
I put the ^4 on the left side of the equation so both sides would be equal. If you take the fourth root of both sides, you get the correct answer. You could not even figure out simple algebra!
Hilarious.”
I think this kind of thing requires a separate apology from g* but I expect another diversion. Alternatively he may depart the scene which would be a blessed relief.
miker can’t get anything right! He can’t understand the basic physics of the problem. He couldn’t understand about the typo, even when I explained it to him.
And, the believes he is smart!
Hilarious.
G*,
We’ve been discussing parallel plates at T1 and T2 in vacuum. I showed you the well known SB heat-transfer eqn for this situation, from an authoritative source.
You say it does not apply.
“You fail to understand that the energy flow is causing the temperatures, not the other way around. Thats why the radiative heat transfer equation is not valid here. For the radiative heat transfer equation to be used, the temperatures must be driving the energy flows”
If this were true, we would not be able to solve many many heat transfer problems that we can now solve, with equations, such as these:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/12/uah-global-temperature-update-for-november-20170-36-deg-c/#comment-275546
At this point your statement is just a feeling, an opinion. Thats not good enough.
Please find some PROOF for this statement and show us! Unless you can show an AUTHORITATIVE source that agrees with this statement, then it is obviously made-up physics, misinformation.
Nate, you can not understand “proof”. The only “proof” you will accept is pseudoscience. I once offered an example of a simple electrical circuit, to explain how energy flow produces temperature. But, with your weak background in physics, you could not grasp the simple analogy.
A simple circuit contains only a voltage source and a resistor. Neglecting all losses, the voltage across the resistor is the same as the voltage across the source. Yet, current flows.
It’s exactly analogous to the plates problem. Temperatures are effectively equal, but energy flows between them. But, you don’t want anything that conflicts with your beliefs.
It’s fun to watch.
G*,
You are clearly trying to operate beyond your skill level. And you seem to be unaware that that is a problem!
If it was sufficient to use circuit models to understand heat transfer, then there would no need for separate courses!
I will foolishly try to explain one more time with circuits in hopes you will understand. Feel free to tell me where you disagree.
A resistor R, is connected between points 1 and 2. The flow of current through the resistor is (V1-V2)/R. It does not care a whit about anything else in the circuit!
For the plates only T1 and T2 , emissivity (and geometry) determine heat flow between them. They dont care a whit about anything else.
Perfect example of your pseudoscience, Nate. You still have no understanding of the correct physics.
A resistor does not supply energy to the circuit. The energy is supplied by the voltage source. The current through the resistor produces the V1 and V2. You’ve got it backwards, still.
More hilarious examples of your misunderstanding, please.
Uggghh!
“The current through the resistor produces the V1 and V2.”
Maybe or maybe not. Its a chicken-egg thing, and matters not a bit to my point.
Do you see a battery voltage in the equation? No. There could be a very complicated circuit hidden in a box with wires 1 and 2 poking out.
With R connected only the voltages on pts 1 and 2 matter.
There must be a voltage DIFFERENCE, V1- V2 to get a flow of current! Only V1- V2 determines the current through R.
There must be a temperature DIFFERENCE T1 -T2 to get a flow of heat! Only T1 and T2 determine the heat flow rate.
“The current through the resistor produces the V1 and V2.”
Don’t have 120V outlets at your house?
The humor continues.
“There must be a voltage DIFFERENCE, V1- V2 to get a flow of current! Only V1- V2 determines the current through R.”
Nate, for the second time, a resistor is NOT an energy source. It is the voltage source that supplies the energy, that then allows non-zero V1 and V2. You remain utterly confused.
“Dont have 120V outlets at your house?”
That’s just silly, likely caused by your desperation.
Hilarious.
Are you trying to miss the point? Its working.
1. If V1-V2 =0 is there a current? Yes or No
2. If you measure V1 – V2 and know R can you determine the current? Yes/No
3. Do you need any other information to determine the current? Yes/No
Alright apply what youve learned to temperature and heat flow for parallel plates.
1. If T1-T2 = 0 is there heat flow? Yes/No
2. If we measure T1 and T2 and know emissivity can we determine heat flow? Yes/No
3. Do you need any other information to determine heat flow? If yes, what? And show me the equation to use.
The current through the resistor produces the V1 and V2.
“Dont have 120V outlets at your house?”
Quite slow on the uptake there G*.
The 120V is there, even with nothing plugged in and NO current flowing.
Nate your ability to come up with new comedy material is impressive.
Turn off the voltage source and see how long V1 and V2 last.
Turn off the 400 Watts/m^2 to the blue plate and see how the plate temps drop.
V1, V2, and plate temps are all established by the energy sources. You still can’t understand.
But, you’re hilarious.
G* you are brilliant. You brought up an analogy. Now you can’t even comprehend your own analogy!
Answer the questions, and tell me what you learned about heat from YOUR analogy.
“Turn off the voltage source and see how long V1 and V2 last.
Turn off the 400 Watts/m^2 to the blue plate and see how the plate temps drop.
V1, V2, and plate temps are all established by the energy sources.
All these may be true, but irrelevant to CALCULATING the current or heat flow.
To calculate you need and equation, either ohms law, or S-B law.
Nate tries to escape: “All these may be true, but irrelevant to CALCULATING the current or heat flow.”
Nate, the point of the analogy is to teach you that the energy flow determines the plate temperatures. Once you understand that then you will understand you can not use the radiative heat transfer equation, which is only valid when the two objects receive no other energy.
Now, do you continue down your escape hole, or do you move up the ladder of learning?
g*, why havent you answered the questions? Are you afraid you may learn something?
So lets summarize. G* wants me to look at circuits to learn about heat flow. When we do, we find current flow between point 1 and 2 proportional to voltage difference, V1-V2.
This is ohms law, and it is true even when there is a source of voltage (or current).
However for heat flow, somehow, G* continues to be confused , and thinks only T1 should be used to find heat flow between object 1 and 2.
G* fails to learn from his own analogy.
G* has a broken logic chip.
G*
Your comment above –
“miker cant get anything right! He cant understand the basic physics of the problem. He couldnt understand about the typo, even when I explained it to him.
And, the believes he is smart!”
I have never claimed to be smart. My only claim is to be smarter than you.
This however is an extremely low bar to clear. Most people would trip over it.
With regard to the typo refer to my previous comment and with regard to the physics re read our exchanges.
If you think these exchanges display your knowledge of physics and intellectual prowess in a positive light then you have lowered the bar even further.
p.s. I did say in my previous comment that g* would try and divert. Nate has followed g* down his rabbit hole and is busy demolishing him. Maybe Gordon with his vast knowledge of electronics could assist with the demolition?
G* very latest claim “the heat transfer equation, which is only valid when the two objects receive no other energy” (see above) is obviously based on the fact it doesn’t appear to work when applied his model of the plates .
Of course, as it has been stated repeatedly, It does work if you assume no net energy transfer between the plates. This of course stuffs up the rest of the energy balance equations for his model. This is in contrast to the calculations using Eli Rabbit’s model where all these conditions are satisfied.
We have been through all this ad nauseum and demonstrates the emetic quality of G*”s comments. They also have laxative properties He should open up a pharmacy.
Nate asks: ” why haven’t you answered the questions?”
Sorry Nate, I didn’t see your last comment. The answers are 2 “yes”, 2 “no”, and 2 “indefinite”. I’m sure you can put them in the correct order.
And, miker returns, with two rambling comments. Sorry miker, but there wasn’t enough pseudoscience to be very funny. Maybe try again later?
Nate,
The inherent stupidity of g*’s argument starts with his initial framing of the problem –
In his words – a simple circuit contains only a voltage source and a resistor. Neglecting all losses, the voltage across the resistor is the same as the voltage across the source. Yet, current flows
In the electrical circuit described , the voltage drops across the resistor (or a network of resistors) equals the EMF of the source. This is accomplished by connecting both ends of the resistor(s) to the source.
If this is supposed to a relevant analogy, then the energy flow through the plate system needs to return all of its energy to its source i.e. the sun.
If this is the case then g* must believe David Appells claim that the earth heats the sun by reflection and back radiation (which happens to be true, however the increase is infinitesimal) but takes it way further. You would have, if all the energy is returning to the sun , an earth that would be a pretty inhospitable place to be , unless you like a temperature of 3 degrees K.
I wonder where g* will take us next with his endless diversions.
miker did come up with some more original pseudoscience. Now, he claims an electrical circuit is “proof” that the Sun can cool the Earth, all the way down to 3K! When he went to wiki to look up “electrical circuit”, he obviously missed that a resistive load dissipates energy.
Hilarious.
But, I guess Dumb and Dumber have given up on trying to foist their incorrect solution. Everything they threw at the correct solution has failed. I should go back and make a list. Maybe later. What they aren’t aware of is that there is still a lot more science in defense of the correct solution. A lot more that destroys the incorrect solution. I’m holding back, so as to get the maximum enjoyment out of their performance.
I just love climate comedy.
I eagerly await your refutation of the Eli Rabbitt model.Will it include calculations?
As for your electrical circuit model, it is, as we refer to in the trade, an open circuit. There is no path back to the origin (i.e. sun) for the energy leaving the system in either of the models in question . For the electric circuit analogy, I = 0 and the power across the resistor P = I^2 x R = 0. An explanation at an appropriate level for yourself can be found at http://www.explainthatstuff.com/electricity.html.
See the start of the section about circuits
The 3K temperature for the earth (or the plates) is the case which describes a model where there is a return of all the radiant energy back to the sun via some unknown mechanism . This corresponds to a battery and resistor where there is a return path.
The other option is that you are trying to use the power dissipated by the resistor as, an an analog of the power received by one or both plates. Again P=O for or an open circuit and again the plates (or the earth) will receive this amount of power (i.e. 0) and T=3K.Take your pick.
This is according to your bizarre battery and resistor model, not mine! Take ownership of your own stupidity.
G*, have you connected up your Christmas lights yet?
If they are not working, you don’t need to call anu electrician. Just check whether you have connected the leads to both the +ve and -ve ends of the transformer. An open circuit will lead to much disappointment.
miker returns, and he doesn’t disappoint.
Grasping for straws, he has determined that the circuit I presented was an open circuit. How anyone can be so stupid as to try to misunderstand my straightforward description is, by itself, laughable:
“A simple circuit contains only a voltage source and a resistor. Neglecting all losses, the voltage across the resistor is the same as the voltage across the source. Yet, current flows.”
So, I indicated there was voltage across the resistor, and current flow (closed circuit). Yet miker, like some incoherent idiot, determines I = 0!
Then, he continues with the “3K”. I guess he plans to go down with his pseudoscience. Priceless.
Fun to watch.
G* and Miker,
Can we return to G* idea about SB not being valid:
“The equation you have used if for radiative heat transfer between two objects, with NO additional energy entering the system. It does not apply in this situation.”
A reminder the form of SB equation is:
(W/m2)= sigma (T1^4 -T2^4)
Do you still agree with this argument G*?
You brought up circuits. The analog we discussed is current through a resistor. The analogous eqn is ohms law:
I = (V1-V2)/R
So does this equation apply in the situation where energy is supplied to the circuit? By a battery?
Do you believe that Ohms Law (as stated above) does NOT apply in a circuit with a battery? YES?NO
If NO, then by ANALOGY, you must agree that the SB equation (as stated above) ALSO applies in a situation where energy is input to the system.
Nate, your long rambling comment is filled with inaccuracies and twisted science.
For one thing you keep referring to the radiative heat transfer equation as the “SB law”. That’s confusing. You need to do some research and learn how to correctly refer to both.
The rest is so confusing I won’t even attempt to figure it you. You seem to be asking a question, but there are about 5 questions. It’s not my job to figure out your tangled confusion.
Try just one question at a time. Limit the comment no more than 10 lines. Otherwise, it just becomes humorous, undecipherable, jibber-jabber.
Proceed with caution.
G*, Sorry I misunderstood your concept. I humbly apologise for my error.
See, it is not terrible to acknowledge one’s mistakes. Hopefully you can learn from my example.
I now realise that you regarded one of the plates as being the battery and the other as the resistor. I assume the blue plate is the battery, but as both plates are at the same temperature it is hard to tell which is the battery and which is the resistor.
This all makes marginally more sense than my previous interpretation, but your argument by analogy, that there is a net transfer of energy between the plates when they are at the same temperature falls in a heap when scrutinised.
The battery is supplying current leaving from the positive terminal and the same current returns to the negative terminal of the battery. The NET current for the currents entering and leaving both the battery and resistor equals 0 (see Kirchoffs current law).
This is essentially the same situation for the plates, as they radiate the same amount of radiation between each other (in opposite directions) and the NET energy transfer is zero, which is a result that is in accordance with the 2nd law of thermodynamics.
The other objection I have is that, according to your model, the presence of the green plate is supposed to leave the blue plate unaffected. In contrast, for your circuit analog, the introduction of the resistor drastically alters both the battery and resistor, as the battery now generates current and both dissipate energy (in the case of the battery via internal resistance).
So overall your circuit analogy unsurprisingly does not disprove the laws of radiative transfer or any other laws of thermodynamics.
I now continue to await eagerly for your detailed devastation of my calculations using the Eli Rabbit model. Please don’t keep us waiting too long. I can’t stand the suspense.
G*, apologies for the length of the above. I know your attention span is limited and you have difficulties following complicated arguments.
I am signing off for the night now and I expect to read your devastating tweet when I awake. Good night.
miker believes pounding on his keyboard is much better than facts and logic.
He’s hilariously desperate.
one at a time, ok:
A resistor, R, is attached to points 1 and 2 in a circuit:
I = (V1-V2)/R
Do you believe that Ohms Law (as stated above) is valid in a circuit with a battery supplying the energy? YES/NO
of course.
The form of SB law for 2 objects is here: No new name given to it:
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/thermo/stefan.html
Nate says: “No new name given to it:”
That’s why you always have to clarify. The heat transfer equation is not the same as the S/B equation. If you try to use the terms interchangeably, it just makes you look like you have no clue.
So you agreed with that the fact that energy was supplied to a circuit by a battery, did NOT invalidate ohms law.
Do you agree that in the analogy you make between circuits and heat flow, that current is analog to heat flow rate P/A, and voltage is the analog of temperature?
of course.
(You’re doing really good now, Nate. Don’t garbage it up with some twisted logic and pseudoscience. I’ll be watching. ..)
Yay. Progress.
Then the analog for ohms law would be P/A =(T1-T2)/R, where R is thermal resistance. Right/
Of course this is conduction, not relevant here.
For radiation the closest analog law would be SB:
P/A = e sigma (T1^4-T2^4)
The analogy is not perfect here, but still i think this is a reasonable choice. It still describes the flow of heat between 2 points at different temperatures. Do you agree? If not why not?
Nate, you’re still using “SB” for the heat transfer equation. That is NOT progress.
And, it’s a little clumsy trying to compare that equation to Ohm’s law. I’ll go along with the crude analogy for now, but be careful of pitfalls.
OK. Lets call it the radiation law.
Now you have agreed that ohms law was valid, even when energy was supplied from a source to a circuit.
Therefore, following the analogy, we should say that the radiation law is valid even when energy is supplied from a source to the system ( a plate for example).
Agree? If not, explain this departure from your analogy with circuits.
No, call it what it’s called in physics, the “radiative heat transfer” equation. That way no one will be confused. Of course, the peddlers of pseudoscience are always confused, so we can’t help them.
The radiative heat transfer equation is NOT universal. That is, you do not get to just use it anywhere, anyway. One of the situations where if fails is here with the blue/green plates. And, the reason it fails is because only one plate is being heated.
To demonstrate the failure, consider both plates in perfect contact, heated by the 400 Watts/m^2 source. The two plates would have an equilibrium temp of 244K.
Now, move the plates slightly apart, say 1mm, without allowing any radiative losses. The temperature of the blue plate can NOT automatically rise to 262K just because the radiative heat transfer equation gives that result. There is no additional energy entering the “system”, so the blue plate remains at 244K.
Put the plates together again–244K. Take them apart–244K. No violation of Laws of Thermodynamics.
G*,
Ok so you drop the ball. You want to depart from the analogy.
You say ohm’s law is universal but the radiative heat transfer law is not. What alternative is there then?
We were discussing the fundamentals. What equations apply in general.
Now you return to an example where you THINK you know what should happen, and the equations dont agree. Therefore you think the equation must be wrong.
That is not a convincing argument, what you think happens may not be correct.
The equations are meant to tell us what the answers are, not the other way around.
You cant solve circuit problems without rules like ohms law, Kirchoffs law etc. Same for heat transfer.
When you hit that brick wall, you suddenly run out of questions, and start the long rambling nonsense.
Hilarious.
“Brick wall” which logic cannot penetrate.
We were talking fundamentals, and you suddenly switched to rambling and hand waving, G*.
‘Run out of questions”. No
‘You say ohms law is universal but the radiative heat transfer law is not. What alternative is there then?’
Now, move the plates slightly apart, say 1mm, without allowing any radiative losses. The temperature of the blue plate can NOT automatically rise to 262K just because the radiative heat transfer equation gives that result. There is no additional energy entering the system, so the blue plate remains at 244K.’
G* this is rambling at its finest, and makes no sense. Energy is obviously entering the system!
Nate charges: “G* this is rambling at its finest, and makes no sense. Energy is obviously entering the system!”
Nate, my poor uneducated, brain-washed, toady friend, do you not even understand the word “additional”?
“There is no additional energy entering the system. ..”
Hilarious!
“Additional’
G* you are once again confused with power vs energy.
I’m being altogether serious when I say that I don’t think you have the logical mind required for science.
You continually get caught up in illogical thinking, and you are unable to let go of misconceptions.
Just not your thing. That’s ok.
But you have to realize it.
Rambling desperately, or desperate rambling?
Hilarious, either way.
G* you disappoint me. I woke this morning fully expecting you to deliver on your promise to deliver the coup de grace to my stupid belief that the blue plate will be affected by the green plate (similar to cennecting the resistor to the battery will obviously impact upon the battery),
No answer, quelle surprise. Probably too busy being eviscerated by Nate.
However your circuit model did clarify one thing other than your ability for diversion by creating inappropriate analogies
The resistor is affected by the battery (after it is connected to it). Likewise we can consider the plate system from the perspective of the green plate.. It is just sitting there bathing in sunlight receiving 400 W and is at a temperature of 244 K (I think we all agree with that one). It is then moved to a location where the sun is being blocked by the blue plate.
What will happen to the temperature of the green plate when it is placed in the shadow of the blue plate ? Does the
1. temperature of the green plate increase or
2. nothing happens to the temperature or
3. The temperature decreases?
So while we wait for your detailed refutation of the Eli Rabbit model, can you indicate your answer to the above with some details preferably? .
For bonus points, can you relate your answer to what you would expect to feel with respect to temperature when you move from the direct sunlight to under the shade on a hot sunny day?
For even more bonus points, can you suggest which answer corresponds to your model where both plates remain at 244K and which answer corresponds to the model where the temperature drops to 220 K?
I fully expect g* to avoid answering with any detail. Or answering at all. He is, almost guaranteed to reply with a suggestion that he cannot understand the questions because it taxes his capacity to concentrate. Perhaps he will just find another diversion.
miker, I think I counted 5-6 question marks, but not one coherent question.
And your comment was so long I only skimmed your errant rambling.
Perhaps you lost your copy of the rules:
1) Omit all personal attacks, including your assumptions of what you believe are my thoughts. You have little knowledge of the science here, so you need to learn, not preach.
2) Limit your comment to 10 lines MAX.
3) Only consider ONE topic or question per comment.
Hope that helps.
Please feel welcome to try again.
G* ,I am getting sick of “whack a mole” so i will just simplify my last comment.
What will happen to the temperature of the green plate when it is placed in the shadow of the blue plate ? Does the
1. temperature of the green plate increase or
2. nothing happens to the temperature or
3. The temperature decreases?
A word of explanation may also be required. I hope this not too onerous.
Assuming the green plate temp is below blue plate temp, and the green plate is brought very close to the blue plate, then green plate will warm.
It will continue to warm until it gets close to the blue plate temp.
(Thanks for keeping your question answerable.)
G*, I thought I made it clear from the previous question the green plate was in the sun and was therefore at the agreed temperature of 244 K.
So I will repeat the question,
What will happen to the temperature of the green plate when it is placed in the shadow of the blue plate ? Does the
1. temperature of the green plate increase or
2. nothing happens to the temperature or
3. The temperature decreases?
Again a few word of explanation would be a good idea.
If the green plate is already at 244K, and you bring it close to the radiated blue plate, then the green plate will maintain 244K.
G*, I think we might be getting there.
If the plate is directly behind the blue plate with respect to the sun so it is no longer receiving the full. 400 W of radiant energy from sun (i.e. in the shadow), in your opinion, it will not cool.
Interesting.
Please justify.
miker begs: “Please justify.”
miker, are you that dense? Have I not explained that numerous times?
Look at your own graphic. Are you in denial?
You want back-radiation to be true so much it hurts.
Pain should tell you something.
G* politely states with his usual amount of charm –
“miker, are you that dense? Have I not explained that numerous times?
Look at your own graphic. Are you in denial? ”
Yes G*, I must be the stupidest person on earth. So explain it again, Sam . Just one more time Sam, but this time with feeling.
You can use words of more than syllable if you like so I can comprehend your concept.
I can draw a new diagram again (just for the green plate using the KISS principle) if requested but g* is either visually impaired or not amenable to logic.
To restate g*’s position (if this is incorrect statement of your position g*, then w.t.f. have you been on about?) –
The green plate was receiving 400 W of radiation from the sun before it was placed behind the blue plate and now only receives 200 W of radiation (according to g*’s scheme). G*s claim that, despite this, its temperature stays the same!!!!
This clearly does not compute! Particularly if you have a naive belief in thermodynamic laws such as the conservation of energy.
Clearly only liberals and alarmists would believe in such nonsense.
miker, if you would go back and study all my comments, and yours, you would see that YOU are the one making you look stupid. I explain and explain. Even helped you with the graphic. You keep trying NOT to understand.
Then, you attempt to blame me.
Hilarious.
Now, once again, the green plate was receiving 400 Watts/m^2, and emitting 200 Watts/m^2 from each side, providing the equilibrium temperature of 244K.
When it was positioned close behind the blue plate, also at equilibrium, the green plate was then receiving 200 Watts/m^2 (net) from the blue plate, and emitting 200 Watts/m^2 to space, maintaining the 244K temperature.
Study the approved graphic. Put as much effort into studying as you do with your snarky, long-winded comments. That would be constructive.
G*,
Just to clarify (or further confuse!), you said this:
“The equation you have used if for radiative heat transfer between two objects, with NO additional energy entering the system. It does not apply in this situation.
So far so good (bad), then after analyzing circuits, and agreeing that Ohms Law (analogous to rad heat transfer eqn) is still valid even when the system is receiving energy, you said this:
“The radiative heat transfer equation is NOT universal. That is, you do not get to just use it anywhere, anyway. One of the situations where if fails is here with the blue/green plates. And, the reason it fails is because only one plate is being heated.”
This is confusing, and a seemingly DIFFERENT reason for the eqn to be invalid. So many different G-rules!
So my question is this, in the BLUE plate by itself case, with sun shining on it, AND with a background universe at a higher temperature Tu > 0, would the eqn be valid to use?
Again, the eqn as shown here:
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/thermo/stefan.html
With one T equal to zero, the radiative heat transfer equation reduces to just the S/B equation. So yes, it applies.
What will you try next?
So it does apply if the second object is the surrounding universe, and heat is supplied to the plate., but it does no apply if the second object is another plare?
Why the difference? How do you determine when it is valid and when not?
Any time you get in a situation that violates the Laws of Thermodynamics, you know something is wrong.
G* your rules for determining the validity of the eqn, so far, seem to change over time.
If a student would like to learn how to solve heat transfer problems, where can they go to find these rules, or example problems that use them? I have not seen them anywhere.
Nate wants to know: “If a student would like to learn how to solve heat transfer problems, where can they go to find these rules, or example problems that use them?”
Take upper level courses in physics, thermodynamics, and heat transfer.
Nate admits: “I have not seen them anywhere.”
Obviously.
“Take upper level courses in physics, thermodynamics, and heat transfer.”
Indeed, I have done the first two of these, and use heat transfer theory in my work. You? As I said, I have not seen these rules anywhere.
How can a reader of your posts be sure that these rules are not just arbitrary and made-up?
Point me to a on-line source that has these rules.
“Indeed, I have done the first two of these. ..”
Now Nate, have you really had upper level courses in physics and thermo? Or did you just imagine you did?
You know you have a very vivid imagination. How many times have I caught you imagining I said things that I didn’t say?
A vivid imagination is fine for fiction, but you need to separate fact from fiction. Establishing a presence here as someone that confuses imagination with truth can leave you with very little credibility.
Yes, and no. Good try at distraction.
Awaiting your answer.
Sorry Nate, I see no evidence that you understand these subjects, let alone have had advanced courses. Why all of the confusion over basic concepts? Why all the questions about the concepts. Why do you get the radiative heat transfer equation confused with the S/B equation?
Then combine all of your confusion with your vivid imagination.
Now, I’m supposed to believe you?
G* the eqn is often called the S-B law, as here:
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/thermo/stefan.html#c2
But more distraction from the issue at hand.
Clearly you cannot point to a source for your version of heat transfer.
Because there isn’t such a source.
Then we have to assume that you are pulling these heat transfer ‘rules’ out of your ass.
Nate insists: ” the eqn is often called the S-B law”
Nate what you lack in knowledge of physics, you make up for in rock-headed stubbornness.
How many times have I had to explain this to you?
If the equation involves ONE “T”, it is the S/B equation. If the equation involves TWO “T’s”, it is the radiative heat transfer equation. Is that easy enough?
Maybe if you write that on your forehead. ..
G*,
Well, then you need to correct the physics/astro dept at GSU.
G* hyper-focusing on what things are called is what botanists do.
Physicists focus on solving problems using the correct equations.
You tried to solve for radiative heat transfer between two objects using the wrong equation, the one for SB radiation from a single object. That is wrong. And I had to point it out to YOU.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/12/uah-global-temperature-update-for-november-20170-36-deg-c/#comment-275467
You fraudulently pretend that you know this subject. But you clearly do not.
And you are spreading misinformation.
Nate spouts: “Well, then you need to correct the physics/astro dept at GSU.”
No Nate, GSU has it right. You don’t have enough physics background to understand their web page. It’s there for everyone to see, as is your fake “advanced” courses.
Hilarious.
And your vivid imagination leads you to believe that I used the wrong equation. Again, you simply don’t have the background to know that you are duping yourself.
On some other thread, I remember describing you as “flat tires”. That was because you had run out of imaginative ideas. Well here, all your tires are flat, you’re out of gas, and someone stole your engine!
Hilarious.
(And, I won’t be responding to any of your nonsense, so have a blast writing to yourself.)
“No nate GSU has it right’.
If so then you have it wrong. Look again:
G* the eqn is often called the S-B law, as here:
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/thermo/stefan.html#c2
G* , above –
Now, once again, the green plate was receiving 400 Watts/m^2, and emitting 200 Watts/m^2 from each side, providing the equilibrium temperature of 244K.
When it was positioned close behind the blue plate, also at equilibrium, the green plate was then receiving 200 Watts/m^2 (net) from the blue plate, and emitting 200 Watts/m^2 to space, maintaining the 244K temperature.
For the latter case where the green plates is receiving 200 W, the plate would emit 100 W from each side (for the former case it emitted 200 W from each side). This corresponds to 205 K., not 244 K.
Do the math if you can.
If you claim it does not emit 100 W from each side, then the emissivity is different on each side and the green plate is no longer a thermodynamic black body.
The magical green plate changes from a blackbody to something when it is shaded by the blue plate!
So my very last final set of questions (hopefully) are
1.Does the green plate when it receives 200 W, emit 100 W from each side or do you insist it emits 200 W from only side?
2. If your answer is the latter then what would be the emissivities of each side?,
3. and can a black body have an emissivity different from 1?
As I am so dumb please don’t just refer to a previous reply and try to explain your answers.
G*,with regard to your persistent use of the term hilarious, other than annoying, it is clearly self-referential , so if you want to persist in using this then we all know who you are referring to.
miker indicates he did not study: “For the latter case where the green plates is receiving 200 W, the plate would emit 100 W from each side”
miker, why can’t you understand your own graphic? The green plate is emitting in both directions, but there is no heat transfer to the blue plate. Consequently the only heat transfer is to the right. Consequently the green plate is at a temperature of 244 K, same as the blue plate.
I remember how hard it was for you to get the color-coding correct. I had to help you with such a simple task. And apparently, you still can’t figure it out.
But, you’re completely sure that you’re right!
Hilarious.
Nearly a week since I left, what do I find when I return? Arguments going round and round in circles, exactly as I predicted! The same things which have been said already, in previous discussions, just brought up again; as if they hadnt already been refuted. Now were back to here again:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/12/uah-global-temperature-update-for-november-20170-36-deg-c/#comment-274584
Its as if MikeR thinks the view factors between the sun and the blue plate are the same as between the blue and green plates! And Nate doesnt know the difference between the SB law and the radiative heat transfer equation, yet wants to lecture g*e*r*a*n. Indeed, its hilarious.
OK, some predictions for when I check back in another weeks time:
1) Once again, lots of childish baiting about how Ive fled the scene etc.
2) Trick/Ball4 arrives to go on about testing.
3) The same discussion (probably carrying on further downthread) just going on and on, round and round in circles.
4) Continued diversion from the 244K when pressed together/different temperatures when separated stupidity.
5) More relentless character assassination attempts of g*e*r*a*n, demonstrating only how much what hes saying seems to scare them.
Tony,
Your friend, G*, is not someone to admire. He is a fraud. Just read some of his posts.
Some highlights: he believes the radiative heat transfer from an object at
244K to one at 243.9K, will be 200 W/m^2.
If you can defend this, feel free to try.
Tony,
“relentless character assassination attempts of g*e*r*a*n.”
Not really. G* made claims of heat transfer ‘rules’ that none of us have seen before. These ‘explain’ his use of wrong eqn.
We quite reasonably ask, where do these new rules come from? Show us where. Show us a source.
He cannot. He dodges, he distracts, hurls insults.
What choice do we have, but to conclude that G* has made up these rules?
Feel free to show us the source.
G* states above –
“miker, why cant you understand your own graphic?”
This is the thanks I get for reproducing G*s inane concept. I remind you that this diagram met with your approval as being an accurate representation of your thoughts. Again take ownership of your own lunacies g*. I didn’t call it I’m with stupid.jpg for nothing.
According to g* there is no heat transferred to the blue plate from the radiation leaving the green plate! It must arrive at the blue pLate unless this plate had had its deflector shields installed and turned on. Maybe some Vulcan magic from Mr Spock
So let’s get this straight,
1. the green plate, despite it being in the shadow of the blue plate, absorbs the same energy as the blue plate!
2. the green plate then reemits the energy back towards the blue plate but for some reason it does not reach the blue plate or transfer its energy. Could it be due to cancellation by the radiation repented by mysterious green arrow pointing towards (“emitted by in g* words) the green plate in the diagram in question
https://s20.postimg.org/av6u36vbh/I_m_with_stupid.jpg ?
Maybe the blue plate becomes transparent or the emissivity of its surface suddenly becomes zero and it reflects the radiation.
Mr Spock’s deflector shields is by far the most plausible of these explanations.
I might be stupid according to g*, but only someone way more stupider, such as Tony, could fall for this.
G*, I know it’s morning where you are, but it’s very late here so I am about to retire for the night.
G* you promised me a couple of days ago that you would blow my arguments out the water, sometime in the future.
When can you deliver upon your promise with a devastating critique of my calculations using Eli Rabbett’s equations?
I generously provided you with my Excel calcutions that could be downloaded from my Google drive. Why haven’t you have availed yourself of this glorious opportunity to rip my calculations to shreds or even provide some calculations that verify your model ?
I am hoping against hope that when I awake you have demonstrated your prowess with Excel. You could also use other tools such as Matlab or Mathematica for the task.
I am sure Tony whose understanding of Excel spreadsheets (and view factors) is legendary and could be of great assistance. If not he can get you a coffee from Starbucks as you beaver away.
Good night and good luck.
Yes Tony, you are correct. They are very predictable.
I think it is due to the fact that they all share the same personality-type. It’s an interesting study in human psychology.
The more I draw them out, the more they reveal their true character.
It’s fun to watch.
miker continues to mis-understand: “1. the green plate, despite it being in the shadow of the blue plate, absorbs the same energy as the blue plate!”
miker, the blue plate absorbs 400 Watts/m^2. The green plate absorbs 200 Watts/m^2, from the blue plate. But, if you believe 400 is the same as 200, go for it.
And, since you requested, I am waiting for the right time to reveal some more actual science. Don’t worry, you will find some way to deny it. That only adds to the hilarity.
‘Its an interesting study in human psychology.’
Yes G* I have often often been puszzled how you can be so confused and so unqualified to judge others, and yet you repeatedly insist that it is the others that are confused and unqualified.
This may be the explanation:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wvVPdyYeaQU
I guess Tony is a suicide bomber.
He shows up, throws bombs, and when challenged, vaporizes.
G* states in his comment-
Miker, the blue plate absorbs 400 Watts/m^2. The green plate absorbs 200 Watts/m^2, from the blue plate. But, if you believe 400 is the same as 200, go for it.
Yes 400 = 200 is one of the solutions that can resolve the internal inconsistencies of the g* model.
It reminds me of when, in the dim distant past, I was an academic and I would receive unsolicited letters from members of the public claiming to have overthrown conventional physics . I would read them for amusement of the train home from work. A significant number , when distilled down to its essence used the equalities 1/0 = infinity , 2/0 = infinity and ergo 1=2.
So I am used to dealing with crackpots. I am a bit rusty but you guys allow me to relive the past. Keep it up.
And g*..can you take the above one step further? .Recall I am very dumb so you need to explain it in more detail, so could please kindly fill in the gaps.
1..the temperature of the blue plate is._____? ( reminder it is absorbing 400 W and emitting 200 W from each side) and
2. the temperature of the green plate is ____? ( if it is absorbing 200 W and emitting 100 W ) or alternatively the temperature is ____ for the side of the green plate that is emitting all the 200 W and then the temperature ____ for the other side emitting 0 W.
There is, a third logical step for g* and that is to check whether the temperature of both plates is the same (in particular for each side for the green plate) as he claims.
For the sake of completeness he could indicate whether the net radiation between the plates is zero and thereby satisfies this requirement imposed by the second law of thermodynamics for two objects in thermal equilibrium
I know that the use of logic and g* in close proximity above , is an oxymoron (emphasis on the last two syllables) so please forgive
I hope I am not going to distract g* from his task to fill in the blanks above but I must state the following.
G*s main virtue is that he never fail to disappoint. No sign of his threatened calculations or any other sign of his magnus opus. Just some vague comment about biding his time. Remember time waits for no man. So can you g* , give some indication when this work will be ready to be revealed to the world? Have you any plans for the film rights?
Is it going to take days, months or even years of laborious calculations. using the tools at your fingertips plus, the fingers and toes and Tony. (I am sure Gordon could also lend a hand)?
Is it going to require more pairs of cancelling arrows of many colours. Are you going to be restricted by the blue /green palette or employ the full gamut of colours that a 24 bit graphics card can supply. This could be a long wait and beware even Einstein never finished his grand universal theory.
I think I might return to my beauty sleep and g* can awaken me (no kiss on the cheek required) upon completion of his masterpiece and remember to fill in the blanks above.
G*: “And, I wont be responding to any of your nonsense, so have a blast writing to yourself.)
Thank god.
I didnt realize G* was such a delicate flower, given the hundreds of insults he has sent my way.
Doesnt he know the Second Law
of slayerdynamics:
The net flow of abuse always flows from slayers to the rest of humanity.
Although slayers often confuse net and one-way flows. They only count the flow of abuse towards them.
Good work Nate,
I wonder if that statement now includes myself?
G*: And, I wont be responding to any of your nonsense, so have a blast writing to yourself.”
If so, my only sense of disappointment is that g* will have fled the scene before adequately explaining his nonsense. I was really hoping for his masterpiece.
But no longer having to deal with g* is also a blessed relief in that we will no longer have to endure his demented outbursts of hilarity.
Hope you’re right, miker..
Wow miker, you’ve commented 4 times since I did, and still no substance. You’re still arguing that 400 = 200. You’re still getting the flux wrong (can’t understand your own graphic), you now you believe the green plate is emitting 100, instead of 200!
You’re a mess.
(But, hilarious.)
OK g* you have came back for some more. Glutton for punishment.
Note I said above . To quote
“Yes, 400 = 200 is one of the solutions that can resolve the internal inconsistencies of the g* model.”
Which happens to be true (not 400 =200 obviously), but that your nonsensical model requires this.
It would also require 100 W from either side if you had bothered to read my previous comment.
You complain in your comments to Nate that you are the victim of adhoms, but in reality you are also the main victim of your own stupidity .
Perhaps if you made comments which were sane then you might avoid the adhoms.
miker, you say something, I show you it is wrong, then you say it’s not what you said, then you say it again, and again, I point out it is wrong, then you say it’s my fault!
You’re a mess!
Hilarious.
G*,
You complain that my comments are too long to cope with. Then you object that, when I break them up, then you are overwhelmed by three consecutive comments.
Of course it was your fault! You came up with your ridiculous model. Take ownership.
Anything to avoid the very simple homework test that tests your IQ which I repeat is,
so could you please kindly fill in the gaps.
1.the temperature of the blue plate is._____? ( reminder it is absorbing 400 W and emitting 200 W from each side) and
2. the temperature of the green plate is ____? ( if it is absorbing 200 W and emitting 100 W ) or alternatively the temperature is ____ for the side of the green plate that is emitting all the 200 W and then the temperature ____ for the other side emitting 0 W.
3. Please explain how your model is consistent with the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics.
Also when are you going to come up with your wonderful explanation and calculations that are going to overwhelm us all with their brilliance?
“1.the temperature of the blue plate is._____?”
See the approved graphic, for the umpteenth time!
“2. the temperature of the green plate is ____? ( if it is absorbing 200 W and emitting 100 W ) or alternatively the temperature is ____ for the side of the green plate that is emitting all the 200 W and then the temperature ____ for the other side emitting 0 W.”
See the approved graphic, for the umpteenth + 1 time! (And no, it is NOT emitting 100W. You just can’t understand your own graphic.)
“3. Please explain how your model is consistent with the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics.”
All energy is accounted for, and “cold” does not warm “hot”.
“4. Also when are you going to come up with your wonderful explanation and calculations that are going to overwhelm us all with their brilliance?”
I will sneak it in so that purveyors of pseudoscience don’t know.
G*,
So these are your answers?
1. The temperature of the blue plate is 244k? and
2. the temperature of the green plate is also 244 K
So the energy flow if it is absorbing 200 W and emitting and radiating 200 W from each side is using g*s famous 200=400 conundrum . Alternatively the green plate is only emitting 200 W from one side and 0 W from the other side and is violating the S-B Law.
Also please explain how your model, depending on which version that you are currently peddling,that has a net flow of 200W between the blue and green plates is consistent with the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. You know the one, that states that net flow of energy between objects at the same temperature is zero.
Dont just try and squirm out and simply refer without any other comment to my attempts at renditions of your fantasies at https://s20.postimg.org/av6u36vbh/I_m_with_stupid.jpg
or
https://s20.postimg.org/r0d1phm7x/new_just_as_dumb_version.jpg .
Explain yourself if you can. Stop avoiding these questions. I know avoidance is clearly your major talent.
miker, I can’t believe that you want to be so stupid.
“So the energy flow if it is absorbing 200 W and emitting and radiating 200 W from each side is using g*s famous 200=400 conundrum.”
FALSE!
“Alternatively the green plate is only emitting 200 W from one side and 0 W from the other side and is violating the S-B Law.”
FALSE!
miker, due to your continued mis-representations, you must go back in the penalty box. For me to respond, you must, again, exactly follow the rules:
1) Omit all personal attacks, including your assumptions of what you believe are my thoughts.
2) Limit your comment to 10 lines MAX.
3) Only consider ONE topic or question per comment.
Thanks for your cooperation.
G*
So your answers are FALSE and FALSE. Can you please elaborate? Maybe explain why your answers are consistent with thermodynamics.
Sorry g* I do have to add that you need to explain if these are both false, then how much radiation is being emitted from each side of the green plate?
Also what is the net radiation between the two plates?
Just answer the questions and stop fkn around.
miker, all of your questions are answered by the graphic.
https://postimg.org/image/y9etf4d8p/
You are the one fkn around.
If you actually need help, just follow the rules.
This is like extracting teeth. I called that diagram “I am with stupid.Jpg” for good reason and I think it is nonsense but that us just my opinion.
You tell me, in your opinion, how much radiation is being emitted from each side of the green plate?
Also in your opinion, what is the net radiation between the two plates?
How will g* avoid answering these questions?
miker, you have earned the “stupid” title.
So stupid, here are the answers:
“You tell me, in your opinion, how much radiation is being emitted from each side of the green plate?”
200 Watts/m^2, just as the graphic indicates, stupid.
“Also in your opinion, what is the net radiation between the two plates?”
200 Watts/m^2, just as the graphic indicates, stupid.
Anymore stupid questions, stupid?
So it comes to this, according to you 200 W is being emitted from each side of the green plate. This means 400 W is entering the green plate,
Please provide a coherent explanation of how the green plate which is shaded by the blue plate can receives the same amount of radiation as the blue plate (that is directly exposed to the sun).
An ancillary question, Have you moved from a sunny place to a shaded place and perhaos perceived a drop in temperature?
if you have never done it, try it and let us know
I will take an incoherent explanation as well. I am feeling generous.
2 am here and I am off to sleep. Hope to hear your explanation when I awake
p s. Any progress on the treatise that you promised. The one
that will take us all by surprise.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/12/uah-global-temperature-update-for-november-20170-36-deg-c/#comment-276256
G*
What a disappointment you are! I hope your family and friends are not reading our exchange of comments. They would be equally disappointed.
I was expecting a reasoned response to my question, when I awoke, but all I got again wa just a link back to an earlier comment. One which I had already dealt with. No sign of any additional explanation.
So yet again gain , I have to repeat my last questions.
According to you, 200 W is being emitted from each side of the green plate. This means 400 W is entering the green plate,
1. Please provide a coherent explanation of how the green plate which is shaded by the blue plate can receives the same amount of radiation as the blue plate (that is directly exposed to the sun) and
2. An ancillary question. Have you moved from a sunny place to a shaded place and perhaps perceived a drop in temperature?
How will g* avoid answering the above?
Will it just be a link back to an earlier comment of his or again a comment free link to the nonsensical diagram, “I am with stupid.jpg”. His last comment was both.
Oh dear miker, it appears you lost your copy of the rules.
Here you go:
1) Omit all personal attacks, including your assumptions of what you believe are my thoughts.
2) Limit your comment to 10 lines MAX.
3) Only consider ONE topic or question per comment.
Always glad to help.
I am sorry that this comment may exceed g* s requirements for no more than 10 lines.
I am sure that if he puts his mind to it, he can cope, particularly if he reads it 10 lines at a time and then takes a half hour break to recover from the ordeal.
G*s other requirement for civil discourse was particularly amusing as he made this same request just above (at 5:11am) and then proceeded to call me stupid 5 times in a single 8 line comment some three hours later (8:10 am)!
I am not sure what I did to offend him during that interval other than to just ask questions which of course he avoided answering by employing his usual tactics.
So I have to repeat for the third time.
According to g*, 200 W is being emitted from each side of the green plate. This means 400 W is entering the green plate.
So G*,
1. Please provide a coherent explanation of how the green plate which is shaded by the blue plate can receives the same amount of radiation as the blue plate (that is directly exposed to the sun) and
2. An ancillary question. Have you moved from a sunny place to a shaded place and perhaps perceived a drop in temperature?
Has g* exhausted his repertoire of avoidance techniques or do we have to go through a g* charade again? I hope not.
miker, the rules are imposed for your protection. Once it has been determined that you suffer from OCD, it is important to limit your addiction to keyboarding. Excessive keyboarding can be hazardous to a persons mental health. (There are too many pathetic examples.)
If you go back in the comments, you will observe that you could not obey the rules. You were sent to the penalty box for repeated stupid questions and false accusations. You were out of control.
I had to slap you down. I dont like doing so, but it’s for your own good.
Just obey the rules and you will likely do much better.
As always, glad to help.
So G* has an inexhaustible supply of avoidance mechanisms.
He clearly is totally incapable of answering the most basic of questions and is one of the most annoying individuals I have had the displeasure of dealing with.
This is probably the reason why his name has been filtered out and has had to adopt the g*e*r*a*n nom de guerre. Don’t bother trying to refer to him here without the asterisks.
I can understand Roy Spencer’s reluctance to extend the filter to catch his asterisked endowed name. G*e*r*a*n can evolve and evade Roy Spencer’s immune response and become g#e#r#a#n or g%e%r%a%n with a single point mutation.
I wonder why D*o*u*g or m*p*a*i*n did not c*o*t*t*o*n onto this idea?
I hope I haven’t given them the same idea as we could have three serial pests in action rather than having to deal with just the one.
miker, frantically lashing out in desperation is not the cure.
Please seek professional help.
When you get cured, and are able to obey the rules, come back and I will teach you some physics.
Best of luck.
G* , As you have violated your own stipulations regarding abuse (as is obvious form your tirades above) I assume you will now depart the scene.
In contrast , I didnt sign any agreement based on restricting my comments to match g*s (tweet length) attention span.
Additionally I offered g* three consecutive attempts to answer some very basic questions which he did his best to avoid. Where I come from, its three strikes and you are out.
This brings to mind, another relevant expression. when it comes to fools, I call em when I see em.
On that topic G*, Let us all know when you finally get around to surprising everyone with your attempt to teach physics. it will be truly edifying.
Have a nice day and I also wish you best of luck in your endeavours.
Glad to see you are considering getting help, miker.
Here’s hoping you can beat the keyboard addiction.
G*,
As you have 217 comments , at this stage compared to my pathetic 83 comments ( I am a real amateur in comparison) , I think we know who really has an addiction. Aren’t you glad you brought it up.
I just have to add keyboard addiction to your diagnosis for Pyscho-g*e*r*a*ntology – see http://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/11/uah-global-temperature-update-for-october-2017-0-63-deg-c/#comment-272982 .
Your prognosis is poor.
That’s a perfect example, Nate. You start pounding on that keyboard, and your brain stops working.
You can’t compare ALL of my comments to just your comments. That’s apples and oranges. I have other mental cases I must deal with other they you.
And, number of comments is not as accurate as word count. Your comments are typically WAY longer than mine.
Your keyboard obsession negatively affects your ability to process facts and logic.
Please, find help.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/12/uah-global-temperature-update-for-november-20170-36-deg-c/#comment-276494.
Yes, you could also show the solution by eliminating the top green arrow. It can be understood either way. Of course, if you eliminate the top green arrow, they will just have another set of imagined problems to go on about (whilst ignoring the flaws in their own model), due to their insistence on ignoring the bigger picture (and also due to their complete failure to understand heat flow or even the concept of equilibrium). Oh well.
svante…”We add a small part of the turnover, but all of the increase”.
There’s no proof for that other than inferences from proxy data. We saw how proxy data can go awry in the mbb98 hockey stick study. In the latter half of the 20th century, tree ring temp data was showing cooling while actual temps were rising.
Jaworowsky has shown the pitfalls of ice core proxies. When CO2 is frozen in ice, and the ice pressure increases with depth, the CO2 bubbles turn to solids called clathrates. When the ice cores are drilled out and come to surface pressure, the the ice core samples are contaminated with melted ice from the drilling, hence diluted.
It’s ludicrous to claim a CO2 concentration of 270 ppmv in the pre Industrial era based on ice core proxies. The 270 ppmv figure was cherry picked by the IPCC from levels in local ice showing quite variable CO2 levels, some beyond 400 ppmv.
No allowance was made for the 1C to 2C below average global temps due to the Little Ice Age at the time of the pre Industrial Era. It’s well known that CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere get lower as colder oceans absorb more CO2.
Circa 1940, a German scientist, Kreutz, with experience in chemistry, took over 25,000 samples of air showing CO2 levels as high as 400 ppmv.
Gordon: Did Kreutz account for nearby industrial and vehicular sources?
‘Its well known that CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere get lower as colder oceans absorb more CO2.’
A qualitative statement.
A drop of 7 ppm is indeed observed in LIA relative to MWP.
Mauna Loa has measured CO2 since 1956, and there is a regular increase year to year.
1) Accounting shows the increase is about half of what we burn.
2) We measure increased acidification in the oceans, so it’s not coming from there.
3) There is a marching decline in atmospheric oxygen, consistent with burning.
4) Isotopic evidence shows it comes from fossil sources.
nate…”The natural fraction, 270/400 is 67%, last I checked”.
You mean the inferred 270 ppmv based on proxies from Antarctic ice. Jarowoski revealed the concentrations ranged wildly in the vicinity where the ice cores were sampled. He claimed that 270 ppmv could have been as high as 350 ppmv.
The IPCC based their ACO2 levels on 390 ppmv. At that level, they admitted the total ACO2 levels were a ‘small fraction’ of the natural CO2 atmospheric content. That’s a reference to ALL ACO2 being emitted at the time.
I hardly think ACO2 has increased atmospheric CO2 by 130 PPMV since the Industrial Era. Even if the 270 ppmv is correct, that level of CO2 should have caused catastrophic global warming over the centuries. It did not, so why should an extra 130 ppmv?
“Your .04% is to small to matter meme has been debunked at least 100 times”.
Not to my satisfaction on a verifiable scientific basis.
Gordon RObertson wrote:
“Even if the 270 ppmv is correct, that level of CO2 should have caused catastrophic global warming over the centuries.”
Prove it.
Prove this. Prove something. Prove *anything,* you nincompoop.
Jarowoski revealed
Spin.
Jarowoski’s opinion of pre-industrial CO2 concentrations are singular and firmly shown to be erroneous. He has no expertise in drilling for CO2 records.
Which means skeptics will tout him as an expert who ‘reveals’ stuff.
In climate skeptics circles, many take the words of Jaworowski about the unreliability of CO2 measurements in ice cores as truth and reject the possibility that ice cores reflect the ancient atmosphere.
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/jaworowski.html
There follows a detailed investigation…
“I hardly think ACO2 has increased atmospheric CO2 by 130 PPMV since the Industrial Era. ”
An opinion, not a fact.
” At that level, they (IPCC) admitted the total ACO2 levels were a small fraction of the natural CO2 atmospheric content.”
BS. They did no such thing!
CO2 does not matter. Only the amount of water vapor and the wind direction in the tropics counts.
http://tropic.ssec.wisc.edu/real-time/mtpw2/product.php?color_type=tpw_nrl_colors&prod=global2×pan=24hrs&anim=html5
The amount of water vapor depends on non-condensing GHGs.
It’s unstable on its own, if it starts condensing temperatures will drop and you have a vicious circle.
The amount of water vapor depends on the ocean surface temperature, the average ocean surface temperature is about 17 C and average tropical surface ocean is about 27 C.
If water vapor condensing, the latent heat warms air temperature, and ocean surface temperature evaporate [cools] replacing the water vapor which has condensed.
Water vapor depends of ocean temperature which mostly tropical ocean temperature of about 27 C.
The tropical ocean is warm because it’s near equator which receives more sunlight than regions outside the tropics.
The tropics has always remained warm and significant variation of temperature of the rest of the world is related to amount warmed tropical water which flows like vast rivers pole ward.
This is a well superficial allegation.
If you were right about such harsh domination of global climatic processes by the Tropics context, there would be far fewer difference between the northern and southern hemispheres, and even between the north and south poles.
As you should know, this is not at all the case, neither on surface nor within the lower troposphere.
A simple look at the trends, from 1979 till today for all regions and for both layers, shows how wrong you are.
” Bindidon says:
December 2, 2017 at 11:23 AM
This is a well superficial allegation.”
It is very superficial.
What actually controls global temperature is the average volume temperature of the ocean which is about 3-4 C.
Or you can never have global air temperature higher than 20 C with average temperature of entire ocean below 5 C.
And it should take about 1000 years [or more] for the volume
of the ocean rise from 3 to 4 C to 4 to 5 C.
So alarmism aka earth is going to become like Venus in few decades is completely impossible.
Which not to say that your entire ocean has never been a couple of degrees warmer- it was couple degree warmer in last glaciation period, and large portion of last 1/2 billion years the entire ocean has 10 degrees warmer than our ocean.
Our present ocean is cold aka, we in a ice box climate. And Earth has had periods when was hothouse climate.
So we are not in a hothouse climate- average ocean volume is not warmer than 15 C.
So when earth ocean is 3-4 C, it can’t warm quickly from sunlight. Or the only way earth ocean could warm to average temperature of 10 C or higher, within a thousand years would something like MASSIVE volcanic activity. And such massive volcanic activity [or any other way to warm the ocean by so much so quickly] would itself be the danger rather than the warmer ocean and warmer global air temperature.
“If you were right about such harsh domination of global climatic processes by the Tropics context, there would be far fewer difference between the northern and southern hemispheres, and even between the north and south poles.”
This has occurred and would occur in a hothouse climate, and icebox climate it doesn’t occur.
-As you should know, this is not at all the case, neither on surface nor within the lower troposphere.
A simple look at the trends, from 1979 till today for all regions and for both layers, shows how wrong you are.–
At no point in anytime in the history of Earth, has the global air temperature, been warmer than ocean surface temperature.
“glaciation period”, meant last interglacial period, more specifically:
“The Eemian (also called the last interglacial, Sangamonian, Ipswichian, Mikulin, Kaydaky, Valdivia or Riss-Wrm) was the interglacial period which began about 130,000 years ago and ended about 115,000 years ago.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eemian
gbaikie on December 2, 2017 at 5:29 PM
At no point in anytime in the history of Earth, has the global air temperature, been warmer than ocean surface temperature.
Why do you pretend that? On the base of what data?
Here below you see a chart comparing global surface temperatures for land and ocean. The chart is based on NOAA data (discredited as ‘corrupt’ behind fake names by lousy cowards), but with some more work I could present that of the Japanese Met Agency, whose data sets are based on different measurements and computations.
http://4GP.ME/bbtc/1512261135389.jpg
The same holds for the lower troposphere: TLT above land is warmer than above the oceans.
“Here below you see a chart comparing global surface temperatures for land and ocean…..”
It’s not a graph of temperatures.
Average Earth oceans are about 17 C
Average Earth lands are about 10 C
It’s never been close.
While looking at Berkeley Earth:
“The scale of cigarettes per day is used to make the levels easiest to understand. They were calculated by comparing the known health risk of cigarettes to the known health risks of PM2.5 as estimated by the World Health Organization. Throughout much of Europe the pollution levels give a health effect equivalent to that of every man, woman and child smoking 5 cigarettes per day; in the worst regions of Europe, the level exceeds 7 cigarettes per day equivalent. ”
…
“The second plot shows yesterdays air pollution around the world. The worst pollution is in India and China, where levels reach over a pack of cigarettes per day (PM2.5 above 400 micrograms per cubic meter). It was not a good day for much of the world, except for the US, Japan, and some small scattered regions.”
Like Ireland, Scotland, and small part of Spain.
But good news is that Chinese and India children just have to stop smoking cigarettes and they will be fine.
Anyhow, land temperatures:
“… To obtain the best estimate for the Earth surface land temperature, Berkeley Average performs a process analogous to iterative least-squares minimization. The initial variables are 1) an offset variable (baseline temperature) for each of the 179,928 temperature time series, referenced to values that take into account latitude and altitude, and 2) the set of T avg numbers (one variable for
each month) that will represent our land global average; the values of these variables necessary to minimize the least-squares differences are calculated exactly using matrix inversion…..”
https://www.scitechnol.com/2327-4581/2327-4581-1-101.pdf
see graph of actual temperature, called “Land surface temperature 1 year average”
Going from 1750 to +2000 AD. It does indicate land 1 year temperature did go above 10 C after 2000 AD.
The answer to question why is Earth’s average temperature is
about 15 C, is the ocean is about 17 C.
And reason the oceans average temperature is 17 C is tropical ocean which is 80% of tropical region and tropical region is 40% of the world is about 27 C.
And reason land temperatures are as warm as 10 C is the Africa is warmest continent in the world.
The largest countries are about -4 C, and there is fairly big continent called Antarctica is about -50 C.
The tropics was know to be warm for centuries, and Antarctic
was unknown until recently- but the vast tropical ocean dwarfs
all land areas. So one could safely say more than century ago, that Earth average temperature was about 15 C.
binny…”At no point in anytime in the history of Earth, has the global air temperature, been warmer than ocean surface temperature.
Why do you pretend that? On the base of what data?”
**********
On the basis gbaikie has already stated, that the oceans cover 70% of the planet’s surface.
A contributor to this blog, Stephen Wilde, has offered a similar theory:
http://climaterealists.com/index.php?id=1487
–On the basis gbaikie has already stated, that the oceans cover 70% of the planets surface.
A contributor to this blog, Stephen Wilde, has offered a similar theory:
http://climaterealists.com/index.php?id=1487 —
I have had discussions with Stephen Wilde.
But before discuss what Stephen Wilde says in above link.
My theory is ocean warm more than land area.
And certainly having %70 of surface area of earth being ocean area, does not make Earth have lower average temperature.
And certainly having 70% of surface being either land or ocean would make whichever had 70% of area would make either a dominate factor on global temperature.
I would say the capability of humans ignoring the ocean amount to achievement in dullness. But I say anyone adequately educated in general topic of “global climate” is quite aware of the important aspect of the tropics and tropical ocean in regards to global average temperature.
As far as saying anything new, I would say if add a tropical ocean to Mars it would increase the average temperature of
Mars. Probably reason it’s “new” is most people think you couldn’t add tropical ocean to Mars.
I happen to think it would be important to add a tropical ocean to Mars- because it add an environment which has pressure. Another aspect is people imagine there is not very much water on Mars.
It’s possible there is not not water on Mars [though it seems quite unlikely] but were no water on Mars, one could still add water to Mars. Or our solar system has many Earth oceans of water. But enough about Mars.
Basically, recently arrived at new way to explain it- though I already mentioned elements of it a few times.
So ideal thermally conductive blackbody at 1 AU [Earth distance from sun] is thought to have uniform temperature of about 5 C.
And Earth average temperature is about 5 C.
Earth’s average of 15 C is due to two thermal gradients- ocean temperature and sky temperatures.
That my theory. I like it, cause it’s very simple.
As to what Wilde says. he says:
“Previously the time scale of the oceanic changes has been considered to be too long to be relevant to decadal climate change.”
I don’t know if that is true. I would guess James Hansen knew the warming effect of El Nino. I assume he knew this just as much as he knew how he could to make members of congress sweat excessively. Or I would guess his stagecraft included El Nino, which he knew congress members would be clueless about. As general note, Congress is clueless about many things.
Next:
“This article makes use of recent findings about the relatively short decadal or multi decadal (20 to 30 years) oceanic oscillations that, the writer contends, are short enough to bring the time scales involved in oceanic changes into line with the solar cycles of 11 years or so. It seems to the writer that spreading global oceanic cycles of up to 30 years in length across 3 solar cycles results in a close enough match to fit temperature observations over the past few hundred years and especially since 1961.
Sometimes the solar cycles operate in conjunction with the oceanic oscillations but at other times they work against each other.”
I would say solar cycles are or seem connected to changing weather patterns, though wouldn’t rule out changing nature of solar output in terms of solar spectrum changes as related to solar cycles in regards warming the ocean.
Let’s move on to something I disagree about.
“Its quite clear that overall planetary temperatures are a fine balance between solar energy coming in and that same energy being radiated away into space.”
Well I disagree about that because “any type planet” would about 5 C at 1 AU from the sun- so that quite insensitive.
Though any planet which rotated- and had some amount of an atmosphere.
And goes on density of atmosphere. And I think Venus would be colder than Earth at 1 AU. And earth much cooler than Venus at Venus distance.
More interesting:
“A planets atmosphere is entirely different from a greenhouse. The latter accumulates heat inside by physically preventing escape of hot air thereby concentrating it in a confined space. The atmosphere is nothing like that because there is nothing to prevent hot air rising via convection from the ground to a substantial height.”
I think Earth atmosphere acts like a very large greenhouse with vacuum for a ceiling. And also think the oceans act like a greenhouse.
Of course actual greenhouse or parked car are preventing heated air from warming the entire atmosphere.
Or actual greenhouse or parked car, is like a solar pond which can reach a water temperature of 80 C- because saline gradient prevents heated and warmer saltier water from rising [the salty water though hot is dense than cooler less salty water above.
So atmosphere is a huge parked car or huge actual greenhouse, as is the ocean a vast and deep solar pond.
Solar pond being a saltwater greenhouse or parked car.
I will stop here, too keep it shorter.
An Ideal thermally conductive blackbody at Earth’s distance from the Sun would have uniform temperature of 5 C.
No planet would have uniform temperature. Earth’s oceans do have fairly uniform temperature. So a part of earth has has regions which do have a fairly uniform temperature.
The oceans of Earth are very deep, and most of this depth has a fairly uniform and cool temperature of less than 3 C.
If average the temperature of all the oceans including their vast depths it’s average temperature is around 3 to 4 C.
The surface of the ocean [if you exclude polar regions] is warmer than the depth. And saltwater in deepest parts of ocean can be below 0 C, as can the surface water in polar region be below 0 C.
A trivia question could be where is region of the ocean will the most uniform temperature?
Perhaps a location of ocean waters with surface temperature of around 2 to 3 C. Or perhaps part of the ocean which the deepest and you don’t count the top few hundred meter at the top of the ocean.
Without fiddling with it and keeping it simple, you say the arctic ocean- it’s fairly deep, it’s cold and it stays cold- if don’t count the air above the frozen ice, which can very cold during the winter- though question is about ocean water.
Anyhow if don’t count the heat gradient at surface water of the tropics and surface water of temperate zones the ocean is colder than 5 C and has total variation of about 5 C or something like 2 C +/- 3 C. Or quite uniform.
Or if you want uniformity the ocean is it. In 1000 meters of depth one less 3 C difference in temperature without seasonal variation exceeding the 3 C difference.
Whereas land area depth can have very constant temperature but a larger heat gradient per 1000 meters. Average is 25 C per 1000 meters of depth.
So this uniformity of ocean temperature is caused by gravity- warmer water rises because it’s less dense.
Warmer rock doesn’t rise unless it’s a liquid.
So Earth at distance from Sun, should around 5 C and Earth is around 5 C, and it’s warmer than 5 C where warmest part of atmosphere intersects the warmest part of the ocean.
The warmest ocean surface and air surface averages about 27 C and it’s in the tropics which receives more than 1/2 of sunlight which reaches Earth.
The ideal thermally conduction blackbody doesn’t indicate that there is restriction on how warm or cold planet can be.
Or lunar surface can reach around 120 C [400 K] and permanent lunar polar craters can be 30 K.
The Moon is not vaguely like a ideal thermally conduction blackbody, though the Moon is like a blackbody.
Or a blackbody in sunlight at earth distance will be about 120 C. But if blackbody is insulated from energy of sunlight at whatever distance from the sun it could be 3 K. And Moon in the dark craters is getting heat from somewhere [conducted heat from sunlight and/or interior of the small weak lunar core. Or it’s not insulated enough to be 3 K- miles of thickness of rock isn’t adequate enough insulation so as to reach about 3 K.
Well I was trying to brief, but it seems to have been quite failure.
Paul D. Spudis:
“The sunlit areas near the Moons poles are thermally benign, with an estimated surface temperature of about -50 C, plus or minus 10. Due to the lack of a moderating atmosphere, the remaining surface of the Moon experiences large temperature swings, ranging from -150 C during the coldest parts of the lunar night to over 100 C during the hottest portion of the lunar day. Astronauts who have walked on the Moon noticed significantly warmer temperatures as the Sun rose higher in the sky over the course of their stays on the Moon.”
http://www.airspacemag.com/daily-planet/take-step-another-world-180967334/#iBgH8Or2fRKMZg8f.99
I believe all crew landed on Moon near dawn and stayed on Moon for at most a few earth days. The lighting conditions of near morning made safer to land, as Paul indicates, I don’t they stayed until is was lunar noon time. Anyhow, Paul go to say:
“Unlike the equatorial and mid-latitude regions, the terrain near the poles has areas that experience constant darkness, alongside some areas that are nearly always illuminated by the Sun. This simple proximity has dramatic consequences. The dark areas are extremely cold, and serve to collect volatile substances that hit the Moon over time. As shown by a variety of remote sensing techniques, these cold traps have accumulated significant quantities of water ice and other matter. Water is one of the most useful things found in space.”
Anyhow no one have yet to land anything in lunar polar regions- though we deliberately crashed things in lunar polar regions [and measured the explosive results]
Anyhow I had meant to get to topic of greenhouses.
ren…”CO2 does not matter. Only the amount of water vapor and the wind direction in the tropics counts”.
The UAH record since 1979 proves that. UAH has revealed virtually no warming in the Tropics since 1979 and they have stated that several times.
Gordon Robertson wrote:
“UAH has revealed virtually no warming in the Tropics since 1979 and they have stated that several times.”
And…. Gordon lies again.
In fact, the warming trend in UAH LT v6.0 Tropics is +0.12 C/dec, virtually the same as the global trend (+0.13 C/dec).
DA…”And. Gordon lies again”.
It has come to my attention that your initials, DA, could be interpreted as Dumb Ass. It’s certainly reflected in your abilities in science.
Gordon, you lied about the tropics as measured by UAH.
Why did you do that, Gordon?
davie, the DA! It fits.
davie, how much did the Earth warm the Sun last year?
g*e*r*a*n says:
“maybe one tenth of a degree”?
Hilarious!
Svante tries to improve her credibility by quoting me.
But, she doesn’t understand that quoting me out-of-context just makes her look un-educated.
Sorry g*e*r*a*n, it came from here:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/12/uah-global-temperature-update-for-november-20170-36-deg-c/#comment-274636
Gordon, do you agree with g*e*r*a*ns quick fix?
Hello again Mr Radio Shack Technician,
The ‘wild swings’ in recent months have been noticed only in the satellite record. Funny that.
des…”The wild swings in recent months have been noticed only in the satellite record. Funny that”.
Yes…the satellites cover 95% of the planet as opposed to 30% by surface stations. That was before NOAA slashed them by 75%.
The sats also have advanced telemetry that measures microwave radiation from oxygen molecules. The radiation correlates with the O2 temperature. So, sat telemetry is scanning bazillions of O2 data points per instantaneous position of the scanner as it moves.
On the surface, temperatures are taken twice a day and averaged.
The sat data is so much more comprehensive that UAH can offer an accurate map of the planet which features visual temperature anomalies globally. That is not possible with the scant surface data.
Don’t forget the surface temperature record is now fudged using climate models. Does the word ‘smoothing’ mean anything to you? Easy to do statistically in a model. The fudged warming on the surface record looks much nicer without all those oscillations.
Why confuse the poor public when you are trying to condition them to the fiction of AGW. And use lots of red colours to accent how warm it is getting. A few degrees C becomes red hot.
GISS global maps:
https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/maps/
Gordon Robertson wrote:
“Dont forget the surface temperature record is now fudged using climate models.”
How so?
Can you prove this?
BTW, Gordon — I hope you know that UAH also relies on models.
But you probably don’t.
There’s one problem with that “logic”. Aggregating data over larger areas REDUCES variability. You DO know enough about statistics to know that …. yes?? For example, look at how much variability there is in US temps vs global temps even in the UAH data.
It seems you need to keep searching for your rationalisation.
Gordon Robertson says:
“The question that should be asked is what is really going on. These wild swings in temps over the short range have nothing whatsoever to do with anthropogenic warming or climate change.”
Natural variations. Noise. There have been 15 times in the where UAH LT’s variation was (in absolute value) >= this month’s value of -0.27 C.
There’s nothing noteworthy about the 16th time.
Gordon Robertson wrote:
“The IPCC confirmed that ACO2 is a small percentage of the 0.04%, which is 96% from natural sources.”
False and false.
aCO2 is now 31% of the atmosphere’s CO2; CO2 has increased 45% since the pre-industrial era.
And nature absorbs more CO2 than it emits, Gordon. It’s aCO2 that is resposible for the modern increase.
DA…”aCO2 is now 31% of the atmospheres CO2; CO2 has increased 45% since the pre-industrial era.”
You’ll need to supply scientific proof and proxy studies are social science not real science.
Even if you’re right, which you’re not, 31% of nothing is still nothing.
Gordon Robertson wrote:
“Youll need to supply scientific proof and proxy studies are social science not real science.”
See the IPCC 5AR that you like to cite.
“Even if youre right, which youre not, 31% of nothing is still nothing.”
Nothing? Would you like to instantly be 31% richer, Gordon?
One more time I express my hope that lousy people cowardly pretending behind their fake name NOAA being corrupt will be prosecuted by Justice.
Or prosecute NOAA. Courts require evidence though, so defamation is easier.
Sorry to insist, Svante: I’m not speaking here about simplicity but about cowardice. Trolls like Robertson do not slander because it is easier than to convince a court.
Take it easy, gents. I continue to notice NOAA cleaning up their act. We may be able to soon start believing their data.
binny…”One more time I express my hope that lousy people cowardly pretending behind their fake name NOAA being corrupt will be prosecuted by Justice”.
Your denial is incredible. NOAA is currently under investigation by a US government house committee. One of the charges is falsifying the temperature record.
NOAA has refused to cooperate. Can you offer a good reason why a scientific organization, funded by the US government, who are there masters, should refuse to cooperate with a government investigation?
I can, they are guilty as charged.
FactCheck.org says “No Data Manipulation at NOAA”.
http://www.factcheck.org/2017/02/no-data-manipulation-at-noaa/
Thanks Svante, I never did read that in such detail before.
One of the charges is falsifying the temperature record.
Their key source for that charge (Bates) rejects it.
It’s pretty clear that the charge is without substance. The long-term temp record would be warmer if they did no adjustments. The early SST revision was the largest and it reduced long-term warming. As Hausfather said, if they were cooking the books to increase warming, they have already shot themselves in the foot with that revision.
But its nonsense. All the global temp record groups are constantly trying to improve the methods, including UAH. It’s the politicians who are… playing politics.
Give up Gordon.
A. You have lost.
B. You are repeating yourself.
C. You are talking rubbish re ACO2
Gordon is a serial liar. He simply does not care about facts or science.
davie tried to claim the knows physics. Every time he is shown he is wrong, he just calls out “liar”!
It’s fun to watch.
g*r…”davie tried to claim the knows physics. Every time he is shown he is wrong, he just calls out liar!
Its fun to watch”.
It’s always fun watching alarmists trying to wriggle out of a losing argument. DA calls me a liar and norman patronizes me, claiming my understanding of science is nil.
It’s been well-documented here, Gordon, both by me, Norman, Des, barry and others, that you are indeed a liar.
It’s evident from this post alone, not to mention all the other ones over the past.
And you continue to lie.
You appear to have no qualms whatsoever about lying, repeatedly, or any shame.
I’ve liked all the Canadians I’ve ever met — used to work closely with them on a cross-border 800 service for MCI/Bell Canada.
But you’re the worst I’ve ever met.
And your credentials include customer service representative for Bell Canada only?
Gordon Robertson
I am not claiming you understanding of science is “nil” it is far worse. You make up your own version of reality and think it is factual when you are shown hundreds of times it is flawed thinking and goes against established science. The only “science” you know and understand is your own make believe version of it.
I also have told you numerous times I am not an “alarmist” nor do I wiggle out of losing arguments. It is impossible to win any argument with a person who makes up their own reality. In your own mind you are always right. It does not make it so in reality but in your delusional mental state you are always right.
g*e*r*a*n likewise cannot lose an argument since he is unable to argue anything. He just ignores questions asked of him.
The con-man claims: “g*e*r*a*n likewise cannot lose an argument since he is unable to argue anything. He just ignores questions asked of him.”
Norm, I cannot lose arguments because I am always correct!
And, I only ignore questions from con-men and phonies.
g*e*r*a*n
YOU: “Norm, I cannot lose arguments because I am always correct!”
Yes with your fantasy physics that you Joe Postma made up for you, you would be correct. In your delusional belief system you will always be correct since you made up the rules.
In real world empirical and experimental physics you are completely wrong.
Do an experiment to prove your opinion that a non-heated plate will reach the same temperature of a heated plate. You won’t be able to do this since it is based upon made up physics.
Con-man, have you noticed that the only way you get anything right is to quote me directly?
Well, whatever you must do, I guess.
Norman, g*e*r*a*n,
I have a vacuum pump, can you propose a test with this:
https://tinyurl.com/y9u222fb
Two sheets of metal, a lamp on top, ice underneath?
Rip apart and measure?
Do we even need vacuum, energy loss rate depends on temperature difference for conduction and convection too.
prof…”Give up Gordon.
A. You have lost.
B. You are repeating yourself.
C. You are talking rubbish re ACO2″
I’ll consider your whine when you supply convincing proof.
Start providing the evidence for your own claims here, Gordon.
Um doesn’t this precipitous drop mean anthropogenic CO2 is below natural variability?
No.
Yes.
No.
Hi hi hi
This is still above the trend value of +0.28 despite La Nina conditions. We should be BELOW the trend. (And we will be as the La Nina develops further).
Second warmest November on record.
1. 2016 +0.46
2. 2017 +0.36
3. 2015 +0.34
4. 2009 +0.28
5. 1990 +0.25
6. 2014 +0.24
7. 2002 +0.21
8. 2005 +0.20
It seems from denier comments above that returning to above average conditions from ridiculously high anomalies somehow negates warming.
It was El Nino conditions that drove up the anomaly. There’s a 3-4 month lag so the La Nina conditions are not yet affecting the satellite monthly value. You’ll have to wait until around February to see it.
We also start to feel the effect of the AMO over the NH when the Arctic starts venting more heat. This goes from November into April.
It is very easy to believe whatever you want by ignoring natural cycles.
Thanks for confirming that this month’s anomaly is the response to NEUTRAL conditions, so should be considered representative of the long-term trend.
Further thanks for confirming that anomalies that we will see in coming months should NOT be considered representative of the long-term trend.
Can I assume from your comment that *YOU* won’t be ignoring the downward phase of these natural “cycles” as you express your belief in coming months? Or will your “logic” perform the old denier switcheroo?
+1
des, I easily understood the points made by RIchard M. Maybe if you asked some responsible questions, he would be willing to help you.
We are currently at the top of the AMO cycle as far as it affects the GAST. I don’t expect much more of a drop in the UAH anomaly going forward until the La Nina kicks in. Then, it should drop. And yes, that drop would be just as irrelevant as the bump up that happened across the recent El Nino.
The AMO will likely stay positive for another 5-8 years so it will be quite awhile before its effect goes away completely. However, we are at the tail end of the positive phase which means we might have a year or two that dips down into negative values. This could lead to an increase in sea ice.
The biggest effect of the AMO is the reduction in Arctic sea ice and the related release of heat from the ocean. If we were to see a quick recovery in sea ice then I would expect the GAST to respond quickly.
Des on December 2, 2017 at 1:46 AM
This is still above the trend value of +0.28 despite La Nina conditions. We should be BELOW the trend.
Des, I apologise for contradiction!
But as explained above, the lower troposphere needs a lot of time to react to ENSO.
Here is a chart with an ENSO plot (MEI in this case) shifted by four months:
http://4GP.ME/bbtc/1512252478722.jpg
Moreover, you see in the graph that UAH’s TLT response to La Nina events is a lot weaker than that to the Ninos. With the exception, of course, of those Ninos having occured at the same time as powerful volcanic events like St Helens + El Chichon, or Pinatubo.
CO2 does not matter. Only the amount of water vapor and the wind direction in the tropics counts.
http://tropic.ssec.wisc.edu/real-time/mtpw2/product.php?color_type=tpw_nrl_colors&prod=global2×pan=24hrs&anim=html5
Whatever you say buddy. You’ve certainly said it enough times over and over to convince yourself.
Independently of ren I have demonstrated, for average global temperature, that CO2 does not matter and that water vapor does. Click my name.
Water vapor trend is increasing 1.5% per decade and has been since 1960. The warming from added water vapor is welcome and countering the cooling that would otherwise be occuring but the added water vapor raises the risk of catastrophy from precipitation related flooding.
Then you will have no problem publishing a peer-reviewed paper on your “results”.
Exactly, Des.
And please let me add that the meaning of a Pen’s emeritus like Craig Bohren counts in my mind a lot more than Mr Pangburn’s “results”:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/11/uah-global-temperature-update-for-october-2017-0-63-deg-c/#comment-274203
The peer reviewers are ‘in the tank’ and reject anything that disagrees with their preconceived notions.
Ask Dr Roy . . .
Everyone knows it, other than useful idiots.
You need something new or news worthy to publish.
Though fake news, works.
Dan Pangburn says:
“The peer reviewers are in the tank and reject anything that disagrees with their preconceived notions.”
That’s just how you protect your little ego, Dan, how you coccoon yourself.
Have you ever TRIED to get a paper published with your astonishing, amazing, tremendous world-altering claim?
Because no one is paying attention to your blog or blog comments.
des…”Then you will have no problem publishing a peer-reviewed paper on your results.”
The typical alarmist whine, even though peer review neither confirms nor denies the truth. Nothing more than an opinion.
binny…”And please let me add that the meaning of a Pens emeritus like Craig Bohren counts in my mind a lot more than Mr Pangburns results:”
You failed to mention that Craig Bohren is an AGW skeptic. He claimed in one of his books that the heat trapping/blanket effect of GHGs is at worst, plain silly, and he has dismissed the back-radiation theory as simply a model.
Gordon Robertson wrote:
“The typical alarmist whine, even though peer review neither confirms nor denies the truth.”
No one claims it does. But it does weed-out crap (like Pangburns’), and ensures the author(s) know what work came before then. Valuable.
Dav – You ask “why havent you submitted your work to a real science journal?”. That was answered upthread.
Your comments reveal that your mind is made up (apparently you think predicting temperature increase twice actual is good enough).
Also, apparently, you are too stubborn to discover that the time-integral of SSN anomalies is an excellent proxy for the suns contribution to earth temperature change and that the rise in water vapor is contributing part. Nearly all of the rest is due to ocean surface temperature cycles for which no one has nailed down a cause.
And, that the combination of the above explains 98+% of reported measured average global temperature without needing any contribution from CO2 whatsoever.
“..but the added water vapor raises the risk of catastrophy from precipitation related flooding.”
It seems there would be problem providing any evidence of increasing water vapor increasing the risk catastrophy from precipitation related flooding
gba – regarding “…problem providing any evidence…” Compelling evidence appears to me to be easy: It obviously rains more where it is humid (tropical rain forest) and less where it is arid (desert). Also, increased humidity means more is going up and what goes up must come down. Precipitation related flooding is fairly common. Certainly more precipitation increases risk of flooding and flooding can be a catastrophy.
“Dan Pangburn says:
December 4, 2017 at 4:13 PM
gba regarding problem providing any evidence Compelling evidence appears to me to be easy: It obviously rains more where it is humid (tropical rain forest) and less where it is arid (desert). Also, increased humidity means more is going up and what goes up must come down. Precipitation related flooding is fairly common. Certainly more precipitation increases risk of flooding and flooding can be a catastrophy.”
“British Columbias coastal temperate rainforest is home to some of the largest trees in the world. The animals in this ecosystem are adapted to the moist climate. The trees of the coastal temperate rainforest use the 250 cm of annual rainfall and can live to be hundreds of years old (old growth trees), and grow to be approximately 90 metres tall. BCs coastal rainforest is dominated by coniferous trees, which makes it different from other temperate rainforests.”
https://www.scienceworld.ca/resources/units/coastal-temperate-rainforests
Lot’s of rain and no catastrophic flooding. I had move to the Desert of LA to find catastrophic flooding.
“And, that the combination of the above explains 98+% of reported measured average global temperature without needing any contribution from CO2 whatsoever.”
About 2%.
Hmm.
Well I don’t think greenhouse gas add 33 K.
I tend to think the entire atmosphere adds about 15 C
Though we could choose to use K rather than C.
so 15 C = 288 K so about 5 K.
I think a lot people could agree that 400 ppm of CO2
adds less than 5 C.
If don’t include all the silliness of CO2 being part of the forcing circus act.
Oh, But you said of reported warming- so say, .08 C?
and .0784 C not having to do with CO2 rise of say, 300 to 400 ppm.
Less than .016 C.
Whereas IPCC said something like more than half of .4 C rise from 1950 was from CO2. Or + .2 C.
And IPCC, of course, is including “the forcing circus act”. And if they didn’t include it- about .1 C
Anyhow. Roughly, I guess I agree.
But if circle back to the circus act of CO2 causing increase in water vapor. How much is due to increased water vapor?
gba, “How much is due to increased water vapor?”
My conclusion is essentially ALL of it. Non condensing ghg have no significant effect but there might be something as yet not identified.
So CO2 doesn’t absorb IR? Did you tell John Tyndall?
Dan, you should publish this finding somewhere — any science journal — ANY — would love to publish such a paper, assuming it passes peer review. You’d be world famous, from here to eternity.
Dav, If you weren’t too stubborn to look at my stuff you would know better about CO2 and climate.
The people who believe in AGW caused by CO2 are the people who are denying science. The science of thermalization, the Maxwell-Boltzmann distribution of molecule energy, and, quantum mechanics explain why CO2, in spite of being IR active (AKA a ghg) does not now, has never had and will never have a significant effect on climate.
Dan, I don’t look at your stuff because you’re just another crank on the Internet who’s afraid to have his work reviewed by experts.
Get your claims published somewhere real, in a real journal, peer reviewed by real scientists, and I’ll be the first to start writing about it.
And explain why CO2 *doesn’t* heat the planet, when the evidence is so stark: https://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/schmidt_05/curve_s.gif
Until then you’re just another denier.
Dav, So you lack the confidence in your own skill to review my stuff. Sad.
If you had looked at my stuff, you would have seen that graph you linked to (Its Fig 3) along with the explaination of how it demonstrates CO2 has no significant effect on climate.
Dan, I have plenty of knowledge to evaluate your work. It looks like the work of a crank.
But you don’t have the confidence to submit your work to review by the experts. What a shame.
Dan Pangburn says:
“If you had looked at my stuff, you would have seen that graph you linked to (Its Fig 3)….”
I don’t waste time on crap like that.
THere is an infinite amount of it on the Internet.
Get your claims published somewhere decent and I’ll be the first to read it carefully.
DA…”I dont look at your stuff because youre just another crank on the Internet…”
Then you quote Gavin Schmidt. Schmidt had to be corrected on the meaning of positive feedback by engineer Jeffrey Glassman, then he refused an opportunity to debate Richard Lindzen.
You really are an idiot Appell. An appeal-to-authority idiot.
DA…”THere is an infinite amount of it on the Internet”.
Unfortunately, you lack the ability in science to interpret it correctly.
Gordon, I’m careful to cite all the science I present here.
You, on the other hand, make wild crazy claims while providing no evidence for anything.
Gordon Robertson says:
“Then you quote Gavin Schmidt. Schmidt had to be corrected on the meaning of positive feedback by engineer Jeffrey Glassman, then he refused an opportunity to debate Richard Lindzen.”
I highly doubt it. Prove it.
Dav, Interesting, you say “I dont look at your stuff” and then you say “It looks like the work of a crank.” That contradiction does not do much for your credibility.
I expect you believe that you “have plenty of knowledge to evaluate” my work. But I see no indication that you have sufficient understanding of transient heat transfer, or thermalization, or the increase in water vapor which is twice what it is calculated to be as a result of temperature rise of the liquid water, or that climate science has been misguided regarding the meaning of feedback since the 1984 paper was published that Hansen was a party to.
If you understood the meaning of effective thermal capacitance you might be aware that the reported yearly up and down oscillations of average global temperature and (displayed on your website) ocean heat content, are absolutely impossible and reality for the planet is better represented with some smoothing.
Dan, I’ve seen your equation. It is ugly and clearly a pile of concocted horsesh!t
Curve fitting is not science.
Dan, why haven’t you submitted your work to a real science journal?
Begging for attention on denialist science blogs will get you noticed by precisely no one that matters in any way at all.
The strength of the polar vortex will surprise people in the eastern US.
http://pics.tinypic.pl/i/00950/cg5dd8l7c5p3.png
When the polar vortex moves south, it has WEAKENED.
I agree, because solar activity is very low.
http://cosmicrays.oulu.fi/webform/monitor.gif
So you meant to say “The WEAKNESS of the polar vortex will surprise people in the eastern US”.
ren…”So you meant to say The WEAKNESS of the polar vortex will surprise people in the eastern US”.
Ignore Des, he’s an alarmist troll and an idiot.
So want him to ignore CORRECT SCIENCE and pretend that wild fluctuations in the course of the jet stream are due to strengthening rather than weakening?? But of course, we should not expect anything different from you.
Gordon Robertson
The strength of the polar vortex does not mean a strong polar vortex. The polar vortex is strong, even if it is weak. And Americans should know that.
The polar vortex will remain in the east of the US for longer. He will also attack in Europe.
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat_a_f/gif_files/gfs_z100_nh_f168.png
“The polar vortex is strong, even if it is weak.”
What do you call this dance of yours?
“He will also attack in Europe.”
The polar vortex grew balls?
I’m sorry, but it will be a big thermal shock in the next week.
http://pics.tinypic.pl/i/00950/zlxy6zst7jgj.png
I am sorry, volcanic activity is also important.
https://magma.vsi.esdm.go.id/live/seismogram/
Volcanoes in Indonesia work with La Nina.
http://tropic.ssec.wisc.edu/real-time/mtpw2/product.php?color_type=tpw_nrl_colors&prod=ausf×pan=24hrs&anim=html5
A charted temperature increase corresponds with man’s population boom and rise into Industrialism. It’s reasonable to suspect a link to man. But so what. I use evidence similarly to suspect a God. I don’t boast or beat people over the head about it. Obviously, a clean Earth is nearly everybody’s goal and so is expanding economic opportunity. This issue doesn’t have to break us, but it should push us into diligent work so we avoid encouraging calamitous events.
I fully agree.
The cheapest thing we ever did to avoid calamitous events, was explore space.
I suggest we continue to explore space.
argus…”But so what. I use evidence similarly to suspect a God”.
You’re in good company. Isaac Newton wrote several volumes on the Bible and was devoutly religious.
Gordon Robertson says:
“Isaac Newton wrote several volumes on the Bible and was devoutly religious.”
Anyone can make a mistake. Newton, although named Exchequer, also lost almost all his money on a South Pacific market bubble.
What does that have to do with his physics and the vast amount of evidence that supports them?
A slowdown in the rising of global temperature (whatever that means and no matter how slight or short-lived) should be cause for celebration among the alarmists since they are, after all, the ones speaking about the immense danger of rising temperatures.
And, yet, the thread shows the alarmists are unequivocally upset, even angry, by the news.
What a stubborn comment, a perfect puzzle piece in the long, long sequence of your nonsensical elucubrations.
The Read Thread in all that: you never write anything substantial, never express an own meaning wrt what is discussed here, never refer to sources one could learn from.
All you manage to do is to discredit other people.
Bin, obviously you missed Laura’s point.
Maybe something was lost in all your translations.
I missed nothing.
When you miss the point. It’s always beneficial to claim you didn’t.
Hilarious.
binny…”you never write anything substantial, never express an own meaning wrt what is discussed here, never refer to sources one could learn from”.
Describing yourself…again???
Please reference a comment that illustrates anger at the November anomaly, and not just anger at nonsense comments like yours.
… and the self-identifying alarmists continue to struggle with their own contradictory and paradoxical feelings on the subject.
The fact is, as we all know quite well, that alarmists are desperate for Armageddon and only insinuations of such far-flung possibility satisfy them.
There has been a point of no return, indeed, for these anti-human lunatics.
Anti-human? Those who understand and admit the science of today’s rapid global warming are concerned about its impact on our society, and on future generations.
I don’t see that you’re interested in anything except ideology and insulting your betters.
davie, no wonder you prefer the bottom of the pile.
That way, no one can “insult their betters”, since there is no one below you.
Enjoy your spot at the bottom of the heap.
DA…”Those who understand and admit the science of todays rapid global warming are concerned about its impact on our society, and on future generations”.
Then you should do as Laura claims and rejoice at the proof of no global warming. It’s obvious that you are hoping for catastrophic warming the way you avoid signs to the contrary.
Global Warming hasn’t ceased in any way, Gordon.
“GW” is due to natural cycles. “AGW” never started, because it is a hoax.
I guess you were unable to find such a quote.
the thread shows the alarmists are unequivocally upset, even angry, by the news
No one is upset or angry about this month’s anomaly. A drop for November was predicted by all stripes. What nonsense you spout.
Why are you so angry then?
Am I?
Yup.
Nope.
barry…”No one is upset or angry about this months anomaly. A drop for November was predicted by all stripes. What nonsense you spout”.
The point is, you alarmists are perversely hoping it will continue to rise.
More of your fiction, Gordon.
Gordon Robertson says:
“The point is, you alarmists are perversely hoping it will continue to rise.”
No — we know that it will continue to rise. Because physics.
Huge difference.
davie meant “psychics”.
Laura…”A slowdown in the rising of global temperature (whatever that means and no matter how slight or short-lived) should be cause for celebration …”
Actually, it has been cooling since February 2016. It’s just taking its time.
So 18 months after the coming La Nina is over, will you still be saying “it has been warming since (… the peak of the La Nina …)”? Or will you again toggle your method of analysis of warming/cooling trends?
Gordon Robertson says:
“Actually, it has been cooling since February 2016.”
Actually it’s been cooling since June 2015, according to a linear model that doesn’t deserve to be used here. But that conclusion is in no way statistically significant, which is par for Gordon’s claims.
… and the alarmists continue to identifying themselves as such.
Apparently, so they claim, it is not their own doing.
You see, it is everyone else’s fault that they self-identify as alarmists.
The rub, of course, is that they know who they are and why.
Thread after thread after thread of angry, machine-like retorts and, yet, they claim to be in bliss.
Can they be so unaware of their real state of mind?
Of course not.
Come on, give it a go.
As an alarmist, can you really not acknowledge (to yourself, no witnesses) that you would very much prefer, say, ten times more hurricanes, not one season, but year after year?
Why not just admit once and for all that it is unfortunate (for alarmists) that the climate these last three decades has been, you know, not much to write home about?
PS: You are an alarmist if after reading the last question you cannot help but reach for your list of climate porn.
You’re not doing a very good job of pretending to be female.
Sexist.
Or at contriving what ‘alarmists’ think.
Laura
“A slowdown in the rising of global temperature (whatever that means and no matter how slight or short-lived) should be cause for celebration among the alarmists…”
This doesn’t represent a slowdown in global warming, alas. In fact, the November 2017 value fractionally ‘increases’ UAH’s long term warming rate (since Dec 1978). The November value is much lower than October’s, but it is still very high historically.
TFN
So, in your highly scientific analysis, November “proves” the planet is about to explode.
Do you have a date for this “end of the Earth”?
(Hilarious.)
Do you EVER add a well thought out response to a comment that doesn’t involve straw man arguments and mockery? He was basically saying this month’s anomaly was still above the trend value. If you want to challenge that, what is stopping you from doing so in a dignified manner in a way that properly addresses the comment?
Of course, you will now attack my comment in the same infantile manner.
des, my “well thought out” responses only draw the infantile responses from Warmists.
That’s what make “climate comedy” fun.
Do you agree with the pseudoscience that the Earth is warming the Sun?
Hilarious.
As predicted, you avoid the subject matter and yet again post the musings of a madman.
des, you got something right!
davie believes that the Earth warms the Sun.
“Musings of a madman”.
Do you agree with davie?
Again you avoid the subject matter. Do you or do you not agree that this month’s anomaly was above the trend? If not, provide some actual ANALYSIS in order to challenge it.
Des put it more elegantly than me. Although the November value is below the October one, it still contributes to the overall warming trend.
This can be seen visually by anyone who plots the UAH data on a chart and adds a linear trend line. Values that fall above the line contribute slightly to the warming trend; values that fall below the line reduce the warming trend slightly. The November value falls above the trend line.
You can also demonstrate this mathematically by running the numbers (use the ‘LINEST’ tool in Excel, for example). The November value raises the trend in the full UAH data set from 0.1276 to 0.1278 C per decade. Trivial, I agree, but still upward; not “a slowdown in the rising of global temperature” as Laura had suggested.
TFN
Like so:
https://tinyurl.com/y7lnytxm
I agree Des, we should spend some time below the trend line in the future.
des, was your question directed to me?
“Do you or do you not agree that this months anomaly was above the trend?”
Was it meant to be rhetorical, or do you not understand trend lines?
Thanks for pointing that out, Nail. I noticed the same thing.
TFN…”This doesnt represent a slowdown in global warming, alas. In fact, the November 2017 value fractionally increases UAHs long term warming rate (since Dec 1978)”.
The UAH trend can in no way be attributed to AGW. For one, it began in a period of global cooling due to volcanic aerosols and remained below average for 19 years. That is not an indication of anthropogenic global warming.
The anomalies did not stay above the baseline till the 1998 extreme El Nino event, then it leveled off for 15 years to a flat trend. That 15 year flat trend is most definitely not an indication of AGW.
Sorry – WHICH eruption in the late 70s was strong enough to eject aerosols into the stratosphere?
I’d also like to hear the answer to Des’s question — which volcanic eruptions in the last ’70s?
Gordon Robertson says:
“The anomalies did not stay above the baseline till the 1998 extreme El Nino event”
Gordon lies again.
In fact, by Jan 1997 the trend of UAH LT v6.0 was +0.09 C/decade. Statistically significant.
Svante on December 2, 2017 at 4:16 AM
Why did he have to detrend his data?
‘Prior to analysis, all raw indices were linearly detrended’.
As I wrote somewhere above, the detrending of all indices seems to have as the one and only goal to hide the detrending of the AMO.
Originally, AMO detrending had as pretty good reason: to better show AMO’s cyclic 60 year character behind its trend. But inbetween, this cyclic character has superseded the original information to become AMO’s goal itself.
Thus, since the detrended AMO variant is now called AMO for short, the original has got this stupid name ‘undetrended’, what reminds me these californian wine makers calling their wines made in steel tanks ‘unwooded’ [sic].
Interestingly, no paper trying to show a natural source for warming with the help of a combination of AMO and PDO (trend-free as well of course) has ever made use of the original AMO data. For the entire record since 1856, this very probably wouldn’t work.
Below is a link to a graph showing, from 1856 to 2016,
– the two AMO variants,
together with
– the global temperature records produced by Hadley/CRU and the Berkeley Earth project.
http://4GP.ME/bbtc/1512251294591.jpg
Just like many people think that there is no global warming, of if well, that trace gases have nothing to do with it, I think, when looking at this graph, that AMO is all but a source of global temperature increase. It is no more than another tool to measure it.
Missing detail: the four running means generated by Excel out of the monthly time series span over 180 months.
Is it possible? AMO crossing below had.crut in 1998? Graph shows this unprecedented.
Feel free to download the data
http://tinyurl.com/y97ojeux
http://tinyurl.com/y786vcdq
and to have a look at it!
But before you do: think of the fact that on the graph I uploaded, it is not the AMO time series that crosses below, but rather its 180 month running mean.
Please find below a zoom into the graph’s satellite era with UAH added and BEST removed:
http://4GP.ME/bbtc/1512314108563.jpg
where you might inspect the situation more appropriately.
It is possible the AMO (in concert with the PDO) could be responsible for all of the warming (and cooling) which is often referred to as the Millennial cycle. This could explain the Minoan, Roman and Medieval warm periods as well as the intervening cooler periods.
Both appear to have cycles in the range of 60-70 years. If they differ by something like 4 years that would mean over time they would go into and out of phase with each other. You would have something like 15 cycles for a complete round trip = 900-1100 years.
Looking at a couple of centuries would tell you nothing.
This is not rocket science. It is an obvious possibility. In any real field of science these kinds of natural variations would be exhaustively examined. In climate pseudo-science they aren’t even investigated.
They are continually investigated.
Why do skeptics assume, when they haven’t checked whether scientists have examined stuff… that scientists haven’t examined that stuff?
Because it’s easier to be ignorant than actually do some research. The intellectual depravity is quite plain.
barry rants: “The intellectual depravity is quite plain.”
Yes barry, it is quite plain. Just look at the number of folks that believe CO2 can heat the planet.
People like Roy Spencer.
If nothing is ever published on a subject then the only assumption can be that it hasn’t been investigated. In most science fields negative results are also published. However, it appears in climate science even mentioning natural climate factors is taboo.
Another reason the field is complete pseudo-science.
Richard,
Barry’s point is GO LOOK before claiming. There are hundreds of papers on these topics.
About thirty years after having published his first paper about the laws of Thermodynamics, Rudolf Clausius presented a long reedition of his entire work.
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.
So no: the Earth doesn’t warm the Sun!
But the Sun’s warming of Earth as well must, according to Clausius, be viewed as the result of a simultaneous double heat exchange.
Nothing will prevent a LWIR photon emitted by Earth in direction of the Sun to reach the star.
The fact that Sun’s contribution is probably more than 10^^20 higher than Earth’s doesn’t change anything to the rules described in physics books, like that of father and son Lienhard, that of Frank Incropera or that of Michael Modest.
Who doesn’t understand this and stupidly discredits Clausius’ thoughts should read these three books instead.
Bin tries his obfuscation: “Nothing will prevent a LWIR photon emitted by Earth in direction of the Sun to reach the star.”
What does that mean to you, Bin?
Are you implying that that LWIR photon will then warm the Sun?
A photon traveling toward an object does NOT mean the photon will be “accepted”.
Your failure to understand quantum physics is your problem, not mine.
g*e*r*a*n on December 2, 2017 at 5:54 PM
A photon traveling toward an object does NOT mean the photon will be accepted.
As long as you do not present scientific litterature proving what you write, it remains no more than your private allegation.
Bin, here’s some “scientific litterature” [sic} for you.
Bounce a tennis ball and see if it bounces higher, and higher, and higher, and higher.
Hilarious.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/11/24/can-a-cold-object-warm-a-hot-object/#comment-2675742
Bindidon,
Thanks for the link.
I am looking forward to having a ring side seat (do you want to join me ?) to the mayhem of the next grudge match between Joe Postma, g*e*r*a*n, Gordon etc. on one side and Willis Eschenbach and Anthony Watts (see https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/11/24/can-a-cold-object-warm-a-hot-object/#comment-2675648) on the other side.
An oldie on the same topic is http://joannenova.com.au/2011/05/why-greenhouse-gas-warming-doesnt-break-the-second-law-of-thermodynamics/ and of course we have Roy Spencer ridiculing, on more than one occasion. the arguments that g*e*r*a*n and Gordon advance.
It seem the argument is even too stupid for those that are normally philosophical and political bedfellows
The post by WIllis is not alarming. There’s nothing really to argue about, except a possible minor semantic, here or there.
You might fall asleep in your “ring side seat”.
Yes, skeptics Anthony Watts, Roy Spencer and JoNova agree that the atmosphere radiates groundward, and that this back radiation is the radiative process that slows the rate of radiation escape from the surface to space:
The second law does not say a cold object cannot pass heat to a warmer object, it states that NET heat flow is always from warmer to colder…
The a.b.s.o.r.p.t.i.o.n does not depend on whether the object struck is warmer or colder than the object that emitted the energy, it only depends on the a.b.s.o.r.p.t.i.v.i.t.y of the struck object. However that object also emits energy some of which will radiate back to the first object and again be absorbed. Because the warmer object emits more energy there will be more traveling from warmer to cooler than vice versa and hence the NET heat flow will be from warmer to cooler.
And here is an excellent point:
The mechanism by which this energy loss is reduced cannot be by reducing the heat radiated by the surface because the atmosphere cannot influence the emissivity of the surface. Rather it acts by returning some of the energy radiated back to the surface. This is the back radiation.
You could quibble over semantics, but this is the actual radiative mechanism by which rate of heat loss from surface to space is reduced.
barry, you keep striving with your blah, blah, blah to somehow explain the 2nd Law.
Just go with the KISS principle–“Keep it simple, stupid”.
“Cold” cannot warm “hot”.
Simple.
3 prominent skeptic websites agree with the mainstream view on back radiation. Those quotes above are from one of them (JoNova).
As usual, you have nothing but rhetoric.
You’re wrong. Simple enough for you?
barry, the three websites you mentioned are operated by “Lukewarmers”, not “Skeptics”.
Sorry, but you’ve got it wrong again.
Your view of them places you firmly in the extreme crazy land of AGW ‘skepticism’.
barry, I’ve been describing myself as an “extreme Skeptic” for years. Where have you been?
In the land of thinking better of you, apparently.
Why don’t you dazzle us with a RELEVANT (a hard ask I know) explanation that illustrates your understanding of quantum mechanics. Bear in mind while answering that the process taking place at the 15 micron level does not involve changes in electron energy levels – that process is reserved for photons with much higher energy.
des, hre are some basics for you to consider:
First, the term “quantum mechanics” generally refers to the movements of the electrons, such as spin, orbital, momentum, etc. The term “quantum physics” typically refers to the larger field, involving specific emissions. People sometimes use the terms interchangeably, but there is a distinction.
Second, both emission and “acceptance” are based on energy levels, with is determined by wavelength/frequency. So, claiming that ALL photons are ALWAYS “accepted” just means that someone doesn’t understand quantum physics.
— Bindidon says:
December 2, 2017 at 5:14 PM
About thirty years after having published his first paper about the laws of Thermodynamics, Rudolf Clausius presented a long reedition of his entire work.
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.
So no: the Earth doesnt warm the Sun!
But the Suns warming of Earth as well must, according to Clausius, be viewed as the result of a simultaneous double heat exchange. —
Within the disintegrating heat, one see a very distance firefly.
Alas, warm me even so distance firefly, for I am cooling very rapidly.
gbaikie says:
“So no: the Earth doesnt warm the Sun!”
Does the Earth radiate in all directions?
Does radiation carry energy?
Does some of this radiation reach the Sun?
Does the Sun absorb this energy?
What happens to an object’s temperature when it absorbs energy?
“What happens to an objects temperature when it absorbs energy?”
The object which radiates the energy cools [or transfers the energy to object absorbing the energy- the energy is always conserved [first law] – so one object cools and loses energy to the one absorbing and therefore gaining in temperature].
DA…”Does radiation carry energy?
yes…electromagnetic energy. No heat involved with EM radiating through space.
“Does some of this radiation reach the Sun?”
Theoretically possible.
“Does the Sun absorb this energy?”
No. The absorbing electrons on the Sun are at an incredibly high energy level already and the ridiculously intensity of the EM from the Earth would have no effect whatsoever.
Stop it Dave
gbaikie…”the cold body always experiences an increase in heat at the expense of the warmer one”.
You know this already, I am repeating for the likes of DA, binny, and norman. Clausius says only what the 2nd law states that the hotter body can warm the colder body.
— Gordon Robertson says:
December 3, 2017 at 2:40 AM
gbaikiethe cold body always experiences an increase in heat at the expense of the warmer one.–
to clarify, gbaikie quoted Bindidon and Bindidon was quoting Rudolf Clausius, and Rudolf Clausius wrote: …the cold body always experiences an increase in heat at the expense of the warmer one
Gordon Robertson says me:
You know this already, I am repeating for the likes of DA, binny, and norman. Clausius says only what the 2nd law states that the hotter body can warm the colder body.”
Binny, myself, Gordon are repeating what the Clausius wrote.
And Gordon repeating it for the sake of DA, binny, and norman.
Whereas I am citing it, as part of prelude to a tiny offering of vogon poetry:
“Vogon poetry is described as “the third worst poetry in the Universe” (behind that of the Azgoths of Kria; four members of an audience died of internal haemorrhaging during a recitation by their poet master Grunthos the Flatulent of his poem “Ode to a Small Lump of Green Putty I Found in My Armpit One Midsummer Morning” while the President of the Mid-Galactic Arts Nobbling Council survived by gnawing one of his own legs off. Grunthos himself was later killed by his own major intestine, which leaped up through his neck and throttled his brain when he attempted to read his twelve-book epic “My Favourite Bathtime Gurgles”. Etc:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vogon#Poetry
But it seems most would agree that Earth doesn’t warm the Sun. The being quite large, very hot and very far away.
Nor does the earth warm any of the planets or stars in the sky. The Earth does warm the Moon by small amount and the Moon warms Earth by something like 1 joule per square meter.
The Moon is quite close and there are parts of the Moon and Earth which are quite cold.
Temperature of a warmer object does not prevent radiation from a cooler one being absorbed by it. The sun could well absorb a fraction of Earth’s radiation, but “this simultaneous double heat exchange,” as Clauasius puts it (I’d call it radiation exchange) results in a NET flow from hot to cold. Always.
Except if the thermodynamic system isn’t adiabatic.
davie, except if you have no clue about thermodynamics.
But, I probably repeated myself.
Indeed you did. That tends to happen when you have no science of your own to contribute and restrict yourself to troll comments.
Des
g*e*r*a*n must restrict his comments to trolling. Insults and mindless points. When he does attempt physics he is a moron and demonstrates his stupidity. He knows he is a total faker and knows very little science. He pretends he knows things by looking up a few physics terms and presenting them like he knows what they mean. He really doesn’t know anything at all and comes up with some really illogical thoughts.
That is why 99% of his comments contain no physics or science, just some “pet names” he makes up for other posters. He is not a very bright person. He lacks creativity even when he tries to come up with some insults and derogatory comments.
If you have not seen this yet it is what I see when I read g*e*r*a*n’s empty posts.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8JqT8jUbWNA
The con-man demonstrates his “psychological projection”: “He knows he is a total faker and knows very little science.”
Norm has never has a meaningful physics course. His weak technical background is represented by his menial tasks as lab assistant, washing dishes.
Hilarious.
g*e*r*a*n
You forgot to mention the huge difference between me an you. I possess intelligence and learning ability. Regardless of starting point I am able to read and comprehend textbook material. This is something you are unable to do. You make up your own physics, study Joe Postma junk science and rarely post any material on physics.
You degrade people and name call but rarely engage in meaningful discourse.
You lack intelligence, creativity, reading ability and good manners. Pretty much a complete loser that wastes intelligent peoples’ time with meaningless sideline issues.
Probably this post was far too long for your highly limited attention span so it probably goes over your ability to process.
You are just a dumb person wishing he had some intelligence but the random dice did not offer you this ability.
The con-man is impressed with himself: “I possess intelligence and learning ability.”
Now, THAT is hilarious!
I see Davie is still peddling his “earth heats the sun” nonsense like some huckster Carny at the fair.
Nope.
An adiabatic system in thermodynamics is merely a system that doesn’t exchange any heat with it’s surroundings.
Period.
So if heat flows spontaneously from body at T1 to body at T2 with T2 > T1 neither body is an adiabatic system and even the whole thing doesn’t need to be an adiabatic system at all.
Yet it is quite true that there can indeed be a heat transfer from cold body to hot body but it is never a spontaneous natural irreversible proces with nothing else happening simultaneously.
It needs some other transformation to take place in environment, for instance work must to be done and dissipated (with relevant entropy production) in order to compensate for the entropy decrease associated with heat transfer from cold to hot.
Total entropy of universe must always increase.
A refrigerator is an example and that demands an electric grid and an extra source of energy such as coal, natural gas, wind or nuclear fission and solar fusion.
barry…”this simultaneous double heat exchange, as Clauasius puts it (Id call it radiation exchange) results in a NET flow from hot to cold…”
Clausius said nothing about a two-way heat exchange he said the cooler body gains heat at the expense of the hotter body. You called it a radiation change, not a heat exchange, but the 2nd law of Clausius makes it clear that heat can only be transfered hot to cold.
He said nothing about a net flow from hot to cold, that’s your idea. There is no such thing as a net flow of EM between a hotter and a colder body. You could not measure it even if you tried.
Clausius said nothing about a two-way heat exchange
What he said has been posted here many times.
—————————————————————-
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.
—————————————————————-
From:
THE MECHANICAL THEORY OF HEAT
by R. CLAUSIUS
Braunschweig, 1887
SECTION XII.
barry…”the total result of this simultaneous double heat exchange”
It is the ultimate in cherry picking to read one sentence from a scientist and use it to override everything else he has said. I have responded to this several times as well.
Clausius, and later Planck, presumed EM radiation was heat. Clausius in particular thought the ‘aether’ could conduct heat. Planck called radiation ‘heat rays’.
It was not till much later that people began to realize that electrons in atoms absorbed EM and converted it to heat. Planck lamented that if he’d taken electron theory more seriously it would have saved him a great deal of trouble with his calculations. He was aware of electrons, the theory being developed in the 1890s, but he ignored it till he realized it explained what he needed.
Electron theory was not presented till after the death of Clausius. He knew nothing about them, only about atoms. Given that fact, I think it’s amazing that he was able to develop the 1st law which is based on internal energy of atoms and their related work when vibrating in a solid.
It was Bohr who proposed the model of the atom around 1914. He claimed electrons had to exist in specific quantum level orbits around the nucleus based on their angular momentum. He also claimed that electrons could change energy levels by emitting a photon of EM equivalent to the energy level difference it fell. Alternately, it could absorb a quantum of EM provided the EM intensity level and frequency corresponded to an exact change in energy level.
That’s how astronomers detect hydrogen in stars. Hydrogen emits and absorbs EM ONLY at specific frequencies. By examining the types of lines they can determine the hydrogen density.
Clausius could have had no idea of Bohr’s work back in the mid to latter 1890’s when he did his work. He really thought heat was transferred through the aether, although no one knew what the aether was. Einstein eventually claimed it was not there.
We now know that heat cannot travel through space unless it’s by convection or conduction. It has to move as a bulk of atoms. When you feel the heat of a fire from a distance, you are feeling IR absorbed by your skin. The absorbed IR causes molecules in the skin to warm.
If you’re really close, you will experience the fire directly by convection, but in a cooler atmosphere in winter, only your front half will warm from radiation since the surrounding air is too cold for convection to be effective.
Gordon,
You said:
Clausius said nothing about a two-way heat exchange he said the cooler body gains heat at the expense of the hotter body.
I quoted him saying exactly both. Rather than admit he did say something about it, you weasel off to a lame ‘cherry-pick’ gambit.
Dude, all your comment required was one example that disproved that “Clausius said nothing about a two-way heat exchange.” And we have an extremely clear example of him doing exactly that.
It speaks well of people’s intellectual integrity when they are clear-minded enough to remember the point, and admit when they were wrong on it.
This shimmy to some other point, when the rebuttal was clear and stark, is intellectual dishonesty, pure and simple.
As I noted in my comments, I would call it a radiative exchange, not a heat exchange. Your comments hovered around that point. It was already covered in mine.
The head of a pin is a lonely place to dance.
barry…”Temperature of a warmer object does not prevent radiation from a cooler one being absorbed by it”.
Why don’t you take a close look at the Stefan-Bolzmann equation and show me where it indicates heat can be transferred both ways between objects of different temperature.
The equations has two temperature quantities, the temperature of the radiator, Tr, and the temperature of the surrounding atmosphere, Ta. Maybe there are other versions, it does not interest me much.
Obviously, if Tr = Ta the quantity is 0, inferring the net radiation is 0. If Ta > Tr, it infers the body is absorbing.
Nowhere does it address the issue of another body radiating. I have seen people on the Net try to do a two-body problem using S-B but I’ll bet they cannot prove it experimentally. Stefan admitted that.
SB law can be applied to two way radiative transfer.
http://au.mathworks.com/help/physmod/simscape/ref/radiativeheattransfer.html?requestedDomain=au.mathworks.com
barry, the SB law MUST be applied to all radiative transfer.
Did you believe you had discovered something new?
No, but maybe Gordon has learned something new.
binny…”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 is not talking about heat here he is talking about EM. Before the discovery of EM as a transfer mechanism for heat via radiation, it was thought heat could flow through the atmosphere as radiant energy. That idea persisted till at least the time of Planck who referred to EM as heat rays. People today mistakenly refer to such EM as thermal radiation. There is nothing thermal in the definition of EM.
Clausius indicates his overall understanding of the process, however, by claiming, “…the cold body always experiences an increase in heat at the expense of the warmer one”.
He obviously thought, as did others, that heat flowed through space, transferring heat physically from the warmer body to the cooler body. He says nothing about the reverse effect which would have contradicted his 2nd law.
We now know that heat is converted from thermal energy to EM in the warmer body and from EM back to thermal energy in the cooler body. That process is not reversible.
ps. Clausius is correct that the cooler body experiences an increase in heat at the expense of the warmer body. When the warmer body radiates EM it loses a quantum of heat equivalent to the intensity of the emitted EM. The cooler body receives that converted energy and that raises it’s heat content.
The process cannot be reversed.
Gordon just admitted that light quanta carry heat.
Finally…………………….
DA…”Gordon just admitted that light quanta carry heat.
Finally.”
Speaking of dementia, have you had your comprehension checked recently? I said nothing of the kind, I have stated all along that EM does not have heat as a property.
“…quantum of heat…”
And he just admitted that heat resides in material objects.
David Appell
It may be that Gordon Robertson does have actual dementia. My Father (90) has it and he cannot remember more than a few minutes of conversation. Also my Father can recall details of long past events but has little memory of current events. Gordon Robertson has good recall of 19th Century Physics but does not understand anything more modern. He rejects QM even though it came about from experimental evidence. He rejects EMR wave/particle duality even though many many experiments have demonstrated just that.
It appears to me that he is fairly old and wants to make some type of impact with his life. He is on a crusade to prove everything related to Global Warming is a hoax and lie (even if it means making up his own physics).
Gordon Robertson is not nearly as offensive as g*e*r*a*n who relishes in annoying people.
Norman, sorry for your father. My father had a stroke, and he is the same way.
David Appell
Yes it is a sad thing. They are there physically but what they had been is no longer. Was your Dad also interested in sciences?
norman…”It may be that Gordon Robertson does have actual dementia”.
Based on the one-sided discussions we’ve had, where I have been forced to school you on basic science, if I have dementia, you are an actual idiot, meaning you have an IQ somewhere in the 70s.
Svante posted a link that you read, and you still could not accept what they were saying about electrons being responsible for the absorp-tion and emission of EM. That information is in basic electronics theory and it’s applied later in the electronics related to communications.
If electrons could not emit and absorb EM, we’d have no wireless communications whatsoever. Basic antenna theory requires it. Nor would we have any light in the universe, or heat from the Sun.
Once again, what else is there in an atom or molecule that could possibly absorb and emit EM? There are only two particles in an atom with charge, the proton in the nucleus and the electrons orbiting it.
Come on, man, this is not rocket-science, it’s elementary atomic theory.
I have never rejected QM, the theory I am presenting to you is based on QM. I have simply cautioned that the more extreme claims of QM are based on highly theoretical math and should be carefully considered before believing them.
Do you seriously think that a particle a mile away from another particle can affect that particle? Einstein thought it was crazy, Schrodinger thought it was crazy, and so do I. However, many modern QM advocates talk about it as if it happens every day.
Schrodinger even proposed the Cat Paradox to mock that extreme form of QM. He claimed that, according to certain claims in QM, the cat could be either dead, alive, or both dead and alive. The father of QM divorced himself from the modern nonsense started by Bohr circa 1930.
That’s how stupid QM can get if you don’t approach it with a level head and a requirement that it makes sense in our reality. That’s what Einstein and Schrodinger demanded, it has to make sense in a physical reality.
DA…”And he just admitted that heat resides in material objects”.
Of course it does. Since heat is the kinetic energy of atoms in motion it must reside in material objects. You just can’t heat the Sun with radiation from the Earth as you have claimed several times.
Gordon Robertson
You have schooled me in NOTHING and forget everything we discuss. It seems you are unable to retain any conversation more than a short period of time and go about repeating what was discussed as if had never been.
From the last thread you just completely ignored. These quotes come straight from the Svante link you believe you understand.
HERE ONCE AGAIN: “Gordon Robertson
Your bias against GHE is so incredibly strong it blinds your reading ability.
YOU: Youre cherry picking, you have not read the entire article.
Read the material just under Figure 1 of Svante link.
It states: The energy of IR radiation is weaker than that of visible and ultraviolet radiation, and so the type of radiation produced is different. A*b*s*o*r*p*t*i*o*n of IR radiation is typical of molecular species that have a small energy difference between the rotational and vibrational states. A criterion for IR a*s*o*r*p*t*i*o*n is a net change in dipole moment in a molecule as it vibrates or rotates.
Also: The energy levels can be rated in the following order: electronic > vibrational > rotational. Each of these transitions differs by an order of magnitude. Rotational transitions occur at lower energies (longer wavelengths) and this energy is insufficient and cannot cause vibrational and electronic transitions but vibrational (near infra-red) and electronic transitions (ultraviolet region of the electromagnetic spectrum) require higher energies.
Problem is, even if you read this you will forget it in a little while and make claims that I never responded to you about it.
Gordon Robertson wrote:
“Once again, what else is there in an atom or molecule that could possibly absorb and emit EM?”
vib_rat_ional states
rot_at_ional states
nuclear states
phonons
weak bosons
and more………
First two are, of course, crucial for GHG ab_sorp_tion and em_ission of EM.
Gordon Robertson says:
“You just cant heat the Sun with radiation from the Earth as you have claimed several times.”
Does the Earth radiate in all directions?
Does radiation carry energy?
Does some of this radiation reach the Sun?
Does the Sun absorb this energy?
If not, why not?
If not, where does this energy go?
What happens to an objects temperature when it absorbs energy?
Gordon Robertson says:
“Since heat is the kinetic energy of atoms in motion it must reside in material objects”
Yet you just wrote about a “quantum of heat” being emitted….
That’s IR.
davie wants to know:
“Does the Sun absorb this energy?”
No.
“If not, why not?”
QP
UK Met Office Oct global anomaly is released. Like UAH and GISS, the surface anomaly increased from Sep to Oct.
https://tinyurl.com/ycxz3kfb
RSS and NOAA recorded a downshift from Sep to Oct.
UAH had the largest change of all of them.
barry…”UK Met Office Oct global anomaly is released”.
The UK Met Office is down there with NOAA and GISS. They were exposed in the 2009 Climategate email scandal when their leader Phil Jones advised his cronies via email to obstruct the FOI request submitted by Steve McIntyre to the UK government for a release of Met Office temperature data.
Jones claimed he could not release it because he had changed it and it did not all belong to him. In the same emails, he boasted that he and Kevin would see to it that a paper co-authored by John Christy of UAH would not make it into the IPCC review.
They are all collaborating to push the pseudo-science of AGW and there are alarmists on this blog supporting that scientific misconduct.
Gordon Robertson wrote:
“In the same emails, he boasted that he and Kevin would see to it that a paper co-authored by John Christy of UAH would not make it into the IPCC review.”
Another lie from Gordon.
Phil Jones was just blowing off steam to a friend, with the expectation his email would be private. Everyone has the right to do that.
Gordon can offer no evidence that Jones acted on this. None.
DA…”Phil Jones was just blowing off steam to a friend, with the expectation his email would be private. Everyone has the right to do that.
Gordon can offer no evidence that Jones acted on this. None”.
Seriously, what a lame excuse.
Does that explain how Jones made good on his boast to block the paper from the IPCC to which he referred?
Jones was referring to McIntyre’s paper. It was included in the 207 IPCC report.
Gordon, as usual, makes up complete rubbish.
Gordon Robertson wrote:
“Does that explain how Jones made good on his boast to block the paper from the IPCC to which he referred?”
What paper, Gordon?
Specifically, what paper?
In 2009 some of the data was copywritten by some of the national Met Offices around the world providing them, and Jones was not permitted to release them. As of right now, only data for Poland is unavailable according to their agreement.
The rest of the data has been available for years. When will skeptics do something with it?
So you’re saying Gordon again was misleading. Hardly surprising.
M&M didn’t ‘destroy’ the hockey stick.
Most of the data (95%) was already online in 2009, and by 2011, all but Polish data was available to the public.
Jones’ complaint was that McIntyre wasn’t interested in producing new work only in looking for fault.
Jones was absolutely right. In the 6 years since 99% of the data has been available, McIntyre has done nothing with it.
Raw NOAA data has also been available for years.
McIntyre still hasn’t done the work.
McIntyre is only interested in padding his pet peeves. He has contributed no paper to the debate for more than decade. All he wanted to do was tear down AGW. He failed. And when the data was available he changed the subject.
A fitting hero for you.
David,
DId you lose your job with the lying Obama administration. Where you would have fit right in (to quote you)
barry…”In 2009 some of the data was copywritten by some of the national Met Offices around the world providing them, and Jones was not permitted to release them”.
Then why did he reply to McIntyre initially, “Why should I release the data to you, you’ll use it against me”? That was after MacIntyre and McKitrick used Mann et al’s data in mbb98 to destroy the hockey stick.
Jones obviously knew there were inaccuracies in the data that McIntyre could expose.
M&M didnt ‘destroy’ the hockey stick.
Most of the data (95%) was already online in 2009, and by 2011, all but Polish data was available to the public.
Jones complaint was that McIntyre wasnt interested in producing new work only in looking for fault.
Jones was absolutely right. In the 6 years since 99% of the data has been available, McIntyre has done nothing with it.
Raw NOAA data has also been available for years.
McIntyre still hasnt done the work.
McIntyre is only interested in padding his pet peeves. He has contributed no paper to the debate for more than decade. All he wanted to do was tear down AGW. He failed. And when the data was available he changed the subject.
A fitting hero for you.
barry
I have some interesting lecture for you:
https://www.desmogblog.com/2014/11/30/mcintyre-mission-obsessive-quest-disprove-michael-mann-hockey-stick
Another chink in the armor of alarmists.
When Tyndall initially claimed that CO2 in the atmosphere would raise atmospheric temperatures, then Arrhenius claimed the same, they must have presumed there was no CO2 in the atmosphere.
At the time of the Industrial Era, the IPCC claimed a 270 ppmv concentration of CO2. Why did that level, which is much higher than the difference between then and 400 ppmv, not cause catastrophic warming and climate change? Same planet, same solar energy, same surface radiation.
It should have been enough to raise the level of water vapour to the tipping point claimed by Hanson, and now Schmidt.
Where’s the criteria and the proof for how much CO2 is required to raise atmospheric temperatures to a catastrophic level? Where’s the math? Schmidt claimed at a warming effect for CO2 of 9% to 25%, where’s the math?
I have submitted the math to support the Ideal Gas Equation and Dalton’s law of partial pressures to show CO2 could not possibly cause more than a few hundredths of a degree C warming based on an inadequate mass. Let’s see the math to support the hypothesis that CO2 can catastrophically warm the atmosphere.
Neither Tyndall nor Arrhenius produced the math. If they had, the equations would be available from alarmist scientists.
AGW conjecture is sheer pseudo-science.
270 ppm DID cause warming. More than 30C of it. The equilibrium temperature of the earth with no greendhouse gases is 255K.
Des says, December 3, 2017 at 2:45 AM:
Really? Then I’m sure you wouldn’t mind presenting the observational data from the real Earth system unequivocally showing this to be the case.
Here you go, Kristian:
https://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/schmidt_05/curve_s.gif
DA…Here you go, Kristian: https://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/schmidt_05/curve_s.gif”
There’s nothing in the graph to indicate it’s source, whether it was measured directly by instruments or whether it came from the nether regions of Schmidt’s mind.
And how exactly does that spectrum show that atmospheric CO2 is the cause of surface warming?
Kristian says:
“And how exactly does that spectrum show that atmospheric CO2 is the cause of surface warming?”
It shows that outgoing heat is blocked precisely at the wavelengths CO2 and other GHGs absorb.
Gordon Robertson says:
“Theres nothing in the graph to indicate its source, whether it was measured directly by instruments or whether it came from the nether regions of Schmidts mind.”
This came from published science, Gordon. You’re too lazy to look it up, and wouldn’t understand it anyway.
“THE FAR-INFRARED EARTH,” (2008) J. Harries et al, Rev. Geophys., 46, RG4004, doi:10.1029/2007RG000233
and the many references cited therein.
David Appell says, December 4, 2017 at 7:10 PM:
No, it doesn’t. It’s an EMISSION spectrum, not an A.B.S.O.R.P.T.I.O.N spectrum, as most people – including you – seem to believe. It doesn’t show the outgoing surface emission being partially ‘blocked’ (eaten into) by the overlying atmosphere. It shows the outgoing atmospheric emission. The atmosphere (the troposphere, really) is cooler than the surface. So its emission to space is naturally smaller. It doesn’t reveal the CAUSE of either the surface or the tropospheric temperature.
Try again.
PS: You could measure the Earth’s heat gain from the greenhouse by integrating the area between that figure’s red and black lines.
No, davie. You keep making the same mistake.
That “spectrum” you love so much is NOT “real Earth system”.
But, something tells me you will keep linking to it. It’s like your blanket. You just can’t get along without it.
Hilarious.
g*r…”Hilarious”.
Sad, actually. Most politicians believe this pseudo-science. Here in Canada one newspaper referred to our female Minster of Climate Change as a Climate Barbie. Totally apt, she comes across as a complete airhead with her gushing about climate change.
Gordon, I’m sure she’s much smarter and better informed than you are. Here you give no evidence of understanding anything. Not anything. And you repeatedly lie — all of us here see it.
Eventually it becomes tedious to list the same old canards and rebut them, and then to see new bits of bullshit made up wholesale.
When Tyndall initially claimed that CO2 in the atmosphere would raise atmospheric temperatures, then Arrhenius claimed the same, they must have presumed there was no CO2 in the atmosphere.
This stream of bollocks is limited only by the turgid imagination of skeptics.
barry…”Eventually it becomes tedious to list the same old canards and rebut them, and then to see new bits of bullshit made up wholesale”.
I took your protests with amusement since you took the statement from me above out of the context in which it was presented. You mist have skimmed the article and left in disgust after reading the above.
I went on to point out that 270 ppmv of CO2 should have created the tipping point of Hansen long before the Industrial Era. It should have at least lead to catastrophic climate change.
Everything seems to have been fine throughout recent history prior to the Industrial Era then all hell broke loose when we started emitting large quantities of CO2, which were initially dwarfed by the existing 270 ppmv.
Besides that, the Industrial Era occurred in the 2nd phase of the Little Ice Age when global temps were 1 to 2 C below normal. Does it not count if the LIA ended by 1850? The planet had to re-warm anyway, why blame it on something like anthropogenic gases?
Tyndall’s experiment was interesting but how about the experiments of Dalton, which lead to his law that is still valid today on partial pressures? There is no doubt that mixed gases in a fixed volume contribute heat to the mix based on their mass. Just how much can a gas with a mass of a few hundredths of a percent contribute?
I went on to point out that 270 ppmv of CO2 should have created the tipping point of Hansen long before the Industrial Era.
Nope, you went on to say that, which is one in your laundry list of canards.
Your nonsense is tiresome. 270 PPM was the pre-industrial baseline atmospheric CO2 content (280 is more cited) for thousands of years, and it reached that level from about 180 PPM at the end of the last ice age, when the biosphere underwent significant changes.
A change of total atmospheric CO2 content from 270 PPM to the current 403 PPM is an increase of 49%.
I tend to go with the higher pre-industrial baseline of 280 PPM, which is the value most often cited.
A change of total atmospheric CO2 content from 280 PPM to the current 403 PPM is an increase of 44%.
IOW, CO2 atmospheric content has increased by nearly half its total since the industrial revolution. That’s significant in anyone’s books.
Hi barry,
Just to give that some perspective …
Its a change of 0.0123 % of the atmospheric content …
Oh no! The sky is falling….!
Swallow that proportion of arsenic to your blood volume and report back.
For greater interest, try that proportion of LSD to you blood volume and report what happened.
Incredulity about fractions is so…. scientific.
98% of atmospheric content is not ‘greenhouse’ gases.
Back to the drawing board.
Gordon Robertson
YOU FALSELY CLAIM: “Neither Tyndall nor Arrhenius produced the math. If they had, the equations would be available from alarmist scientists.”
Just plain wrong.
Here is the paper by Arrhenius and yes he has math and calculations.
http://www.rsc.org/images/Arrhenius1896_tcm18-173546.pdf
His equations may not be correct or reflect the real Earth system but your claim was that he produced no math which is completely wrong.
You lose credibility on all your posts when you purposefully make false claims. Why would anyone believe anything you post when you demonstrate you make things up.
The con-man pounds on his keyboard so much, the actually gets something right once in a while.
“His [Arrhenius] equations may not be correct or reflect the real Earth system. ..”
BINGO.
norman…I’ll let others address Arrhenius since I have no interest in his suppositions. He admitted back in his day that no one had tested his theory nor had he since he could not afford the equipment.
Arrhenius fell into the same trap of confusing EM with heat. I can forgive him because no one knew how EM was converted to heat and back by electrons. His paper came out just as electron theory was emerging.
https://diggingintheclay.wordpress.com/2013/03/07/arrhenius-revisited/
Don’t agree with everything in here but it reveals things about Arrhenius:
https://principia-scientific.org/global-warming-alarm-is-built-on-200-year-old-discredited-science/
Gordon Robertson
I was reading the material from PSI and I don’t agree with anything they claim. The words they use are the type cult programming uses. They are not science, they are cult programmers to manipulate people like g*e*r*a*n who are not very intelligent but think they are. The PSI make people like g*e*r*a*n feel brilliant and for that sensation he becomes loyal to the cult even though he makes an idiot of himself outside the cult.
Here is real science and not the manipulation of the PSI group (which has zero science just empty attacks of actual science they will not demonstrate).
http://www.patarnott.com/atms411/pdf/StaleyJuricaEffectiveEmissivity.pdf
This one gives calculations for determining the emissivity of the atmosphere.
Then you have this empirical data which demonstrates the reality of the math and the correct logical thought in determining it.
https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/webdata/tmp/surfrad_5a24d0d587e75.png
Gordon Robertson
Here is what PSI states: “So-called downwelling or back radiation heating is a climatic chimera conjured up by government-funded researchers who made themselves a post-normal breed apart from those in the hard sciences. Climatologists want you to believe in their magic gas. But their notion of back radiation heating is an alien concept to those trained in tougher disciplines such as Physics, Chemistry, Biology, Medicine, etc. Frankly, for more than a generation third rate researchers have been peddling a computer-generated fiction, a slant on radiative physics that relies heavily on discredited 19th century notions of a magic gas and little, if anything, on actual measurements and verifiable scientific techniques.”
Yet they do not accept actual measurements and verifiable science. I would consider this group to be actual science deniers. The evidence is real and yet they do not accept it.
Why would you consider these crackpots a credible source of anything?
The con-man determines: “The evidence is real and yet they do not accept it.”
Norm, let me see if I can help you to understand. You believe the “evidence” is real. Suppose one day you drive to get some groceries. But, there are no groceries. There is no grocery store!
Would you return home “believing” you had the groceries?
g*e*r*a*n
Very stupid analogy for the situation. The DWIR is a measured value.
When will you do an experiment if you are so convinced your buddies at PSI know what they are talking about. I look at them as a bunch of crackpots snake oil salesmen. They are clever enough to convince people like you and who are easily manipulated by emotional language (not science, that is far too difficult for your mind to understand).
PSI buddies tell you all the hundreds of thousands of physicists have been wrong for decades, all the heat transfer equations used in industry are totally flawed and only they know the truth. Wow! Talk about one gullible person, or make that two. Gordon has swallowed their crap as easily as you do. You actually believe them. Crazy! All the scientists are fools but the handful at PSI. Strange that they do very little experimentation but act as total experts.
Con-man, you didn’t quote me once. Consequently, EVERYTHING you pounded-out is WRONG!
Better luck next time.
g*e*r*a*n
I am wondering how long it took you to come up with your new tactic of nonsense that everything you post is correct and all I post is incorrect so if I don’t quote you it is wrong. It is a weak attempt at humor. Maybe you will dig deep and come up with some really funny stuff. It seems unlikely because you have a low creativity. Maybe you looked up that tactic on GOOGLE and thought you should use it. Even that might have been too hard for you to develop on your own.
Probably you type in “troll tactics” to get your best material.
You’re still grasping at straws, con-man. And, you don’t even realize that you’re the comedian.
Hilarious.
Watts/Spencer on Principia:
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/05/11/the-spencer-challenge-to-slayersprincipia/
norman…”I was reading the material from PSI and I dont agree with anything they claim. The words they use are the type cult programming uses”.
Ironic. I find your writings to be borderline cultish.
Gordon Robertson
Which writings do you think are cultish. Can you give examples?
Nearly everything you pound out, except where you quote me directly. (That’s the only time you are correct.)
Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D.:
“I have repeatedly addressed these views and why they are false.”
https://tinyurl.com/bpvz73w
Gordon Robertson says:
“Arrhenius fell into the same trap of confusing EM with heat.”
You just admitted this a few days ago:
Gordon Robertson says:
December 2, 2017 at 10:05 PM
ps. “…When the warmer body radiates EM it loses a quantum of heat equivalent to the intensity of the emitted EM.”
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/12/uah-global-temperature-update-for-november-20170-36-deg-c/#comment-274496
norman…”You lose credibility on all your posts when you purposefully make false claims”.
Did some more research and stand by my claim. Neither Tyndall nor Arrhenius produced any credible math to show how CO2 absorbs EM. Apparently Tyndall was not interested in the absorbing power of GHGs, he was only interested in opaqueness, the fact that it could partially block radiation shone through GHGs.
Here’s a good expose on radiation in particular, from it’s history.
https://principia-scientific.org/publications/History-of-Radiation.pdf
We have to seriously question presumptions that have been made over the years based on other theories that could be incorrect.
Gordon Robertson
The problem with the paper you linked me to is that simple math is beyond the writer’s ability to comprehend.
I have already explained it to you but you can’t understand it. Obviously the cult programmers have deeply convinced you of the correctness of their incorrect concepts.
If you have a hot object emitting 500 W/m^2 and a colder object emitting 200 W/m^2 toward the hot object. The HEAT FLOW from the hot object (if the view factor is one, such as the 200 W/m^2 emitter is a sphere completely surrounding the hotter inner sphere) 300 W/m^2.
If you did not have the emitting colder sphere the hot object would have a heat flow of 500 W/m^2.
It is really simple math but your PSI people are not able to process it.
Now if you can accept this. Consider now the inner sphere has a heat input of 400 W/m^2. Initial state it is losing heat at 300 W/m^2. What do you think will happen?
Simple math would see that adding 400 W/m^2 while it is losing 300 W/m^2 will leave more energy in the object and it will heat according to its heat capacity until the energy output equals the energy input, then it will remain at an equilibrium temperature.
Now remove the 200 W/m^2 emitting sphere and what happens. Now the hot object is emitting a full 500 W/m^2 and it is only receiving an input of 400 W/m^2, it will cool. Easy to see the people who you believe an not able to process this type of math and give a lot of diversion.
Hi Norman,
Im going to assume this is in a vacum so there is no conduction / convection.. And that the materials of both the sphere and the shell are identical so then… Outside thr shell.. Cold empty space..
You have the sphere at some temp T1 such that it radiates at 500w/m2
And the shell at some lower temp T2 radiating 300w/m2..
Net RT is therefore 200w from sphere to shell so the sphere will cool and the shell warm until net RT is 0 and both are at some temp T3 at which point they will both continue to cool together…
If however you have a 400w power source to the sphere … The spheres temp will not drop lower than that at which it radiates 400w and the shell at net RT of zero will also radiate 400 w
400w in 400 w out and net RT between sphere and shell 0… Sphere and shell at same temp…
Hi Norman,
Im going to assume this is in a vacum so there is no conduction / convection.. And that the materials of both the sphere and the shell are identical so then… Outside thr shell.. Cold empty space..
You have the sphere at some temp T1 such that it radiates at 500w/m2
And the shell at some lower temp T2 radiating 300w/m2..
Net RT is therefore 200w from sphere to shell so the sphere will cool and the shell warm until net RT is 0 and both are at some temp T3 at which point they will both continue to cool together…
If however you have a 400w power source to the sphere … The spheres temp will not drop lower than that at which it radiates 400w and the shell at net RT of zero will also radiate 400 w
400w in 400 w out and net RT between sphere and shell 0… Sphere and shell at same temp… (Actually outer shell slightly cooler due to larger surface area)
PhilJ
My point with the spheres was to demonstrate easily to Gordon that a cold object can make a hot object’s temperature increase (provided it has a power source adding energy).
You can do the reverse. Have a sphere radiating 400 W/m^2 with a power input of 400 W/m^2. It is an equilibrium condition. Now add a cold shell around this sphere that is radiating 200 W/m^2 from both its sides. The inner sphere is gaining 400 W/m^2, that will not change with the addition of the shell. The Heat Flow from the surface of the hot sphere is reduced to 200 W/m^2 from its previous 400 W/m^2. What has to happen to the temperature of the sphere? It must now go up. The cold shell is driving up the surface temperature of the heated sphere.
And NO, in you case the sphere and shell will NOT reach the same temperature. That is the Postma twisted version of physics that is not supportable.
Real physics, in your description, would still have the unpowered shell at a considerably lower temperature. Postma can’t grasp that the shell has two radiating sides while the inner sphere has only one.
PhilJ
Here is my math for your situation.
1) Inner sphere surface area of 1 m^2 emissivity of 1 to make calculations easier, there are materials that approach this emissivity.
2) Inner sphere is powered by 400 Watt power supply of continuous power.
No surroundings but cold space the surface temperature will get to 289.8 K.
Put an unpowered shell around it that is 1 cm away from the sphere. Its surface area is 1.071 m^2 (slightly larger).
The energy from the sphere is completely absorbed by the shell at first, no radiation is seen leaving the outer shell. The shell warms and starts to emit radiant energy. You are correct, the outer shell must reach a temperature where it can get rid of 400 Watts of power. With a surface area of 1.071 m^2 that means it will reach an equilibrium temperature where it is radiating at 373.48 W/m^2 (400 Watt/1.071 m^2). The surface of the sphere will reach 284.89 K, little cooler than the initial temperature of the inner sphere. This is where the Postma and g*e*r*a*n logic break down. g*e*r*a*n makes up his own physics and declares the inner surface of the shell indeed radiates at the 373.48 W/m^2 level toward the sphere but his (without the slightest evidence and in violation of Kirchhoff’s Law) pseudoscience says that because the sphere is powered it cannot absorb this incident radiant energy. Just made up physics, no evidence, no proof, against established science but he declares this is reality (too much alcohol on his part is what I am guessing).
So if you are not a crackpot like Postma or g*e*r*a*n but rely on actual physics you would accept that the 373.48 W/m^2 will be absorbed by the heated sphere and become part of its energy input.
With no shell the incident energy hitting the sphere would be close to zero watts/m^2. Now it has a 400 Watt power source and is receiving 373.48 Watts from the shell. It will continue to warm until it reaches an equilibrium with the energy input of 773.48 Watts. It has a surface area of 1 m^2 so it will reach a temperature that radiates 773.48 W/m^2 which gives it a new equilibrium temperature of 341.76 K. The shell forced the temperature of the inner sphere to rise by around 52 K.
If you analyze all the math no laws of physics are broken. The 400 watts in is leaving the outer shell, the hot sphere is always transferring heat to the colder shell. The lab objects getting warmer by increasing the temperature of the cold air is analogically the same thing. The rate of heat loss of the heated sphere is reduced by the increased temperature of the warmed shell.
If you read MikeR you get even more bang if you used a mirror rather than a shell, it would reflect almost 100% of the energy back to the shell.
PhilJ
I will try to figure out a mirror effect. The mirror is good enough only 0.1 % of the energy leaves the system.
If the sphere inside is gaining 400 watts the outer mirror would only lose 1% of this, the rest is reflected back to the sphere to be absorbed by it. So 4 watts can leave initial state. In order to reach an equilibrium 400 watts must be able to leave the mirror. That means the heated sphere would have to be radiating 40000 W/m^2 to get 400 watts out of the mirror. The surface of the sphere would get to 916.5 K (1190 F).
Gordon says: “Where’s the math”?
It is here: http://climatemodels.uchicago.edu/modtran/
Change CO2 ppms and get ‘Upward IR Heat Flux’ in W/m2.
Validated and verified by the US Air Force.
A funny find, Svante.
800 ppm gives the same ground temp as 200 ppm.
(Better not show this to Warmists!)
Maybe because:
The model does not compute global warming, that is, it doesn’t change the Earth temperature in response to changes in the atmosphere.
http://climatemodels.uchicago.edu/modtran/modtran.doc.html
It’s a waste of time linking stuff for skeptics. They don’t investigate.
Never a waste of time to bust the pseudoscience offered up by the unwashed.
Can’t bust anything when you fail to properly read references. The rhetorical shimmies when you’re wrong fool no one.
Well barry, you’re wrong again.
The fact that you’re fighting to save Svante’s effort is proof it was “busted”.
(Hard to keep that sinking AGW ship afloat, huh?)
The model doesn’t calculate surface temp when parameters are changed.
That’s what you got wrong and that’s why you’re babbling about other stuff.
Your diversions fool no one. Except perhaps yourself.
barry, why are you so desperately running from the truth?
1) Svante provided the link, clearly advertising it as support for AGW.
2) I indicated it was a worthless link.
3) You tried to “save” the link by suggesting that I had not “properly read references”.
Now you’re trying to “deny” the bust. Great, the more advertising your do for Svante’s fraudulent effort, the better. Sink that ship.
The model calculates changes in upward IR heat flux in W/m2 when you change the CO2 level, as Svante said.
Svante is correct on this.
Then you chimed in with:
A funny find, Svante.
800 ppm gives the same ground temp as 200 ppm.
(Better not show this to Warmists!)
I pointed out that had you explored the model you would have discovered that:
The model does not compute global warming, that is, it doesn’t change the Earth temperature in response to changes in the atmosphere.
You made an assumption without reading up on what the model does, and your comment based on this ignorance was false. Everything youve said since is BS: youve been wriggling and squirming to avoid admitting your mistake. No one is fooled by these shenanigans.
G*
You are departing from your analogy, with a lot of handwaving and a confusing example, but you give no fundamental reasons for the departure.
If the radiation heat transfer law is not valid anymore, then what equation is available to replace it? How are we to calculate heat flow in any situation then? Do you have an alternative that is not just guessing?
Wrong again, barry!
Svante clearly wanted the link to “prove” AGW/CO2 nonsense. He was responding to the issue of there is no math to support the CO2 nonsense.
His link was a FAIL, as I pointed out.
You are now trying to lash out at me, because I busted the pseudoscience.
It’s fun to watch.
His link did exactly what he said it did, but not what you said it did. Svante is correct, you are not.
Watching you wriggle and squirm trying to get a win after making a clear mistake is slightly amusing.
barry, his link was in response to “Where’s the math”. Which came from Gordon identifying (CORRECTLY) that there is no mathematical proof of the AGW/CO2 nonsense.
So, his link FAILED. Your pathetic defense has FAILED.
Where to now? Calling me a “liar”?
Your desperation is hilarious.
Gordon’s comment was about CO2 absorbing EM. That’s what Svante replied to with a model that calculates the change in emissivity in W/m2 from changes in CO2 concentrations.
You made a snide comment about surface temps not changing from change in atmospheric CO2, which the model does not calculate, as stated at the site. Your comment was based on ignorance of what the model actually does.
Wriggling and squirming and still wrong.
Please keep digging.
svante…”It is here:”
All based on models and theory, svante. Let’s see how 0.04% of the atmosphere significantly heats the atmosphere.
Of course, you have claimed that mass is irrelevant in the atmosphere so our discussion is pointless. You need to deal in realities rather than theories. The molecular gases in the atmosphere are real and we have well-defined laws governing them with regard to how much heat they contribute.
If your atmospheric window theories do not agree with those well-established laws then they are wrong.
The problem is seriously complex. In this blog, we have talked about the actions of single electrons and photons. That cannot be done for the simple reason we cannot measure at the single particle level. We try to visualize at that level for clarity, at least, I do, but it’s a dangerous practice when it comes to reality.
The model calculates changes in upward IR heat flux in W/m2 when you change the CO2 level, as Svante said.
Svante is correct on this.
Then you chimed in with:
A funny find, Svante.
800 ppm gives the same ground temp as 200 ppm.
(Better not show this to Warmists!)
I pointed out that had you explored the model you would have discovered that:
The model does not compute global warming, that is, it doesnt change the Earth temperature in response to changes in the atmosphere.
You made an assumption without reading up on what the model does, and your comment based on this ignorance was false. Everything you’ve said since is BS: you’ve been wriggling and squirming to avoid admitting your mistake. No one is fooled by these shenanigans.
I read Fourier, Tyndall, Arrhenius and the latter’s contradictor (Knut) Angstroem (who did contradict him far less than dumb skeptics believe, see his paper ‘Ueber die Bedeutumg
des Wasserdampfes umd der Kohlensaeure bei der Absor-ption der Erdatmosphaere’, Annalen der Physik 1900).
One thing happens to be sure to me: the Robertson troll never has read even one of all their contributions.
What he at best did superficially, diagonally read is the garbage about all that uploaded on the pseudoskeptic blogosphere.
binny…”One thing happens to be sure to me: the Robertson troll never has read even one of all their contributions”.
Actually, I was quite impressed with Tyndall’s experiment. Went through the diagram piece by piece till I could understand what he was doing. The guy was very scientific, unlike climate modelers of today.
Show me anything from Tyndall or Arrhenius where they lay out mathematically the sensitivity of the atmosphere to GHGs. In fact, why don’t you supply a mathematical explanation of how much ACO2 can warm the atmosphere?
I have already supplied a general explanation why it can’t, more than a few hundredths C, using the Ideal Gas Equation and Dalton’s Law of Partial Pressures.
“using ..Daltons Law of Partial Pressures.”
The partial pressures are immaterial Gordon, all the atm. gas constituents are working at its total pressure.
ball4…”The partial pressures are immaterial Gordon, all the atm. gas constituents are working at its total pressure”.
Yes, I know that, however, the total is the sum of the partial pressures as per Dalton. So, look at the partial pressures which are directly proportional to the partial massess.
In a constant volume system like the Earth’s atmosphere temperature is directly proportional to pressure which is directly proportional to mass. Before you start in about weather systems let me remind you that weather systems do not affect the mass or the volume. In the overall system, T is still proportional to P.
Ideal Gas Law…PV = nRT, or P = (nR/V)T. If nR/T is constant, then P = T. That is proved out by the temperature/pressure gradient of our atmosphere due to gravity.
If CO2 is 0.04% by mass, approximately, and N2/O2 is around 99% by mass, which gases will contribute the most to temperature?
CO2, at 0.04% by mass, cannot possibly contribute any more than a few hundredths of a degree C.
I don’t see how that reasoning can be refuted. The properties of CO2 ascribed to AGW will not change that ratio no matter how much heat is absorbed by CO2.
Gordon wrote:
“CO2, at 0.04% by mass, cannot possibly contribute any more than a few hundredths of a degree C.”
Again, I’d like to see the calculation or chain of reasoning that gives this result.
You ALWAYS ignore this question. I don’t think you have any science on this, and are just making up a lie again.
Gordon wrote:
“Ideal Gas LawPV = nRT, or P = (nR/V)T. If nR/T is constant, then P = T. That is proved out by the temperature/pressure gradient of our atmosphere due to gravity.”
This is the stupidest thing you’ve written yet.
WHY WOULD nR/T be constant?
What about the volume variable.
P=T?? They don’t even have the same units, dumbo.
Gordon Robertson says:
“Show me anything from Tyndall or Arrhenius where they lay out mathematically the sensitivity of the atmosphere to GHGs.”
You completely ignore what others have written above, and lie time and time and time again.
Don’t be so lazy — actually LOOK at Arrhenius’s paper, where he does exactly what you’re looking for:
“On the Influence of Carbonic Acid in the Air Upon the Temperature of the Ground,” Svante Arrhenius, Philosophical Magazine 1896(41): 237-76 (1896).
http://www.rsc.org/images/Arrhenius1896_tcm18-173546.pdf
Bin reads but does not comprehend. Just like he attributed a quote of Arrhenius to Fourier.
Gordon Robertson wrote:
“At the time of the Industrial Era, the IPCC claimed a 270 ppmv concentration of CO2. Why did that level, which is much higher than the difference between then and 400 ppmv, not cause catastrophic warming and climate change? Same planet, same solar energy, same surface radiation.”
Gordon, gordon, gordon….. you are truly lost.
That 270 ppmv CO2 *did* cause climate change — part of the greenhouse effect.
Without that CO2 the atmo’s water vapor content would have been much lower and the Earth probably in an snowball state.
DA…”Without that CO2 the atmos water vapor content would have been much lower and the Earth probably in an snowball state”.
With all the water vapour, the overall percentage of the atmosphere that is GHGs is around 0.3%. I can see WV warming certain locals a ‘little’ more but not the entire planet by 1C.
Next you’ll be telling me the Arctic gets seriously cold in winter because there’s not enough WV in the air. Or that the Tropics are so hot because of the extra WV. What puts the extra WV in the air? It’s the solar energy burning it off the water.
Gordon Robertson says:
“With all the water vapour, the overall percentage of the atmosphere that is GHGs is around 0.3%. I can see WV warming certain locals a little more but not the entire planet by 1C.”
What calculation leads you to that conclusion?
Or are you just making things up again?
Equatorial Pacific Ocean is cold.
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/ocean/weeklyenso_clim_81-10/wkteq_xz.gif
No kidding. It’s called LA NINA.
For the last two months the two satellite monthly temperatures have been well above the surface temperatures.
Look at the first temperature anomaly graph here.
https://moyhu.blogspot.co.uk/p/latest-ice-and-temperature-data.html
Now UAH has dropped back into sync.
The troposphere doesn’t react to ENSO signals as fast as does the surface: there is mostly a 4 four month lag between them.
Surface temperatures have been flat since June and the ENSO trend has been neutral trending into La Nina.
I don’t see any increase four months ago for which the satellite jump ISA lagged response.
I suggest that the jump is either atmosphere or instrument related.
Nobody told that abrupt increases in satellite-based measurements of tropospheric temperatures must be related to ENSO.
I mentioned exactly the inverse, namely that if the ENSO signal is going down but the tropospheric temperatures don’t yet, we should await the 4-month lag time to be sure that entering the new La Nina really becomes perceptible 5 km above.
If that is not the case, then there is a non-negligible probability that ENSO isn’t stable enough to persistently enter its La Nina state.
EM, it’s well-known that there is a lag of several months between ENSO SSTs for large events and satellite global temp response. It’s not controversial. You’ll find skeptics and others agree on that much.
entropic…”For the last two months the two satellite monthly temperatures have been well above the surface temperatures”.
The sats have a far more comprehensive coverage of the planet (95% to 30%) and their telemetry is far more sensitive to atmospheric conditions than two a day averaged thermometer readings.
You cannot trust surface data anymore. NOAA has taken to statistical methods in climate models to synthesize data and Had.crut has been suspect since their leader, Phil Jones, was front and centre in the Climategate email scandal interfering with peer review, blocking an FOI to get access to his data, and boasting about using Mike’s Trick to adjust temperatures in Had.crut data.
Mike’s Trick is also called ‘hide the decline’. They used it in mbb98, the hockey stick, to show an abrupt warming when their proxy tree ring data was actually cooling. Who knows how many times Had.crut historical data was adjusted using that scientific misconduct.
Gordon wrote:
“Mikes Trick is also called hide the decline. They used it in mbb98, the hockey stick, to show an abrupt warming when their proxy tree ring data was actually cooling.”
Wrongo.
Certain high northern latitude tree ring proxies failed to report the known temperatures after about 1970.
They declined, when the temperature readings showed an increase.
That’s the “decline” Jones was talking about, and it was removed for sound scientific reasons.
You can read about the problem here, but since it would falsify your point of view I’m sure you’ll ignore it:
“On the Divergence Problem in Northern Forests: A review of the
tree-ring evidence and possible causes,” Rosanne D’Arrigo et al, Global and Planetary Change 60 (2008) 289305.
http://www.ldeo.columbia.edu/~liepert/pdf/DArrigo_etal.pdf
Great, more bird-cage liners.
Des on December 2, 2017 at 10:16 PM
David Appell on December 2, 2017 at 11:10 PM
Exceptionally, the Robertson troll was right where you answered – but only as far as volcanism dates are concerned.
On may 18, 1980 St Helens erupted; form march to september 1982, El Chichon did. Last not least: between april and june 1991, the far more powerful Pinatubo came out.
*
But trolls like Robertson nevertheless keep trolls forever, because they
– do not understand the real consequences of what they enumerate and wrongly add as a plus to their arguments;
– discredit everybody showing these consequences whenever what s/he writes does not fit to their narrative.
*
1. What the Robertson (and many other) troll(s) do not understand is that if these eruptions had not taken place, an incredible amount of aerosols wouldn’t have reached the stratosphere, and the resulting cooling during years wouldn’t have existed, what would have resulted in much higher temperature anomalies, and that not only for UAH!
So the linear trend estimate for satellite-based temperature measurements of course would have been lower, but not the warming visible everywhere else behind it!
*
2. What the Robertson (and many other) troll(s) ignore or, even worse, try to discredit without any reference to scientific contradiction, is that people for example analysed temperature time series, and extracted out of them the influence of events quoted natural, with as goal to obtain a residual free it.
So did till 2013 for example a group of scientists around Benjamin Santer and Celine Bonfils with the TLT temperature series RSS3.3 (emphasis needed):
https://dspace.mit.edu/openaccess-disseminate/1721.1/89054
Let me zoom on the essential results of this rather long paper (the article behind paywall is about 6 pages long):
http://fs5.directupload.net/images/170906/3s6xea9x.png
Here we observe that after removal of unlagged ENSO and of volcano events, a residual RSS3.3 TLT trend for 1979-2013 of 0.086 C / decade remains, which has to be compared with the raw RSS trend at that time (0.124 C / decade, compared with today’s 0.135 C); thus the residual is about 70 %.
Tamino aka Grant Foster and Stefan Rahmstorf published in 2011 the results of similar work on GISS:
http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/6/4/044022/meta
All that was subject of harsh attack on several skeptic blogs, especially at WUWT and Climate Etc; but nowhere was a scientifically valuable falsification ever presented.
binny…”Exceptionally, the Robertson troll was right where you answered but only as far as volcanism dates are concerned”.
You don’t know any more about trolls than you do basic science.
A troll is someone on the Net who intentionally disrupts debate by agitating people on something like a blog dedicated to certain subjects. This blog was generously set up by Dr. Roy Spencer, a meteorologist and a member of the UAH team who does NOT subscribe to the views of extreme climate alarmists. Roy has declared his belief that anthropogenic gases are partly responsible for warming but he does not think it will amount to catastrophic warming.
You are the dissident here and in your reply called me a troll. You are the troll, by definition. I am here because I agree with Roy and support his POV. You are not only attacking me, you are attacking Roy’s views and the good data sets put out by UAH, which have been awarded medals for excellence by NASA and the American Meteorological Society.
Get a grip man, and realize that you are the outsider here and that your purpose is to agitate by providing misinformation while criticizing UAH.
You are the troll!!
Gordon, you are by far the biggest troll here.
Also the biggest liar.
No welfare check this morning, huh davie?
binny…”But trolls like Robertson nevertheless keep trolls forever, because they
do not understand the real consequences of what they enumerate and wrongly add as a plus to their arguments;
discredit everybody showing these consequences whenever what s/he writes does not fit to their narrative”.
You are unable to debate on the facts so you resort to innuendo and ad homs. Here are the facts based on the UAH graph, on which Roy has superimposed a red running average:
1)From 1979 to 1998, UAH data sets show an average below the baseline, where the baseline is the 1980 – 2010 global average. Right on the the graph it indicates volcanic activity and in the 30 year report UAH addresses that matter. Whereas the re-warming trend from 1979 – 1998 is around 0.12C/decade, UAH have tried to remove the cooling effect, producing a trend around 0.09C/decade.
There is no proof that re-warming comes from anthropogenic sources even though both Roy and John Christy at UAH have acknowledge it’s likely anthropogeic gases are contributing. I don’t agree, I think the warming is due to a recovery from the Little Ice Age and other natural factors that science has not yet learned to detect. Furthermore the mass of CO2 in the atmosphere is insufficient to contribute more than a few hundredths of a degree C.
2)In late 1997, a major El Nino warming, not predicted by any climate model, drove the global average 0.8C beyond the baseline. Within a year, the global average was below the baseline briefly, then for some unknown reason it jumped about 0.2C around 2002.
The average from 1998 – 2012 was acknowledged by the IPCC to show insignificant warming. They called it a warming hiatus. UAH shows that flat trend and extends it to 2015. Follow the red running average and visually average it. So, we’ve had 19 years of rewarming due volcanic aerosols followed by a flat trend for 15 years.
UAH cannot offer a trend in two sections, they must follow the traditional statistical averaging of picking end points then drawing a best fit through the data. That’s normally done using an algorithm in a computer. It means nothing. In the physical world, we had 19 years of cooling followed by 15 years of a flat trend.
The trend offered by UAH does not come with a note claiming the warming is due to anthropogenic causes. John Christy has stated that the climate is far too complex to be fully understand by modern climate scientists. I would go further, and claim climate modeling is a waste of time given that lack of understanding.
3)It’s blatantly obvious that natural forces are driving our climate, like ENSO. Tsonis et al 2007 claimed other oscillation in the oceans like the AMO, PDO, and AO, are likely controlling warming/cooling. It’s very likely current Arctic warming is due to the AMO and AO. Warming in the Arctic is localized and moves around month to month, indicating a weather factor rather than climate.
If you are going to do science, you need to empty your mind of your current bias and look at the facts. You are blinded to the overall science because you are myopically focused on your belief system.
If you think the trend announced by UAH from 1979 represents anthropogenic warming, you are deluding yourself. There is simply insufficient proof.
” Furthermore the mass of CO2 in the atmosphere is insufficient to contribute more than a few hundredths of a degree C.”
Exactly the point.
You are as plain an idiot as the electronics technician.
You don’t have a clue about physics in general and what CO2 does in atmosphere in particular.
The amount of As as a dopant in highly doped Si semiconductor is still only 0.01 %,( even smaller than CO2 in atmosphere) and nevertheless changes its resistivity by 12 orders of magnitude and converts it into a metal.
The kind of findings of modern science whose applications in computer technology permits even a dumbass to post ridiculous crackpottery in various blogs.
gummycrud, are you implying that CO2 turns the atmosphere into a metal?
Wow, it really is a “magic” gas.
Hilarious.
Allright, still enraged, our senile g;r.u.m.p.y.
Hilarious.
But not a point corroborated, and in fact at odds with the views of even scientists who are ‘skeptics’.
This is a view held almost entirely by denizens of the skeptic blogosphere.
Mind you, the sentence is so poorly constructed I could be mistaken in thinking it’s about the entire CO2 content. Lindzen, Spencer, Christy and any qualified ‘skeptic’ scientist is in agreement with the mainstream view that this concentration (with attendant water vapour and total GHG) accounts for abut 33K more surface temp than for an atmosphere without GHGs.
When a countervailing view is pushed only in the blogosphere, it puts it on the same footing as Flat Earthery, 9/11 Truthers, and the moon landing “hoax.”
While GHGs are responsible for the atmosphere being 33K warmer it has very little to do with back radiation. It is the result of thermalization and the energy profile of gases in a gravitational field.
In physics, thermalisation (in American English thermalization) is the process of physical bodies reaching thermal equilibrium through mutual interaction.
Funny variant of clown physics.
More please.
Barry, when discussing the GHE the term thermalization is used to describe the process whereby GHGs absorb IR energy and then pass on that energy via collisions with other molecules in the atmosphere.
And so what ?
Of course IR absor-ption implies thermalization, physicists knew that long long long ( at least a century ) before any pretentious ignoramus shows up here or elsewhere and claims to
reinvent the wheel.
Schwarzschild’s radiation transfer equation used in standard GHE theory of course implies thermalization.
gammacrux says, December 5, 2017 at 2:10 AM:
What is being continually said is that upward IR from the surface bound for space is captured by the “GHGs” in the atmosphere and then rather reemitted in all directions, the result of which is that ~398 W/m^2 leave the surface, but only ~240 W/m^2 manage to reach space. And that THIS is the “GHE”.
Is this, according to your understanding, gammacrux, a correct physical description of what is actually happening in the Earth system?
Barry, when discussing the GHE the term thermalization is used to describe the process whereby GHGs absorb IR energy and then pass on that energy via collisions with other molecules in the atmosphere.
Ah, a special usage for the term when discussing the GHE. I’ve seen this usage promulgated by skeptics. Seems to be a purloining of the term for some purpose or other. Wonder what that could be?
If more GHGs absorb more upward radiation, then pass on that energy via collision, that means the atmosphere becomes more energetic, thereby radiating more radiation.
Which goes in every direction including groundward.
More ‘backradiation’ from the atmosphere. ‘Thermalization’ does not obviate this consequence.
Yes it is, Kristian.
I can’t see where this might be incorrect in any respect.
When one says that upward IR emitted from ground or ocean surface is absorbed by GHG’s in troposphere and then reemitted in all directions this does of course not mean that a given molecule of CO2 or H2O captures a given incident IR photon and subsequently merely reemits it in a different direction ! More precisely only a negligibly very tiny fraction manages to do so.
This is so obvious for any trained physicist that (s)he doesn’t feel compelled to state it explicitly.
From a very general point of view in not too dilute gases such as our troposphere or of course in condensed matter when radiation is absorbed it is usually converted into heat. This conversion simply implies thermalization and conversely. It’s quite the same thing, namely in present context that the excited state of a CO2 molecule has a lifetime that far exceeds (about a 1000 times) the average time between collisions of that molecule with an another one. As a consequence collisions prevail over IR reemission and the photon excitation is almost always redistributed among all molecules and degrees of freedom, in particular in the form of the molecules’s translation kinetic energy in the gas before it has any chance to be reemitted as IR by the very molecule that absorbed it. By the way this is the fundamental mechanism that ensures that a meaningful concept of local temperature indeed describe the gas.
Now these collisions also ensure the reverse process and every now and then excite vibration-rotational states of any given N2, O2 or CO2 etc molecule and thus convert for instance kinetic translation energy of an 02 molecule into a vibrationally excited N2, CO2 or H2O molecules. In the case of excited CO2 and H2O dipolar emission is allowed and there is a tiny but nevertheless finite chance that deexcitation occurs via IR photon emission rather than a subsequent collision. As pointed out above the probability is small but if there are many such excited molecules some indeed manage to emit IR and this happens if the gas temperature is high enough. The higher the temperature, the more excited molecules exist and potentially emit. Thus IR emission of the gas increases and that’s what’s behind Planck’s thermal emission law.
Finally let’s however note that while the rule is thermalization of absorbed radiation it does of course not always take place. Photosynthesis is an example where the photon energy ends up in the form of chemical free energy ( in a sugar or fat biomolecule) rather than merely heating the absorbing material, chlorophyl.
May I add that in the process of thermalization:
-The direct process, where incident radiation is converted into heat by collisions of IR excited CO2 molecules with other molecules in gas, is essentially independant of gas temperature. Whatever its temperature this “heats” the gas and tends to increase it’s temperature.
-The reverse process, where collisions convert kinetic energy go gas molecules into excited CO2 molecules, is, in contrast, highly temperature dependent because if molecules are not fast enough they can hardly excite any CO2 vibrations. Emission increases rapidly with temperature as shown by Planck’s law.
In steady state there must thus exist a temperature where the direct and reverse processes compensate each other exactly and emission=absor-ption. That’s radiative equilibrium.
And since incident radiation is from below only and emission is in all directions this atmospheric temperature must be lower than ground temperature.
Hopefully the above explanations should make it clear that while the IR emitted by earth surface is indeed absorbed by atmosphere and thermalized it is only “reemitted’ once the atmophere’s temperature is high enough so that emission = absorp-tion.
Otherwise it heats the atmosphere until emission matches absor-ption again and that happens with a sudden increase in CO2. And more emission = more back radiation which heats the surface and thus converges to an enhanced GHE.
Well dang, gummy. I thought you were doing pretty good until the very last, where you blew it.
“And more emission = more back radiation which heats the surface and thus converges to an enhanced GHE.”
The atmosphere does not heat the surface, except in isolated weather instances.
Thanks g*r*u*m*p*y.
I love when you pretend you grasp what I explain.
Hilarious.
gammacrux says, December 5, 2017 at 8:11 AM:
Funny. Let’s follow your reasoning, then.
Well, they should. Because most all laypeople reading the junk they actually write naturally end up thinking this is precisely what happens.
No. No! NO!!! It is NOT “converted into heat”. Heat is a thermal transfer of energy by virtue of a temperature difference, spontaneously always from hot to cold. Heat [Q] is thus NEVER CONTAINED within a thermodynamic system. What you’re referring to is the kinetic (translational) portion of the internal energy of the gas [U].
Please get those physical terms and definitions right, otherwise we can never reach any sort of proper agreement on this topic.
Much better. However, it seems you’ve forgotten to point out an all-important point:
What specific “radiation” from the surface to the atmosphere is it that warms the latter and helps sustain its temperature?
Mmm, well, yes. When a body (or a gas) is warmer, it simply produces more thermal photons. There is thus a higher density of thermal radiative energy, and a higher average radiative intensity, associated with that body (or gas) – its photon gas/cloud is ‘thicker’ and more energetic.
gammacrux says, December 5, 2017 at 8:57 AM:
Two things here, gammacrux:
1) Incident radiation is NEVER converted into ‘heat’ inside the body absorbing it. It’s converted into ‘internal energy’.
2) What specific “incident radiation” increases a body’s U and T?
Please answer this question. It is crucial to this whole matter.
No, gammacrux. It appears you are confused indeed. This is not how the real world works. You see an effect of temperature and interpret it as a cause of temperature. You’re fixated on the atmospheric slab-layer models of the “GHE”, all based on the assumption that the atmosphere’s insulation effect on the solar-heated surface is radiatively driven rather than thermally (massively).
You’re also mixing up two fundamentally different aspects of reality; the MICROscopic one (the quantum mechanical realm) and the MACROscopic one (the thermodynamic realm). How? Well, first you say that the “incident radiation is from below only”, which means that here you’re not talking about photons (microscopic entities), but a radiative flux (a macroscopic entity). Then you say that “emission is in all directions”, which is to say that here you’ve all of a sudden turned it all on its head, now specifically referring to photons rather than a radiative flux.
gammacrux, you need to be consistent:
In the MICRO realm, emitted AND absorbed radiation (photons) are BOTH omnidirectional.
In the MACRO realm, however, emitted AND absorbed radiation (radiative fluxes) are both UNIdirectional – from warmer to cooler.
You can’t just pick and choose according to your own liking what level of observation to apply when describing thermal radiation.
Again back to the question above:
What radiation flux from the surface is it that actually warms the atmosphere? And what radiation flux is it that moves from the atmosphere to space?
These are both distinctly THERMODYNAMIC questions, and therefore both require distinctly thermodynamic answers.
gammacrux says, December 5, 2017 at 9:59 AM:
No, this isn’t ‘clear’. Because it’s not relevant to what actually happens. The atmosphere simply radiates according to its overall temperature, which has no direct connection to the radiative energy transferred to it from the surface.
So, “back radiation” from the cooler atmosphere now HEATS the already warmer surface? gammacrux (*shaking head in disbelief*). I was hoping you at least knew the basics of this subject. Didn’t you say you’re teaching graduate students?
Either way, nope. This is all just assumed drivel based purely on model results. We’ve got plenty of actual observations from the real Earth system showing that this effect (+CO2 => +DWLWIR => +T) isn’t a functionable one. It’s THEORETICALLY sound, but EMPIRICALLY shown to be invalid.
Sure and by the way I even published about 150 peer reviewed papers in physics…
So funny.
Just one more thing, Kristian.
In contrast to many others here you might be someone who really attempts to understand physics. Yet you get lost in your vain, fruitless and, sorry, ridiculous semantic bickerings.
Understanding physics in not knowing words.
The use of the word heat is a typical example. It is used in the sense I did use it above quite routinely by us, professional physicists. It’s not only used in the thermodynamic sense of spontaneous energy transfer from hot to cold as you seem erroneously to believe.
Nothing wrong with that whether you like it or not, just standard language of physicists.
And believe it or not we knew perfectly well that it’s also internal energy long before a Kristian ever became aware of that.
Thus I’m sorry, I have definitely nothing at all to add to or change in what I explained above. The physics is perfectly clear.
gammacrux says, December 7, 2017 at 3:07 AM:
Yeah, that is pretty funny (or tragic, however you choose to see it), considering you just showed us all what an utter ignoramus you are regarding the most basic of thermodynamic principles.
gammacrux says, December 7, 2017 at 6:27 AM:
Stop pretending to be something you’re not, ignoramus, blathering on about your alleged scientific excellence. And rather start producing actual arguments that aren’t rooted in toy models.
Here’s what you said, dimwit:
Nowhere is this correct physics. It’s an unintended exposure of pure ignorance.
And Kristian, once again, flew in a terrible rage…
gammacrux says, December 8, 2017 at 2:17 AM:
And once again, gammacrux, the arrogant, condescending dimwit, scurried back to his dank hole.
dimwit gammacrux: “More back radiation HEATS the surface!”
Hahahahaha!
Gordon Robertson wrote:
“Furthermore the mass of CO2 in the atmosphere is insufficient to contribute more than a few hundredths of a degree C.”
What calculation or chain of reasoning leads to this conclusion.
I bet you don’t have one, and are, as usual, just making sh!t up.
See Gordon again avoid important questions.
He can’t answer them. He lies as easily as the sun comes up.
binny…you need to get real with the people you quote. Santer is an uber-alarmist as is Tamino, Foster, and Rahmstorf. These people are behind the blatant propaganda about AGW.
You have the UAH data on this blog from two scientists, Roy and John Christy, who have proved to have integrity and who have been awarded medals for excellence by NASA and the American Meteorological Society for their work.
You come on this blog, like the troll you are, and try to insult the intelligence of these two good scientists with your references to politically-driven, politically correct yes-men. You even tried to prove UAH wrong using data from the disgraced NOAA, who are currently being investigated for climate fraud by a US government panel.
Rahmstorf was schooled by Richard Lindzen when he had the audacity to seek Lindzen out for a debate. During the debate, when he could not answer Lindzen he went of on a rant of metaphysical nonsense.
Rahmstorf resorted to the typical alarmist ploy of claiming natural events like ENSO were masking anthropogenic warming. He claimed that the inability of climate models to recreate historical temperatures given the data should not affect our confidence in them.
Rahmstorf thinks climate sensitivity to anthropogenic gases can be measured directly. Then he went on a rant about the comparison between climate science and general relativity.
https://motls.blogspot.ca/2008/03/lindzen-vs-rahmstorf-exchange.html
That’s just Rahmstorf. Santer has other issues related to the blindness inherent in climate alarm. Tamino, of course, is a legend in his own mind. Actually, he’s a smarter version of you.
Gordon, plenty of other scientists have problems with the paper, and esp the Daily Caller’s reporting on it. Read here:
https://climatefeedback.org/evaluation/daily-caller-uncritically-reports-misleading-satellite-temperature-study-michael-bastasch/
Snowstorm in southern Germany.
http://files.tinypic.pl/i/00950/b5stgjvnq62p.png
Irrelevant to this blog. Have some decency, would you?
“The arctic express will not stop after it plunges into the Midwest early this week. The cold will continue to expand eastward through the week, dramatically slashing temperatures, even down to the Florida Peninsula.
Once the cold settles in, highs will be 20-30 degrees Fahrenheit lower when compared to early this week.”
https://accuweather.brightspotcdn.com/dims4/default/61fd06c/2147483647/resize/590x/quality/90/?url=http%3A%2F%2Faccuweather-bsp.s3.amazonaws.com%2F26%2Fa4%2F06cee355458f8657f13edef1a639%2Ffront-dec-3.jpg
Outdoor temperature is a major determinant of the observed seasonal fluctuations in blood pressure, with higher and lower blood pressure in winter and summer, respectively, said Dr. Ragavendra Baliga, a cardiologist at The Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center.
Low environmental temperature is strongly associated with increased hospital admissions for acute heart attacks, stroke and higher cardiovascular mortality, Baliga added.
How much blood pressure increases in cold weather depends on variables including the current temperature, wind chill, how long a person is exposed to colder weather and the persons health, according to researchers from the University of Florida.”
What is amazing is that the average temperature over the past 22 months is the highest in the record.
And most of that time we have experienced La Nina conditions!
Imagine what will happen when the next El Nino strikes!
True. It’s weird that a lot of people on this site completely ignore these La Nina conditions, but they do focus on that short period with a bit higher ONI values, which was by no means a true El Nino. 2017 was a very warm year.
I’m partial to El Nino, because it waters by property. El Nino, good. La Nina, bad.
Warm up the relevant Pacific waters all you want. There’ll be no complaints from me.
(BTW, AGW is a hoax.)
Of course, the entire planet revolves around you.
“g*e*r*a*n-centrism”
☺
Except it wasn’t really a true La Nina. There was no Bjerknes feedback after the previous El Nino. This allowed much of the warmed El Nino waters to drift just off the +5 to -5 boundary as reported by NOAA.
Also, the Nino 1-2 area never really cooled. At the supposed peak of the La Nina with Nino 3.4 at about -.6 the Nino 1-2 area was almost +2. And it was positive for the entire La Nina.
Hence, there was plenty of warm water around to drive up the GAST.
Science is hard. Just looking at some index value is easy if all you want to do is confirm your bias. To actually understand what is happening takes a little more work.
Nino is defined by all except MEI as the SSTs of a given NINO region (NINO3.4, usually – only JMA uses NINO3 region) at a certain threshold over a certain number of months. The katter 2 are variable. There’s no requirement that other NINO regions have to match sign. And often enough they do not during ENSO events.
EG, for the very strong la Nina from (roughly) Aug 2007 to May 2008, NINO1+2 was positive for 4 of those 10 months, and went positive just as NINO3.4 SSTs hit the coldest month of that la Nina (Feb 2008).
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/data/indices/sstoi.indices
There’s enough variation in ENSO monitoring and classification across different institutes that one should be leery of touting any particular metric or set of metrics as the *truth*.
A bad habit in the climate blogosphere is to approach ENSO data as deterministic. ENSO indices are estimates, and are not uniform in how they are constructed and interpreted by the various groups that publish and assess them.
I stated that (over the past 22 months):
“.we have experienced La Nina conditions”.
The MEI only went negative in 8 of the 22 months.
The SOI only went positive in 8 of the 22 months.
i.e. 14 out of 22 months were on the La Nina side of neutral.
All-right – I should have said “La Nina-ish conditions”.
Still, the UAH average value over this period was a record.
Amazing!
Another note of caution: global temps do not correlate well to small deviations from ENSO neutral, but they do correlate with significant events.
With so much talk of Ninos and Ninas over the last couple of years, some people have got it into their heads that every fluctuation of NINO SSTs should have a matched global response. That just isn’t the case. It’s only the large events where we can expect correlation.
The point is with Bjerknes feedback we normally see Nino 1-2 get cool first and then progress into the Nino 3-4 areas. This did not happen in 2016-17. It is this process that pushes much of the warm left over El Nino waters back into the PWP. This did not happen and instead of lot of it drifted north of the equatorial Nino defined areas but still persisted over a large area.
As such no one should have expected to see the cooling that generally comes with a La Nina. In fact, the rainy season in CA was in part due to having a lot of let over warm water from which to draw moisture. With Bjerknes feedback you don’t usually have that.
We are now seeing the first true La Nina setting up. Nino 1-2 is already at -1.34 (Oct) and it never went negative in 2016.
Yes, there are “standard” ways that El Nino and La Nina are defined. However, not all of ENSO events are the same and their impacts on the global temperature (including lags) will also be different. This can lead to confusion as is seen in the comment from professorP.
There are times in the last 70 years when 1+2 got cool, then 3.4 followed, and a la Nina didn’t ensue. 1952, 1959, 1967 are examples, similar in progression to what has happened in the last few months. There have been a few false starts based on your view there.
Best not to count the chickens before they’re hatched. La Nina looks likely, but it’s not a lock yet.
There are standard ‘ways’ that ENSO events are defined, but they are not uniform. NINO 1+2 progression is not part of those standards. Looks like this is your idea.
Richard: ENSOs are natural variations. So are the AMO, PDO, etc. So they say little about manmade forcings.
But maybe you can explain why El Nino years keep getting warmer.
Same for La Nina years, and
for neutral years.
Why don’t you take a crack at it….
Barry, NOAA only has good data on the Nino regions starting in 1982.
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/data/indices/sstoi.indices
David, I already did that above. It seems you either skip over comments or have a very poor memory.
We are now at the peak of the AMO cycle’s impact on GAST. I realize you are in denial of natural climate factors. As such it will be impossible to hold a scientific discussion with you.
Richard,
NOAA’s ENSO page has data from 1950. The MEI index has data from the previous century, but also starts in 1950 for their main index as that is what they deem is sound enough data.
The 3.4 region monthly data used for their public ENSO page is:
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/ensostuff/detrend.nino34.ascii.txt
They also have a dataset based on ERSSv5 for all Nino regions since 1950.
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/data/indices/ersst5.nino.mth.81-10.ascii
Barry, it is clear that NOAA doesn’t believe the data is good enough to extract it and place it on the page I referenced. I wish there was good data further back in time. I think having good data back into the 1920s would be very interesting.
El Nino years, La Nina years and neutral years keep getting warmer and warmer. But no deniers on this site what to discuss that, let alone explain it.
I discussed it above. Your comments are just as poor here as there are on WUWT.
Asymmetric distribution of ozone in the stratosphere indicates a weak polar vortex.
http://pics.tinypic.pl/i/00950/7pmdqp70xqfv.png
Gordon,
I pointed anyone interested to the NOAA website where they admitted to slashing over 75% of the surface data they receive. I have yet to see the debunking you claim.
I have provided it numerous times (about 20) specifically for you, and you have never dealt with it. I now consider you to by lying about this.
NOAA did not say they had “slashed”, removed or cut the data. This is entirely your invention.
Chiefio, who you have cited on this, says specifically that he did not claim that NOAA deleted data. I’ve quoted that for you, and you’ve responded to it by backtracking – but keep coming back with the same old LIE.
NNOAA did not have the data to slash. For the umpteenth time, they retrospectively added data that is not available to them electronically – millions of hand-written records. This project finished at the end of the 1990s, even while NOAA was still receiving the data from 1500 weather stations via the automated process.
THEY DID NOT SLASH, CUT, REMOVE OR DELETE ANY DATA.
You. Are. A. Liar.
I second that. And a Trump-style liar at that.
barry
It makes few sense to answer to the Robertson troll. Feel free to let him repeat his lies and nonsense.
I have tried long time ago to explain him the same, to show him where he is wrong, to open his eyes on new stuff like the giant GHCN V4 daily record (about 100,000 stations), to show him what is the exact consequence of removing 75 % of the GHCN V3 stations by allowing only one of them per UAH grid cell (70,000 km2) to contribute to the time series, etc etc.
He is a troll insulting other commenters, calling me an ‘idiot’, other people ‘ignorant’ or ‘dumb ass’. He insults scientists he doesn’t grasp the work of, propagates ultraskeptic blogosphere lies, etc etc.
Never and never would he be able to do simplest tasks like e.g. constructing charts out of publicly available time series, nor a fortiori to compare various data sets that way.
We all should ignore him. I will now go on the next step in that direction, by not only stopping to directly reply to his comments, but also by stopping to indirectly comment them.
Mostly I do ignore him. But this lie of his is intolerable. He accuses NOAA of cutting records, when instead they went to a painstaking effort to add them. They did the exact opposite of what he continually slanders them for. He will continue to be called out on this lie as long as he promulgates it. It’s the lowest of all his bollocks.
barry…”Mostly I do ignore him. But this lie of his is intolerable. He accuses NOAA of cutting records, when instead they went to a painstaking effort to add them”.
You are terminally naive, barry. I posted a link directly to NOAA where they admitted to slashing their database by 75%. On the site of chiefio, he gives further evidence that NOAA has slashed reporting stations around the planet by up to 90% since the 1990s.
If someone offers you kool-aid at a climate gathering, please don’t take it.
I have met people like you in the past and all I can do is shake my head at your gullibility. Why do you think Lamar Smith is hot after NOAA? He wants to know why they amended the historical temperature records, what data they used, and their methodology. They refuse to cooperate.
Why??? Why would a major scientific organization, when ordered by their bosses to release data and methodology, outright refuse to cooperate?
You are a serial liar, again and again and again and again.
And that’s not a Canadian trait, from all the Canadians I’ve known.
Gordon wrote:
“Why??? Why would a major scientific organization, when ordered by their bosses to release data and methodology, outright refuse to cooperate?”
Because Jones knew that McIntyre’s purpose wasn’t scientific. And he was right.
And Jones didn’t have permission to release it all.
Some people honor contracts.
You are terminally naive, barry. I posted a link directly to NOAA where they admitted to slashing their database by 75%
“Slashing” = cutting, deleting, removing.
Let’s quote that link, shall we?
“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.”
Where does it say they deliberately deleted anything?
Nowhere. The 1500 reporting stations remained relatively constant through the 1990s.
The additional data comes as they said – from digitizing historical books.
They ADDED data THAT WAS NOT PART OF THEIR AUTOMATICALLY UPDATED STREAM.
THAT’S why there are data for 6,000 stations before 1997.
When they finished the mid-1990s project, they had 5 times the data that they did in 1991, and….
THOSE WEATHER STATIONS AROUND THE WORLD DO NOT SEND DATA TO NOAA EACH MONTH OR AT ANY TIME. THEY ARE NOT PART OF THE AUTOMATED DATA STREAM. MANY ARE NO LONGER OPERATIONAL.
This has been explained to you more than 20 times.
You. Are. A Liar.
Or the most stupid person I’ve ever encountered on the climate blogs, and that is saying something.
Happy to ignore everything else he writes.
Well to be honest, barry: ignoring a person by stopping to react on her/him does not mean for me to ignore what s/he writes.
Here is a typical example of how the troll manipulates this thread:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/12/uah-global-temperature-update-for-november-20170-36-deg-c/#comment-274472
You failed to mention that Craig Bohren is an AGW skeptic. He claimed in one of his books that the heat trapping/blanket effect of GHGs is at worst, plain silly, and he has dismissed the back-radiation theory as simply a model.
If I wouldn’t read that stuff I couldn’t compare it with Bohren’s personal meaning I recently collected here
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/11/uah-global-temperature-update-for-october-2017-0-63-deg-c/#comment-274203
and identify the troll’s output as an intentional misinterpretation of Bohren’s experience:
Carbon dioxide is an infrared-active gas (I hate the term “greenhouse gas”), and hence all else being equal (an important qualification) we expect more downward infrared radiation (and a heating effect) from the atmosphere with an increase in carbon dioxide.
To the info concerning Bohren I add this:
http://www.objectivistliving.com/forums/topic/16388-two-books-by-craig-bohren-on-atmospheric-science/
“However the climate changes, it is likely that some regions of the planet will gain, others will lose.”
That’s interesting topic. I can think of regions which could gain, but lack any specifics about regions which would lose.
Let’s try Africa which is warmest continent.
It seems to me, global warming could cause the Sahara desert to green. And would count that as being a gain. Unless a lot people like idea of a vast desert regions.
Or any change could be viewed as unwelcomed.
And one could say a general characteristic
of having the veiw of any change being viewed as
unwelcomed broadly fits the definition of being
conservative.
And one could say most of world population,
tends to view any change as unwelcome- because
one gets unknowable dangers associated with any change.
Thats interesting topic. I can think of regions which could gain, but lack any specifics about regions which would lose.
You can imagine gains, but for losses you need ‘specifics’? Seems a bit skewed to me.
A typical projection of losses comes from sea level rise which overwhelms near-coast agriculture (Mekong Delta for example), depleting staples like rice, causing economic hardship, migration inland and overcrowding. Another one is the loss of potable water from glaciers, which in general (85% of global glaciers) have been receding.
Our civilizations have flourished (mostly) under stable relatively climate conditions. If weather patterns change under global warming this could deplete agriculture and water in some areas, and of course cause gains in others. As we are no longer nomadic, but locked into nation states with millions of people, the potential harm is to many for regions that experience losses.
In a warming world, it is generally projected that wet regions will get wetter and dry regions will get drier.
” barry says:
December 4, 2017 at 4:39 PM
That’s interesting topic. I can think of regions which could gain, but lack any specifics about regions which would lose.
You can imagine gains, but for losses you need specifics? Seems a bit skewed to me.
A typical projection of losses comes from sea level rise which overwhelms near-coast agriculture (Mekong Delta for example)”
Apparently there is good news:
Chinese scientists develop rice that can grow in seawater, potentially creating enough food for 200 million people
Tuesday 24 October 2017
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/rice-seawater-chinese-scientists-food-200-million-a8017971.html
https://www.rt.com/business/407629-china-rice-grow-salt-water/
https://futurism.com/china-developing-rice-grows-saltwater/
Its still only maybe 10 percent the level of salt in sea water, Assistant Director General for Agriculture at the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization (UN FAO) Ren Wang told Business Insider, so the salt-proof rice does have a long way to go before it could help ordinary farmers.”
And:
According to recent data, salinity intrusion has increased the salt content of water in the deltas intricate system of rivers and irrigation canals. Salinity (4g/l) expanded through the Tien and Hau Rivers by up to 45- 65 km and 55-60 km, respectively, considered to be the most extensive salinity intrusion in the last 90 years”
http://www.mekongcommons.org/salinity-intrudes-mekong-delta-farmers-lose-yields-income/
I think sea water is 33g/1 or seems guy who invented new rice, knew what he was doing. The Assistant Director General- not so much.
Sea level rise isn’t about developing rice that can grow in sea water. It’s about the inundation of many great cities on the coasts, and hundreds of millions of people have to abandon their property.
Who will compensate them for that?
You, me, and all other taxpayers around the world.
davie, explain to us “Archimedes Principle”.
THAT should be a hoot!
” David Appell says:
December 4, 2017 at 6:27 PM
Sea level rise isnt about developing rice that can grow in sea water. ”
Barry had a concern about:
“….overwhelms near-coast agriculture (Mekong Delta for example), depleting staples like rice, causing economic hardship, migration inland and overcrowding. ”
Mekong Delta is at sea level. As it’s name suggests it’s on river delta. River delta’s will sink if river is dammed, but if not dammed one will get floods at the delta. Or New Orleans has same problem as do many settlements on deltas [at sea level and delta is restricted from growing, and therefore sinks.
There will be plenty of new places to plant rice.
“It seems to me, global warming could cause the Sahara desert to green.”
Why? It’s only getting hotter.
From all the science I’ve read, warming counteracts any CO2 fertilization.
DA…”Its about the inundation of many great cities on the coasts, and hundreds of millions of people have to abandon their property”.
Any evidence that is happening? You keep bugging Salvatore about his projections and ignore empty projections of rising sea levels since 1988.
Gordon Robertson says:
“Any evidence that is happening?”
Of course. In the US alone, see Miami, Norfolk VA and Olympia WA.
They know sea level is rising. We all do — at least, the nonliars here do.
It’s up to 4 cm/decade now. And there’s no reason it’s going to stop here.
Read Jeff Goodell’s new book. By now it might even have been translated into Canadian.
–David Appell says:
December 4, 2017 at 8:40 PM
It seems to me, global warming could cause the Sahara desert to green.
Why? Its only getting hotter.
From all the science Ive read, warming counteracts any CO2 fertilization.–
“Future climate warming could lead to a re-greening of the southernmost Sahara (Sahel), with decreased dust emissions and changes in land cover. In a recent study, researchers at the Department of Meteorology at Stockholm University..”
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/06/170608073356.htm
“Emerging evidence is painting a very different scenario, one in which rising temperatures could benefit millions of Africans in the driest parts of the continent.
Scientists are now seeing signals that the Sahara desert and surrounding regions are greening due to increasing rainfall.
If sustained, these rains could revitalize drought-ravaged regions, reclaiming them for farming communities. ”
https://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2009/07/090731-green-sahara.html
gbakie,
So you googled to rebut, and found news that is only one month old that a strain of rice (6 times more expensive than ordinary rice) may be grown in seawater.
I see the pattern already.
Whatever I mention as a loss you will suddenly become industrious about specifics and say “no problem,” without looking too deeply at viability, cost or anything else.
You will maybe research something on glaciers and water sources, and possibly come up with the brilliant observation that dams can replace them (which cost money).
But you are content to imagine good news scenarios without too much investigation.
You are a climate Pollyanna – the opposite of alarmists, and just as skewed. Predilection, not objectivity, fuels your interest. And so I am better informed about how to receive your opinion.
— barry says:
December 5, 2017 at 5:05 AM
gbaikie,
So you googled to rebut, and found news that is only one month old that a strain of rice (6 times more expensive than ordinary rice) may be grown in seawater.
I see the pattern already.
Whatever I mention as a loss you will suddenly become industrious about specifics and say no problem, without looking too deeply at viability, cost or anything else.—
Nope.
You answered my question, and I checked it out.
I knew already that people have been working on making salt resistance rice for quite a while. So I wondering if there was any recent news about it. And there was.
I also expect continued development on making salt resistant rice and as general rule, I expect newly developed products- whether smart phones, drugs, or rice to be more expensive.
Simple fact is if rice seed is worth 6 times more than normal rice seed, farmers will buy it. And if there actually significant need for that rice, more buy it, and if their is competitive market, the price of salt resistant rice will lower. Just like smart phones.
Probably most important aspect of this particular salt resistant rice is, does it taste good.
The other factor is the old lefty campaign against genetically altered food. As now, some people had religious beliefs which opposed their use [they don’t even want other people using them- crazy- though I guess normal for religious fanatics].
You answered my question, and I checked it out.
Yes, that’s what I said. I mention a loss you will look for a way to rebut it.
But you won’t do the due diligence for the good news stories. You won’t for example, ‘check out’ the greening of the Sahara to see how that works in the future.
You also weren’t very thorough with the first one. The Mekong is only one place where habitation and agriculture is within a few centimetres of sea level.
The game to be played is obvious, and so have a nice day.
” barry says:
December 5, 2017 at 2:40 PM
You answered my question, and I checked it out.
Yes, thats what I said. I mention a loss you will look for a way to rebut it.
But you wont do the due diligence for the good news stories. You wont for example, check out the greening of the Sahara to see how that works in the future.”
I don’t don’t think Sahara desert will green anytime soon due to warmer temperatures. It may green a bit due to enriched CO2 making plants survive drier conditions.
But were the alarmist 1/2 right about their ideas of future global warming, than Sahara would be green soon. It should have already happened if imagine we could presently at warmest at the present time [rather than being knowledgeable that we are simply recovering from a very cool period of recent history called the Little Ice Age]. And have come anything close to average global temperatures of when the Sahara desert was grassland- or in terms of last 10 million years the Sahara was mostly permanent region with grassland, rather than spending most of the time being desert for last +2 million years.
-You will maybe research something on glaciers and water sources, and possibly come up with the brilliant observation that dams can replace them (which cost money).-
They may cost money but dams can make money, providing high pressure water and provide electrical power.
Now, one prefer a wasteland of ice, so a few tourists can wander thru it, but dammed lakes have many benefits- including tourism.
Or basically if glaciers disappear, then one has land which has more value- it can have many uses- including greater access to other glaciers which haven’t melted, so that a few tourist can wander about in them.
But mostly likely the glacier will not melt enough to open this kind of opportunity- any time soon. Just like its unlike the arctic ocean will be become ice free in the summer, anytime soon [and open up vast areas which can used by humans. Or more area of Canada can be used for farming, and etc.
–But you are content to imagine good news scenarios without too much investigation.
You are a climate Pollyanna the opposite of alarmists, and just as skewed. Predilection, not objectivity, fuels your interest. And so I am better informed about how to receive your opinion.–
Well you could call me a progressive, but Lefties are midway through a process of completely polluting the word, just like they trashed the word “liberal” and as herd of wildebeests, after depleting the word progressive of any sensible meaning, predictably, they will move on to some greener region.
binny…”You failed to mention that Craig Bohren is an AGW skeptic”.
Do you have a problem with that, it came straight from Craig Bohren? I hate to see alarmists like you quoting him and trying to pass him of as other than a skeptic.
Craig Bohren is an honest man and a good scientist. He is also a climate change skeptic.
https://usatoday30.usatoday.com/tech/columnist/aprilholladay/2006-08-07-global-warming-truth_x.htm
“Carbon dioxide is an infrared-active gas (I hate the term “greenhouse gas”), and hence all else being equal (an important qualification) we expect more downward infrared radiation (and a heating effect) from the atmosphere with an increase in carbon dioxide. The detailed consequences of this, however, are unknown and possibly unknowable”.
“How much of the present climate change is a direct consequence of human activity is difficult to say with certainty”.
Bohren is a skeptic.
http://sybilstar.blogspot.ca/2006/08/finally-sane-voice-about-global.html
“”Skeptics about global warming are often painted as hirelings of the oil and automotive industries. Such claims irritate me. I have never earned a nickel as a consequence of my skepticism. Indeed, I have lost hundreds of thousands of dollars by it. “”
binny…you probably don’t understand a scientist who would pass up large amounts of money to be honest about science.
Both Roy and John at UAH have that integrity, yet you attack their data sets and favour scoundrels such as those at NOAA.
How do you know they have that integrity?
Do you know them personally?
Are you aware of all the upward adjustments they’ve had to make in the past?
It is still warm and time will tell. Not much more to say .
This is the forecast for the US on December 8.
https://earth.nullschool.net/#2017/12/08/1200Z/wind/isobaric/500hPa/overlay=temp/orthographic=-100.77,44.33,903/loc=-155.251,39.027
ren, you’re just junking up the list with irrelevant crap like this.
Don’t you have something better to do with your time?
AO index falls.
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/precip/CWlink/daily_ao_index/ao.obs.gif
So what? Do you have any thoughts, or only the ability to mindlessly post irrelevant links?
Equatorial Pacific is cool.
http://files.tinypic.pl/i/00950/ba1gk9f6bimu.png
ren, Salvatore thinks about climate, but you talk about weather.
Salvatore, what happened to the cooling you said started in 2002?
“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
By accident I discovered in Forbes online magazine a contribution of a scientist named Marshall Shepherd (dated june 2016):
https://www.forbes.com/sites/marshallshepherd/2016/06/20/water-vapor-vs-carbon-dioxide-which-wins-in-climate-warming/#732027a93238
His biography metioned therein is impressive and interesting:
Dr. J. Marshall Shepherd, a leading international expert in weather and climate, was the 2013 President of American Meteorological Society (AMS) and is Director of the University of Georgias (UGA) Atmospheric Sciences Program. Dr. Shepherd is the Georgia Athletic Association Distinguished Professor and hosts The Weather Channels Sunday talk show Weather Geeks.
Prior to UGA, Dr. Shepherd spent 12 years as a Research Meteorologist at NASA-Goddard Space Flight Center and was Deputy Project Scientist for the Global Precipitation Measurement (GPM) mission. In 2004, he was honored at the White House with a prestigious PECASE award.
Shepherd is frequently sought as an expert on weather and climate by major media outlets, the White House, and Congress. He has over 80 peer-reviewed scholarly publications and numerous editorials. Dr. Shepherd received his B.S., M.S. and PhD in physical meteorology from Florida State University.
Interesting because Mr Shepherds profile does not match that of those climate scientists involved e.g. in GCM modeling, for whom all dumb skeptics lack any respect. He is primarily a meteorologist.
An interesting sentence:
The astute reader will note that the atmospheric “greenhouse” effect is really a series of absorp-tion-emission processes rather than just heat entrapment (as a real greenhouse does).
It would be nioe to note one day that Mr Shepherd might have interest in replacing Mr Mann as Senate testimony writer. That would be a real progress.
It also would be nice if Congress never asked Mark Steyn again to testify before them. He isn’t an expert in climate and had no reason to be there.
DA…”It also would be nice if Congress never asked Mark Steyn again to testify before them. He isnt an expert in climate and had no reason to be there”.
He has first hand information about corruption at NOAA, and I’m sure that interests Congress more than his expertise on climate.
Oh really? What “first hand” information did Steyn have about NOAA?
Dont wimp out on an answer like you usually do.
binny…”The astute reader will note that the atmospheric greenhouse effect is really a series of absorp-tion-emission processes rather than just heat entrapment (as a real greenhouse does).”
In other words, there’s no proof that GHGs have anything to do with heat and the GHE is pseudo-science.
What does he mean by ‘just heat entrapment’ in a real greenhouse. The glass traps molecules of air and heat is the kinetic energy of those molecules. There is no mechanism in the atmosphere to trap those molecules.
Gordon Robertson says:
“In other words, theres no proof that GHGs have anything to do with heat and the GHE is pseudo-science.”
Liar.
https://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/schmidt_05/curve_s.gif
The average air temperature of Earth’s land surface is about 10 C and the average ocean air temperature is about 17 C.
In a class of 100 students were 70% to have an average score
of 17 and 30 students had score of 10. The class of 100 average score would be 14.9 (about 15).
Earth average surface temperature is about 15 C due to earth’s
ocean having a significantly higher surface air temperature.
If Earth had a higher percentage of land area, say, 40% rather
than just below 30%; would Earth’s average temperature be a lower temperature? And if earth’s had say, 90% of surface being ocean surface with only 10% land, would Earth have a higher average temperature?
The average air temperature of Earths land surface is about 10 C and the average ocean air temperature is about 17 C.
Wrong. I just checked the average value of the absolute temperature monthly record collected by up to 6,000 of the 7,280 GHCN V3 stations for 1880-today (2,700 in 2017), and it’s 14.45 C in average.
But I have to reconsider my answer: GHCN V3 unadjusted is much higher than time series like Had-CRUT, GISS, NOAA or BEST.
The average absolute temperature for 1951-1980 given by BEST:
% Estimated Jan 1951-Dec 1980 monthly absolute temperature:
% Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
% 2.6 3.2 5.3 8.4 11.4 13.5 14.4 13.9 12.1 9.3 6.1 3.7
That gives even 8.7 C.
So as you see it highly depends of a couple of factors:
– what temperature series du you choose?
– over which time period do you build the average?
The same will hold for the difference between all raw SST measurements and computed time series out of them, e.g. HadISST.
Bindidon
Above 20 degrees latitude is only “weather”.
http://ds.data.jma.go.jp/tcc/tcc/products/clisys/STRAT/gif/zt_nh.gif
Could you please explain what you exactly mean here?
That’s a bit cryptic, isn’t it?
Look at the above satellite data.
An utterly meaningless statement.
Utterly meaningless statements are all ren ever has.
He obviously has nothing better to do with his time.
DA…”Utterly meaningless statements are all ren ever has.
He obviously has nothing better to do with his time.”
He posts valuable information on meteorology. This site is run by a meteorologist whose data sets have utterly disproved AGW. It doesn’t seem to bother Roy that ren posts meteorological data, how about leaving that decision up to Roy?
After all, Roy puts up with your blatant alarmist dogma.
des…ren…”Look at the above satellite data.
des…”An utterly meaningless statement”.
ren is obviously light years ahead of you in intelligence. Binny asked him to explain his post and ren referred him to the satellite graph on this UAH site.
I have done that numerous times with you alarmist clowns who come on this blog and completely ignore the valuable info in the UAH graph. Most of you have no idea how to interpret it.
I know you are here as trolls, trying to disrupt a discussion on the UAH data, but that does not excuse you from making stupid statements like you made in your reply to ren.
Nothing wrong, gbaikie, I have to retract here.
I computed for BEST globe land the average absolute temperature out of their anomalies and the associated climatology, and the result is as follows:
– 1880-2017: 8.72 C
– 2000-2017: 9.63 C
Thus
1. Your ’10 C’ seems to be a correct actual estimate for the land average;
2. The period 1951-1980 used as climatology for the anomalies seems to be by accident a good representative for 1880-now;
3. The claim about BEST/GISS/NOAA/Had-CRUT calculating warmer temperatures than those which were measured at the stations, repeated ad nauseam by lots of dumb skeptics, is wrong: the calculated BEST global land average for 1880-now is about 6 C lower than the station average. And BEST has the highest temperatures among all records.
“Nothing wrong, gbaikie, I have to retract here.”
Ok. I posted below before seeing this.
I suppose you are calling GISS and NOAA liars. They say that they calculate higher upward trend in temperatures than what would be the case if they took straight measurements. They also provide graphs.
inquirer…”I suppose you are calling GISS and NOAA liars. They say that they calculate higher upward trend in temperatures than what would be the case if they took straight measurements. They also provide graphs”.
NOAA is the liar, GISS gets their data from NOAA, then they fudge it further.
NOAA did it’s fudging under the Obama administration who were looking for climate propaganda to enhance their alarmist Climate Action Plan. The Trump admin is taking steps to correct that by cutting their funding and installing overseers.
Under a recent investigation of NOAA by Lamar Smith the US government ordered NOAA to release documents. NOAA refused. Why would an honest government organization refuse?
It’s sad when a major scientific organizations has to be monitored. GISS was run by James Hansen for years and he was a political animal about climate change. He was a buddy of Al Gore and was arrested with actress Daryl Hannah for protesting the Keystone Pipeline.
Under Hansen, GISS was caught quietly trying to change the warmest year in US history from 1934 to 1998. Steve McIntyre caught him and GISS was forced to re-instate 1934.
The current leader of GISS, Gavin Schmidt, is a Hansen protege and an uber-alarmist. He is a mathematician and a climate modeler, hardly an authority on real atmospheric physics although he calls his site realclimate.
realclimate is nothing like Roy’s blog, where he allows us a fair amount of opinions. On realclimate, you talk the party line or you are banned.
Gordon Robertson wrote:
“He is a mathematician and a climate modeler, hardly an authority on real atmospheric physics although he calls his site realclimate.”
And you’re a Radio Shack technician who wasn’t trained in math or physics.
So you have no right to opine on climate science. None.
DA…”And youre a Radio Shack technician who wasnt trained in math or physics”.
Pretty daring charge from someone who doesn’t understand either physics or math.
binny…”The claim about BEST/GISS/NOAA/Had-CRUT calculating warmer temperatures than those which were measured at the stations, repeated ad nauseam by lots of dumb skeptics, is wrong:”
I have provided evidence several times, some straight from NOAA, that they fudge their temperature database using a climate model and by adjusting SSTs using methods that show the highest temperatures. They resorted to using only data from the water intakes of ships which inject a heat island effect into the water. When you suck water into a ship, you increase the water pressure and warm it. Also, the body of the ship warms it.
The BEST study was refuted by one of it’s co-authors, Dr. Judith Curry. She claimed the lead author Mueller, fudged the study after they had signed off. She no longer supports it.
Had.crut has failed to comply with requests for their database and methodology. Head of had.crut, Phil Jones, lied when he claimed he could not release the data because it belonged to others. When the ‘others’ were approached, most did not exist.
You are seriously naive binny. They are all corrupt and they have proved it over and over.
Gordon Robertson says:
“The BEST study was refuted by one of its co-authors, Dr. Judith Curry. She claimed the lead author Mueller, fudged the study after they had signed off.”
And also by that coward AWatts, who lied about his potential to accept the paper.
So what? They didn’t publish a rebuttal, did they? Curry (but not Watts) is a seasoned scientist who knows that only journal papers matter, not blog posts.
Yet she declined to publish one. That does not speak well for her denial.
Gordon Robertson wrote:
“Head of had.crut, Phil Jones, lied when he claimed he could not release the data because it belonged to others. When the others were approached, most did not exist.”
Prove it, Bubba.
You’re assailing a man’s character. Be a man yourself and prove your claim here.
Or wimp out as you usually do.
DA…”Gordon Robertson wrote:
Head of had.crut, Phil Jones, lied when he claimed he could not release the data because it belonged to others. When the others were approached, most did not exist.
Prove it, Bubba.”
There’s a text file below from Pat Michaels in which the corruption of Jones is revealed.
DA…”So what? They didnt publish a rebuttal, did they? Curry (but not Watts) is a seasoned scientist who knows that only journal papers matter, not blog posts”.
You are a naive idiot. A post on the Net by Judith Curry reaches far more readers than a peer review journal.
I am not talking average of stations measuring temperature- look at the locations of 7280 stations.
The two largest countries in world are Russian and Canada both have average temperature of about -4 C.
I already provided you link to BEST calculated [and methods explained] average yearly global land temperature , in my post in this thread:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/12/uah-global-temperature-update-for-november-20170-36-deg-c/#comment-274430
Which link given, was a paper:
https://www.scitechnol.com/2327-4581/2327-4581-1-101.pdf
Also:
Canada:
http://berkeleyearth.lbl.gov/regions/canada
Russia:
http://berkeleyearth.lbl.gov/regions/russia
US:
http://berkeleyearth.lbl.gov/regions/united-states
[That includes Alaska- normally US average is just
the Contiguous United States which is about 13 C]
Oh here is contiguous US:
http://berkeleyearth.lbl.gov/regions/contiguous-united-states
I think increasing the percentage of ocean area would increase average global [though it could a slight amount- as example the rise of fall of sea level does alter amount of land area, or during the glacial periods when sea levels are about 140 meters lower- with the land bridge between N America and Asia- plus all continental shelves being land area- that effect alone in terms less ocean area, should be quite minor- though the effect upon ocean circulation could much more significant effect on global temperature.
Also related is the idea/theory that during long history of Earth, it is thought that the foundation rock [granite] of continents has been increasing [growing/being created]- or roughly we have more land mass now as compared to billions of years ago.
And if the earth was completely flat/level the oceans would completely cover the entire planet to depth of about 3000 meters- if ocean were not so deep, the oceans cover all the land areas. Plus some imagine the Earth used to have more ocean water.
Though most recent fact is we didn’t always have polar ice caps [a recent, blink of eye last 50 million year type thing] though in last 500 million years or so we could had times even larger ice caps.
Anyhow over the long history of Earth, one should not assume there is the same ratio of land and ocean.
And we could have had vast shallow seas with lots coral islands- in the times Earth had life [or coral life].
Next, get to the question, why are ocean areas warmer in terms of an average temperature than compared to land area?
Transparent ocean water absorbs more energy from the Sun.
And if ocean aren’t transparent this ability to absorb more energy from the sun can greatly diminished. So volcanic eruptions in tropics and human doing some massive ocean fertilization project could greatly diminish the amount a tropical ocean can absorbed the energy of sunlight.
So the vast open ocean have very transparent and sterile water [unlike coastal waters] which allow sunlight pass thru many meters of ocean water. Blue light and UV light can travel thru 100 meters of the ocean surface. Red light and most of the sunlight of shortwave IR is limited to a few meters of ocean depth.
And the constant wave action of the ocean creates the ocean’s thermocline.
Wiki:
“Most of the heat energy of sunlight is absorbed in the first few centimeters at the ocean’s surface, which heats during the day and cools at night as heat energy is lost to space by radiation. Waves mix the water near the surface layer and distribute heat to deeper water such that the temperature may be relatively uniform in the upper 100 m (300 ft)”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermocline#Oceans
Wiki is incorrect to say most of “heat energy of sunlight is absorbed in the first few centimeters”
I assume wiki means “IR shortwave sunlight” when it says “heat energy of sunlight” and most of IR shortwave sunlight
isn’t absorbed in first few centimeters” though IR shortwave sunlight is somewhat similar to red light and it penetrates the least. Or say most of “heat energy” absorbed within 1 meter.
A significant portion of sunlight’s IR shortwave sunlight is “blocked” by water vapor in the atmosphere, and water will obviously absorbed this same spectrum of light as water vapor does. But sunlight despite having this portion of IR blocked still at surface has 52% of sunlight energy being shortwave IR. Or say wiki says:
“sunlight at Earth’s surface is around 52 to 55 percent infrared (above 700 nm), 42 to 43 percent visible (400 to 700 nm), and 3 to 5 percent ultraviolet (below 400 nm).”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunlight
And also at link:
“Then the direct sunlight at Earth’s surface when the Sun is at the zenith is about 1050 W/m2, but the total amount (direct and indirect from the atmosphere) hitting the ground is around 1120 W/m ”
Which relates to why oceans absorb more sunlight- ocean absorbs direct and indirect sunlight.
Or ocean water absorbs in a diffused fashion- it’s absorbed as goes thru significant depth of water rather within short distance- less than 1 mm depth of land’s surface [a rock, or dirt].
So if you want to know how much say concrete sidewalk will heat by, it related to the amount of direct sunlight reaching it per square meter.
So 1000 watts = 364 K [90 C]. And not 1120 = 374 K [100 C].
Of course a sidewalk isn’t ideal blackbody and has air convectional loss depending air temperature [or if windy]. So high air temperature and sun’s near zenith, sidewalks can reach about 70 C [343 K or 158 F- btw, the needed temperature to fry an egg].
And solar pond not only can reach 80 C, but can maintain 80 C during the night, but they won’t get much hotter than 80 C [some have claimed higher temperature of 90 C or higher- though if add reflected sunlight of course it can get get warmer]. But is the sunlight must pass thru much more than a few centimeters of water- more than 1/2 meter or less salty water. Or if most of “heat energy” was absorbed in first few centimeters, solar ponds wouldn’t work.
Hudson Bay will soon freeze.
http://www.ospo.noaa.gov/data/sst/anomaly/2017/anomnight.12.4.2017.gif
Winter in Canada.
http://files.tinypic.pl/i/00950/ewn0ly7q1izn.png
Here’s an interesting article on recent solar irradiance. Salvatore will be pleased. Apparently, we’re headed for an unusually quiet period.
So, the AMO is headed downward, a la nina is looking more and more likely, now add a solar minimum to top it off. The deep freeze is on!
Oops, here’s the link:
https://climate.nasa.gov/news/2659/four-decades-and-counting-new-nasa-instrument-continues-measuring-solar-energy-input-to-earth
ren…”Winter in Canada.”
That’s typical for Canada, ren, but her in Vancouver it is typically mild, between 5C and 10C. That’s due to the Japanese current, the Pacific Ocean equivalent of the Gulf Stream.
gbaikie…take note. ☺ The ocean keeps us at least 20C warmer than inland parts of Canada. Those parts would likely not be as cold if Arctic air did not descend on them regularly. The prairies and inland centres in BC, Canada are generally -20C in winter and get as cold as -35C to -50C with Arctic air.
Your map shows the west coast covered in snow but for Vancouver and at least 100 miles east, there is no snow, except on the mountains.
g*e*r*a*n
STATES with confidence: “barry, you keep striving with your blah, blah, blah to somehow explain the 2nd Law.
Just go with the KISS principleKeep it simple, stupid.
Cold cannot warm hot.
Simple.”
But evidence is against his declarative statement and his understanding of the second law is flawed and incomplete.
What does this poster mean by “Cold”? What does he mean by “warm”
And what does this one mean with “hot”
If g*e*r*a*n chooses these defintions
Cold: lower temperature compared to other object(s) in area
warm: Increase the temperature of object(s)
hot: higher temperature compared to ohter object(s) in area.
If this is his accepted definitions then he does not believe empirical science and delves in the world of fantasy and pseudoscience.
Here:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3824861/table/Tab2/
This table shows that different levels of cold can warm hot compared to each other (which is all the GHE is claiming).
Does a 26 C room (which is still much colder than the powered lab items some of which are 36 C) warm the powered items compared to a 20 C room? The data shows that cold does affect the equilibrium temperature of the “hot” objects.
The evidence shows g*e*r*a*n does not have a clue about physics and wastes time by posting his phony make believe physics based upon nothing but his own beliefs.
How will this one be able to deny real data and evidence which shows his declarative statement to be misleading? The evidence shows that “cold” can warm “hot” if the “hot” items are powered. The Earth’s surface is powered by the Sun. The cold atmosphere, being much warmer than outer space, will obviously lead to a warmer surface just as the lab items are warmer when the cold air temperature is increased. Real physics, reality.
norman…”Here:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3824861/table/Tab2/
This table shows that different levels of cold can warm hot compared to each other (which is all the GHE is claiming)”.
The table has nothing to do with cold warming hot, the article is about the deleterious effect of hotter ambient temperatures on equipment. That’s a no-brainer to any one who has worked in electronics.
“Does a 26 C room (which is still much colder than the powered lab items some of which are 36 C) warm the powered items compared to a 20 C room? The data shows that cold does affect the equilibrium temperature of the hot objects”.
How do you draw such inferences? The equipment is at 36 C due to internal power generation and the fact it exists in a 20C room. If you raise the room temperature to 26 C the equipment’s temperature will rise.
It has to do with the equipment’s ability to shed heat. If the room T was the same as the temperature internally of the equipment it could not shed heat and it would likely be destroyed. A room at 26C as opposed to one at 20 C prevents the degree of cooling the equipment would experience at 20C.
It’s in the equation you supplied with T-radiator and T-environment.
Gordon Robertson
Is your post for real?
It definitely and without doubt shows that cold can warm hot.
Is the temperature of the air colder than the powered objects.
Just a Yes or No.
Is 20 C or 26 C colder than 36 C? Just Yes or No.
So cold 26 C air (cold relative to the 30+C equipment) warms the equipment to higher temperatures than the 20 C can do.
Is the equipment warmer with 20 C air or 26 C air?
Both are cold compared to the hot. The equilibrium temperature of the equipment is warmer, so by basic logic, the colder air warmed the equipment (its temperature is higher than before).
The hot is warmer in one case over the other. The cold is warming the hot as nothing else has changed. The power input to the lab equipment is the same, it was not increased. The only change was the cold temp and less cold warmed the objects more than colder cold could do.
Gordon, now answer your point.
YOU: “It has to do with the equipments ability to shed heat. If the room T was the same as the temperature internally of the equipment it could not shed heat and it would likely be destroyed. A room at 26C as opposed to one at 20 C prevents the degree of cooling the equipment would experience at 20C.”
Why does the 26 C prevent the degree of cooling of a 20 C room. Both are colder than the equipment.
Gordon Robertson
Do you understand why energy transfers (at the molecular level) from a hot object to a cold one and why it changes based upon the temperature gradient?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elastic_collision
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Momentum
Look at the graphic collisions in the first link.
(scroll down a bit)
You will see a faster moving block (equal mass) hitting a slower moving block moving toward it. What happens? You get a two-way energy transfer. The energy of the slower moving block is transferred to the previous faster moving block and visa versa.
The slower moving block transfers its energy to the faster moving block.
If you have an object near absolute zero touching a warmer object nearly all the energy is transferred from the warmer object to the colder one (look at elastic collisions in the link). If you warm the cold object up then it will transfer some of its energy when its surface molecules interact with the hotter objects surface molecules. The rate of heat transfer will slow down since some energy is flowing back into the hotter object from the colder one. The HEAT FLOW (net energy flow) will always be one way but the energy will flow both ways. As both objects reach the same temperature the molecules in each surface do not suddenly stop moving. They are both hitting each other continuously but now you have the Newton cradle.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JadO3RuOJGU
You still have energy exchanges and energy flows, they are just equal now so no heat flows.
Think about it!
norman…”Gordon, now answer your point.
YOU: It has to do with the equipments ability to shed heat. If the room T was the same as the temperature internally of the equipment it could not shed heat and it would likely be destroyed. A room at 26C as opposed to one at 20 C prevents the degree of cooling the equipment would experience at 20C.
Why does the 26 C prevent the degree of cooling of a 20 C room. Both are colder than the equipment”.
I answered it in the quote. The equipment’s ability to shed heat is dependent on the ambient room temperature. It’s in the equation you gave: q = ε σ (Th^4 – Tc^4) Ac
Where Th is the hot body temp and Tc = cooler surroundings temp.
If Th = Tc, q = 0. You can see immediately by raising and lowering Tc that the radiation increases and decreases. If you take Tc down to freezing, at 0C, the equipment will cool much faster.
There is nothing in that equation about the room transferring heat to the equipment unless Tc > Th. Then the sign of q will become negative, indicating a reversal of energy flow.
Note that this equation obeys the 2nd law. There is nothing in there to indicate an energy flow from the cooler object to the hotter object.
GR wrote:
“There is nothing in that equation about the room transferring heat to the equipment unless Tc > Th”
Do both objects radiate?
If so (and they do, of course), where does that radiation go?
Gordon? Don’t wimp out on yet another question…
DA…”There is nothing in that equation about the room transferring heat to the equipment unless Tc > Th
Do both objects radiate?
If so (and they do, of course), where does that radiation go?”
************
I have answered that question many times, you are far too obtuse to understand it. I also answered it with Tc < Th with the heat transfer equation. Objects only absorb energy from hotter objects, as per the 2nd law. The radiation from cooler objects obviously bounces around till they find a cooler object to absorb them.
Why do you have trouble understanding this stuff?
Gordon Robertson
Have you ever read what the terms in the equation you posted mean. Done a deeper study of it? It seems you have not by your statement.
YOU: “Note that this equation obeys the 2nd law. There is nothing in there to indicate an energy flow from the cooler object to the hotter object.”
Wow! You are in direct contradiction of what the equation is stating. So what do you think the Tc^4 term is?
q = ε σ (Th^4 Tc^4) Ac
Since you do not read or study real physics but get all your knowledge from the crackpots of PSI I will tell you what the textbooks say the term is.
Tc^4 is the ENERGY (when expanded and multiplied by the other terms) the hot surface receives from the colder surroundings. It is the incident energy from the surrounding radiating objects that is absorbed by the hot surface.
I can’t make you understand this, but it is what the equation is stating. If you take any time to read into it you will see this.
David Appell is 100% correct on it and you are 100% wrong. You do not know the physics you think you do.
David Appell is also correct when he observes you have trouble understanding this stuff. The flaw is not ours, it is in your ability to understand basic physics. Too much PSI on the brain. The stuff over there is really distorted and false physics. That is why everyone has banned the material on their blogs. It is unscientific distorted BS that no scientific blog will touch with a long extended pole. If you studied real science you would start to see how horrible the science is on that site.
Objects only absorb energy from hotter objects, as per the 2nd law. The radiation from cooler objects obviously bounces around till they find a cooler object to absorb them.
OMG.
Thank god Kristian is here. The only ‘skeptic’ on the board who doesn’t post at this level of bollocks on the subject.
“Kristian…The only ‘skeptic’ on the board who doesn’t post at this level of bollocks on the subject.”
barry, barry … Now I don’t feel the love here. Eight years of college down the drain.
norman…”s your post for real?
It definitely and without doubt shows that cold can warm hot.
Is the temperature of the air colder than the powered objects”.
You are revealing yourself as a blatant idiot. I told you, from my vast experience in electroncs that electronic machines and all machines generate heat internally. The amount of heat they generate as NOTHING to do with the ambient temperature, it has to do with internal friction in moving parts and the internal friction of electric currents running through conductors and devices.
The problem is heat dissipation. That’s where ambient temperatures come into it. I told you, and your equation corroborates it, that when the ambient temperature equals the internally generated temperature, the internal heat cannot be dissipated effectively and the device heats up.
It is not drawing heat from the atmosphere it is generating heat internally. The closer the ambient room temperature is to the internal heat temperature the less heat the machine can dissipate. Therefore, a room at 25C will not allow as much heat dissipation as a room at 20C.
Wherever did you get the notion that a cooler room is supplying heat to a machine?
Gordon wrote:
“Wherever did you get the notion that a cooler room is supplying heat to a machine?”
Is the cooler room radiating?
(Yes.)
So where does that heat go?
Gordon Robertson says:
“You are revealing yourself as a blatant idiot. I told you, from my vast experience in electroncs….”
What exactly is your experience in electronics?
As a tech.
Post your resume here so we can decide for ourselves what kind of “expert” you are.
Gordon, post your resume here so we can all see your qualifications to opine on climate science.
What are you afraid of?
DA…”post your resume here so we can all see your qualifications to opine on climate science”.
Only an idiot would post personal information onto the Net unless he/she is in business and needs to do that. What does my resume have to do with anything? Is the information I present accurate or not? You seem to be having trouble comprehending it never mind understanding it or replying to it.
Is your CV available?
Gordon Robertson
Gordon: “You are revealing yourself as a blatant idiot.”
No you are revealing you are unable to answer questions. I am not asking about heat dissipation.
I have asked simple questions that you will not answer.
HERE AGAIN, just answer the questions. No other information is needed.
Yes or No please
1) Is 20 C or 26 C air colder than 36 C equipment? Yes or No?
2) Is the equipment warmer in 20 C air or 26 C air? 20 C/ or 26 C?
3) Did the equipment warm when 20 C air was replaced by 26 C air? Yes/or No?
26 C is colder than 36 C. The equipment temperature went up from the 20 C room. This means the equipment warmed. What part of the English language is troubling you? Did anything else warm the equipment to a higher temperature? Did the technicians doing the test increase the energy to the lab objects? If not the only change was in the cold air temperature. Raising the temperature of the cold air warmed the objects. Yes or No?
You guys are still trying to argue cold heats hot… Wow… If you ever figure out howto actually do that youve solved all the worlds energy needs…
No.. The warmer room did not heat the instrument … The power source did … Because the warmer room did not conduct heat away from the instrument as quickly as the colder room …
Wht do you insist on looking at this ass backwards??
PhilJ
Sorry but you don’t understand conduction. I gave links above to what the process is.
In the coldest possible state for conduction (absolute zero) lowest amount of molecular vibration possible. The molecules vibrating on a warm surface will transfer all their energy to these molecules and receive back none in return. As the coldest object warms and the surface molecules interact (vibrational collisions in solids), the cold molecules will transfer their energy to the hotter surface and the hot surface vibrating molecules will have some energy retained after the collisions. As the cold object gets warmer still, its molecules will transfer even more energy to the hotter object.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/12/uah-global-temperature-update-for-november-20170-36-deg-c/#comment-274914
You can look at the links in my post. It will demonstrate visually what I am stating. It is established physics.
The 26 C air transfers more energy per collision to the powered lab items than the 20 C air can, the energy to the powered objects is the same in both situations, it has a constant input of energy, if it is absorbing more from its surroundings from the 26 C air than the 20 C air it will warm up to higher temperatures until it can rid itself of the input energy. The cold air is responsible for warming the equipment to higher temperatures.
No no no no
In both cases 20 or 26 C air , heat is being transferred from the powered instrument to the air..
The 20C air is denser thus there are more collisions with the insrument and with a lower KE more energy can be transfered from the instrument per collision.. Thus the 20 C air removes heat from the instrument at a greater rate and the instrument temp lowers…
The 26 C air does not add energy to the instrument … It removes heat at a slower rate , so the instrument temp must rise until the energy/collision times the number of collisions is equal to the energy input of the power source..
In both cases it is the power source that heats the instrument and the instrument that transfers heat to the air…
PhilJ
You are responding without looking at the links I provided.
Energy exchange is a two-way process.
I suggest you play with a Newton Cradle as it will let you see this.
I think you are wrong on your density logic. I do not think there is much difference between 20 C air and 26 C air plus the warmer air is moving faster and will have more collisions per time than the colder air. Not sure what your sources are. If you are certain you are correct in your thought process, post some links where you get your information, I would like to read up on it. I am always upgrading my knowledge base and correcting incorrect ideas (prune the tree of knowledge).
When two objects are moving toward each other, each transfers energy to the other. If an object is stationary (absolute zero in molecular processes) all the energy of the moving object, in a collision, is transferred to the stationary object and none is transferred back to the moving object. The result is the previously moving object stops and the previously stationary object moves in the same direction as the other one was moving with the same speed.
If two objects are moving toward each other they transfer the energy they had to the opposing object. So a slow moving object will transfer energy back to the faster moving one. That is why heat transfer slows down and the object and surroundings near in temperature. The surroundings add energy back to the object, the warmer the surroundings, the more energy is added back and the loss of heat slows down to a crawl. When both at the same temperature the energy exchange is equal. Newton Cradle when you have two opposing balls strike the other stationary balls. Both transfer the same amount of energy to each other and they move off in opposite directions.
Think about it.
Hi Norman,
First of all.. Egg on my face … I was wrong .. You are correct that the number of collisions due to velocity is a greater factor in a gas than the density and in fact warmer air is a slightly better conducter thsn cooler air… Just reminds me how much ive forgotten since courses mant years ago … Lol
I still maintain though that in both the 20 and 26 C air you have the instrument losing energy to the air ..
Heat always flows hot to cold … But im going to refrain from arguing it with you further till i bone back up on elastic collisions and KE transfer so i dont get egg on my face again lol
The con-man confuses himself AGAIN! “The evidence shows g*e*r*a*n does not have a clue about physics and wastes time by posting his phony make believe physics based upon nothing but his own beliefs”
Norm, you have no experience with thermodynamics or heat transfer. You are grasping at straws so often, your have become your own straw man!
The equipment is the heat source, you poor impotent chihuahua! That means the equipment is a “heater”. The equipment is bring new energy into the system. That is why its temperature is increased by the room temperature. You just don’t have a clue about heat flow. Earth’s surface is NOT a thermodynamic heat source. The Sun IS the heat source.
Now, more of your immature, pathetic rambling, please.
.
“Earth’s surface is NOT a thermodynamic heat source.”
Hilarious! Try walking across an asphalt parking lot in bare feet on a 130F sunny day in Phoenix summer say early afternoon. I do believe some sense would be pounded into anger’s head. Right quickly.
The poor cabbage head doesn’t understand “thermodynamic heat source”.
Hey CH, how did that asphalt get so hot?
(Hilarious.)
Ahhh…anger gets my point, the anticipation of pain was a lesson learned.
The thought of pain from an asphalt thermodynamic heat source contacting anger’s bare feet that was warmed by the sun (another thermodynamic heat source) got through to anger. Can anger think of anymore thermodynamic heat sources warming stuff?
g*e*r*a*n
You fail your own point. I brought that example up to demonstrate your incorrect declarative statement. It does not matter if the lab items are powered or not. That has little to do with your statement.
HERE again for you selective memory: barry, you keep striving with your blah, blah, blah to somehow explain the 2nd Law.
Just go with the KISS principle Keep it simple, stupid.
Cold cannot warm hot.
Simple.
Now use your own principle, Keep it simple, stupid.
Is the lab equipment in my link hotter than the cold air? Yes/No?
If you answer No you are an idiot and we can no continue a discussion. If you answered Yes then you admit the air is “Cold”
You will also admit the powered lab objects are “hot”
Your statement is that Cold cannot warm hot.
If the lab instruments have the same amount of energy powering them in the two different cases of room temperature (20 C and 26 C) then the source of energy to the lab equipment cannot be the cause of warming. It is the same amount of energy. Adding the same amount of energy to objects will not warm them. So the cause must be the surrounding. The diffference in the cold. You did agree that the 26 C air is “cold” This cold led to higher temperature of the lab equipment. It would clearly (at least if you had a logical thought process which you do not) demonstrate that yes indeed Cold can warm hot. Is the temperature of the lab equipment higher in one state than the other?
g*e*r*a*n
YOU: “The equipment is the heat source, you poor impotent chihuahua! That means the equipment is a heater. The equipment is bring new energy into the system. That is why its temperature is increased by the room temperature. You just dont have a clue about heat flow. Earths surface is NOT a thermodynamic heat source. The Sun IS the heat source.”
NO g*e*r*a*n, the equipment is not the heat source. Call me what you need to, it does not help your argument. The heat source is the electricity that is adding energy to the lab equipment. It is a passive object and produces no energy. Very similar to the Earth’s surface. But the objects warm up when the cold air is less cold.
When did I say the Earth’s surface was a heat source? Distorting my posts and then saying I don’t know anything about heat transfer makes you a lunatic. Do you need counseling?
Here is what I posted to you above: “How will this one be able to deny real data and evidence which shows his declarative statement to be misleading? The evidence shows that cold can warm hot if the hot items are powered. The Earths surface is powered by the Sun. The cold atmosphere, being much warmer than outer space, will obviously lead to a warmer surface just as the lab items are warmer when the cold air temperature is increased. Real physics, reality.”
To isolate: ME: “The Earths surface is powered by the Sun.”
AGAIN YOU: “You just dont have a clue about heat flow. Earths surface is NOT a thermodynamic heat source. The Sun IS the heat source.”
Wow you are really messed up g*e*r*a*n. Did you have a few too many? That is okay, maybe you will sober up tomorrow.
Text file in my archives from Pat Michaels showing the abject corruption at CRU, better known as Had-crut. Michaels is a climate scientist who was the state climatologist for the state of Virginia till he was fired for being a skeptic.
The file reveals the shenanigans of Phil Jones, head of CRU, in his attempts to stop prying eyes evaluating his data.
McKitrick and Michaels published a paper revealing a study of the record since 1979, comparing the surface record to satellite data. They estimated the surface data could be overestimated by 50%.
The URL is defunct, I included it to help anyone who wants to try tracking it down:
b. National Review Online, 23 September 2009
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ZTBiMTRlMDQxNzEyMmRhZjU3ZmYzODI5MGY4ZWI5OWM=By
Patrick J. Michaels
Imagine if there were no reliable records of global surface temperature. Raucous policy debates such as cap-and-trade would have no scientific basis, Al Gore would at this point be little more than a historical footnote, and President Obama would not be spending this U.N. session talking up a (likely unattainable) international climate deal in Copenhagen in December. Steel yourself for the new reality, because the data needed to verify the gloom-and-doom warming forecasts have disappeared.
Or so it seems. Apparently, they were either lost or purged from some discarded computer. Only a very few people know what really happened, and they aren’t talking much. And what little they are saying makes no sense.
In the early 1980s, with funding from the U.S. Department of Energy, scientists at the United Kingdom’s University of East Anglia established the Climate Research Unit (CRU) to produce the world’s first comprehensive history of surface temperature. It’s known in the trade as the “Jones and Wigley” record for its authors, Phil Jones and Tom Wigley, and it served as the primary reference standard for the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) until 2007. It was this record that prompted the IPCC to claim a “discernible human influence on global climate.”
Putting together such a record isn’t at all easy. Weather stations weren’t really designed to monitor global climate. Long-standing ones were usually established at points of commerce, which tend to grow into cities that induce spurious warming trends in their records. Trees grow up around thermometers and lower the afternoon temperature. Further, as documented by the University of Colorado’s Roger Pielke Sr., many of the stations themselves are placed in locations, such as in parking lots or near heat vents, where artificially high temperatures are bound to be recorded.
So the weather data that go into the historical climate records that are required to verify models of global warming aren’t the original records at all. Jones and Wigley, however, weren’t specific about what was done to which station in order to produce their record, which, according to the IPCC, showed a warming of 0.6 C +/- 0.2 C in the 20th century.
Now begins the fun. Warwick Hughes, an Australian scientist, wondered where that “+/-” came from, so he politely wrote Phil Jones in early 2005, asking for the original data. Jones’s response to a fellow scientist attempting to replicate his work was, “We have 25 years or so invested in the work. Why should I make the data available to you, when your aim is to try and find something wrong with it?”
Reread that statement, for it is breathtaking in its anti-scientific thrust. In fact, the entire purpose of replication is to “try and find something wrong.” The ultimate objective of science is to do things so well that, indeed, nothing is wrong.
Then the story changed. In June 2009, Georgia Tech’s Peter Webster told Canadian researcher Stephen McIntyre that he had requested raw data, and Jones freely gave it to him. So McIntyre promptly filed a Freedom of Information Act request for the same data. Despite having been invited by the National Academy of Sciences to present his analyses of millennial temperatures, McIntyre was told that he couldn’t have the data because he wasn’t an “academic.” So his colleague Ross McKitrick, an economist at the University of Guelph, asked for the data. He was turned down, too.
Faced with a growing number of such
requests, Jones refused them all, saying that
there were “confidentiality” agreements regarding
the data between CRU and nations that supplied
the data. McIntyre’s blog readers then requested
those agreements, country by country, but only a
handful turned out to exist, mainly from Third
World countries and written in very vague language.
It’s worth noting that McKitrick and I
had published papers demonstrating that the
quality of land-based records is so poor that the
warming trend estimated since 1979 (the first
year for which we could compare those records to
independent data from satellites) may have been
overestimated by 50 percent. Webster, who
received the CRU data, published studies linking
changes in hurricane patterns to warming (while others have found otherwise).
Enter the dog that ate global warming.
Roger Pielke Jr., an esteemed professor
of environmental studies at the University of
Colorado, then requested the raw data from Jones. Jones responded:
Since the 1980s, we have merged the data
we have received into existing series or begun
new ones, so it is impossible to say if all
stations within a particular country or if all of
an individual record should be freely available.
Data storage availability in the 1980s meant that
we were not able to keep the multiple sources for
some sites, only the station series after
adjustment for homogeneity issues. We, therefore,
do not hold the original raw data but only the
value-added (i.e., quality controlled and homogenized) data.
The statement about “data storage” is
balderdash. They got the records from somewhere.
The files went onto a computer. All of the
original data could easily fit on the 9-inch tape
drives common in the mid-1980s. I had all of the
world’s surface barometric pressure data on one such tape in 1979.
If we are to believe Jones’s note to the
younger Pielke, CRU adjusted the original data
and then lost or destroyed them over twenty years
ago. The letter to Warwick Hughes may have been
an outright lie. After all, Peter Webster
received some of the data this year. So the
question remains: What was destroyed or lost,
when was it destroyed or lost, and why?
All of this is much more than an
academic spat. It now appears likely that the
U.S. Senate will drop cap-and-trade climate
legislation from its docket this fall – whereupon
the Obama Environmental Protection Agency is
going to step in and issue regulations on
carbon-dioxide emissions. Unlike a law, which
can’t be challenged on a scientific basis, a
regulation can. If there are no data, there’s no
science. U.S. taxpayers deserve to know the
answer to the question posed above. (Patrick J.
Michaels is a senior fellow in environmental
studies at the Cato Institute and author of
Climate of Extremes: Global Warming Science They Don’t Want You to Know.) “
Who thinks the National Review honestly reports on climate change?
No one, that’s who.
Except a few oblivious, lying Canadians.
DA…”Who thinks the National Review honestly reports on climate change?”
What does the National Review have to do with a paper presented by the climate scientist Pat Michaels? He is a degree pertinent to climate science, do you? Have you ever held the position of state climatologist?
Typical DA – attack the messenger.
I suppose if the NYT or the Nation or Mother Jones or Rolling Stone published it DA would find it satisfactory
Gordon, here’s a working link.
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/228291/dog-ate-global-warming-patrick-j-michaels
Michael’s criticism is way out of date. The Met Office record is broadly corroborated by JMA, GISS, NOAA, GSOD, BEST, by skeptics Phil Condon and Roman M, who produced their own record from raw data (higher trends than Met Office) UAH and RSS. Different methods and data produce largely the same results, with minor differences. Met Office global temp record has the lowest trends of the surface records bar JMA, which has the least coverage.
McIntyre, by the way, has had access to the raw data for 6 years, and done nothing about it. Where is his global temp record?
Same with Warwick Hughes. He has produced no alt global temp record nor any paper on the matter since. Wonder why he lost interest when the data became available…
barry…”McIntyre, by the way, has had access to the raw data for 6 years, and done nothing about it. Where is his global temp record?”
I take your word for this (??) or do you have proof?
Sure, it was announced in 2011:
https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn20739-ok-climate-sceptics-heres-the-raw-data-you-wanted/
https://ipfs.io/ipfs/QmXoypizjW3WknFiJnKLwHCnL72vedxjQkDDP1mXWo6uco/wiki/Freedom_of_Information_requests_to_the_Climatic_Research_Unit.html
Can be accessed here under station data:
https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/crutem4/data/download.html
barry…”Gordon, heres a working link”.
Thanks for link.
To be fair, the sources you mention are all on the same side. Some have proved to be in bed together, as exhibited in the Climategate emails.
The point Michaels is making is that several people tried to get access to the CRU data and Jones blocked them. He gave it freely to one of his cronies after claiming it was not available.
Michaels has not had an easy time of it. He was fired as state climatologist by the State of Virginia for expressing skeptical views. Back in the days when Hansen was spouting climate alarm, Michaels was the only climate scientist opposing him. Hansen was funded by the US government, through NASA GISS and friends of Al Gore, and Michaels was on his own cognizance. Western Fuels stepped up and offered to fund him and the alarmists jumped all over that as him being in bed with big oil.
I would have done the same. There was no conflict of interest unless Michaels spoke on their behalf. WF was happy to fund him because he was talking their language, that’s not the fault of Michaels. If Michaels can’t accept funding from WF then Hansen should not have been able to accept funding from friends of Al Gore, or use his position at GISS to spread propaganda.
To be fair, the sources you mention are all on the same side.
These are all the parties. GISS, Met Office, NOAA, JMA, BEST, UAH, RSS. Phil Condon is an avowed skeptic, and he got higher trends than Had.CRU in his temp reconstruction from raw data.
Check it out:
https://noconsensus.wordpress.com/2010/03/24/thermal-hammer/
So if al these are on the same side, and the raw data has ben available since 2011…
WHERE ARE THE GLOBAL TEMP RECORDS PUT TOGETHER BY ‘THE OTHER SIDE’?
As I said, Warwick Hughes and Steve McIntyre have had access for 6 years and they’ve produced NOTHING.
They wanted the data. They’ve had access for six years. What the hell did they ask for it for?
Maybe Jones had their number right. Sure looks that way. These guys were time-wasters.
Raw CRU data has been available from this page since at least May 2012, verified by the internet caching archive, wayback machine.
https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/crutem4/data/download.html
Steve McIntyre confirmed the release and posted links to the raw data in July 2011.
All that raw data and Hughes and McIntyre have been AWOL on it for years. Why did the hell they request it in the first place, urging FOIs, if not to work on it?
There were questions the other day about the validity of the 270 ppmv CO2 concentration of the pre-Industrial Era as determined by ice core samples. This article deals with the validity of that claim and about ice core proxies in general.
There is a question as to why Callandar and the IPCC cherry picked certain CO2 concentrations in the 19th and 20th century while ignoring much higher concentrations. They ignored concentrations that would have disqualified their claim of anthropogenic warming since the Industrial Era.
https://www.greenworldtrust.org.uk/Science/Scientific/CO2-ice-HS.htm
When are you gonna prove that CO2 can only cause a few hundredths of degrees of temperature increase, as you wrote above?
I hope you’re not gonna bail on this, as cowards usually do….
DA…”When are you gonna prove that CO2 can only cause a few hundredths of degrees of temperature increase, as you wrote above?”
I already have, your lack of understanding of basic chemistry has obviously made it impossible for you to understand the Ideal Gas Equation and Dalton’s Law.
g*r is right, you’re whining is humourous.
Dear God, anyone with half a brain can see that the CO2 content since daily measurements were taken at pristine sites around the world has remained very stable, with an increase, since 1958.
Idiots somehow imagine that the supposed huge annual global fluctuations during the last 150 years or so (Beck) promulgated in skeptic blogs and by the odd maverick (Jarowoski, ice cores) suddenly stopped happening in 1957 as soon as these careful atmospheric measurements were taken. I wonder what mechanism caused that? Could it be that older records were taken in CO2 rich environments, like in cities and these were used for global background levels? Nah… no one would be that foolish…. except for Ernst Beck.
And Gordon points us to a half-assed blog by some nobody who had enough deep insight to copy and paste Jarowoski’s paper in full. No doubt he thinks this anonymous person has ‘revealed’ the truth.
But barry, you pointed us to the bogus blue/green plate problem, which you dreamt would “prove” the GHE.
Sadly for Warmists, it has failed miserably.
(So thanks for pointing it out.)
When you have nothing, change the subject.
Actually, I was just bringing up your subject.
But, I can understand why you would like to distance yourself from it.
Limp pot-shots to avoid dealing on point. Your MO.
barry…”Idiots somehow imagine that the supposed huge annual global fluctuations during the last 150 years or so (Beck) promulgated in skeptic blogs and by the odd maverick (Jarowoski, ice cores)…”
It’s ironic, not to mention silly, how alarmist always attack the messenger without providing an intelligent rebuttal. Beck has been dismissed as just a high school teacher while all he did was collate the work of scientists over the 19th and 20th centuries who found atmospheric CO2 concentrations in the vicinity of 400 ppmv during those times.
Jaworowski is a renowned expert in radiation and ice cores yet Barry dismisses him as an ‘old maverick’. A maverick is defined as “an unorthodox or independent-minded person”. Suddenly it’s wrong in science, according to barry and his fellow alarmists, to be unorthodox and independent-minded.
I found the evidence of scientists in the collation of Beck and the articles of Jaworowski to be remarkable, both for their detail and their fact. Silly me for even considering a well-written article because it came from a skeptic.
If I could find just one paper from an alarmist scientist that did not veer off into pseudo-science I could get into the POV presented.
I have still to understand what a blog has to do with independent papers presented in it. If the papers are well written and draw on scientific fact, what’s the problem? You publish papers on WUWT and I have no issues with your presentations, even though I don’t agree with the premise. I applaud your for your effort.
skepticalscience is run by an admitted cartoonist who presents his own views, no doubt based on his cartoon characters. desmogblog is run by a public relations expert and allegedly funded with shady money. realclimate is run by a mathematician and a geologist, both of whom don’t hesitate to express scientific views that go against the grain in physics.
You had an opportunity to deal with the point made – I bolded it for you so you could not miss it – but you elected to ignore it. Same old same old.
“old maverick” – not what I said.
Arctic air flows behind the front into east US.
http://files.tinypic.pl/i/00950/vbrksd1da41h.png
A frosty morning in Spain and Italy.
http://files.tinypic.pl/i/00950/27r7mpftjjzk.png
Ren posts numerous irrelevant bits of information but never explains or discusses them
My diagnosis is that he lives alone without any hobbies or interests other than this blog site.
Probably a bit like Gordon Robertson. The difference being that Gordon is old and misinformed while ren is very young and uninformed.
prof…”My diagnosis is that he lives alone without any hobbies or interests other than this blog site”.
Could it be that he’s from Poland and English is not his first language? To you the info may be irrelevant since from your ad homs you are scientifically challenged.
How about dropping the pathetic professorP nym and use your regular nym?
Polish ?- Either that or Irish.
Or even worse- Canadian.
Why can’t we vote to ban all Polish/Irish/Canadians from this blog?
It would remove a lot of rubbish.
Ah yes, another who decides for all what we should read or be interested in.
How holier-than-thou. Is it DA is disguise, or just a wanna-be?
And what nationality are you?
The jet stream pushes on the northeastern Pacific.
http://tropic.ssec.wisc.edu/real-time/mtpw2/product.php?color_type=tpw_nrl_colors&prod=namer×pan=24hrs&anim=html5
A good explanation for the history behind the IPCC and global warming theory. Shows how blatantly political was the motivation behind the IPCC and spreading global warming/climate change propaganda.
Those who claim climate change propaganda is based on left-wingers should note that the driving force behind it was uber-right winger Margaret Thatcher, former PM of the UK.
https://www.john-daly.com/history.htm
norman from the book, Valence, by C. Coulton. There’s a downloadable link on the Net if you search enough.
“It is clear that the intimate description of a chemical bond of which we have spoken, must be essentially electronic. It is the behaviour and distribution of the electrons around the nucleus that gives the fundamental character of an atom: it must be the same for molecules. In one sense, therefore, the description of the bonds in any molecule is simply the description of the electron distribution in it”.
It’s all about electrons, norman, I have no idea why you are fighting that fact so vehemently. Heat is about electrons and so is EM absorp-tion and emission. Molecules are about electrons as stated above.
Consequently, the direction of heat transfer radiatively is determined by the relative energy of electrons in the bodies involved. That explains the 2nd law, none of your explanations or those of barry can explain it.
Clausius said nothing whatsoever about the net energies of EM. He did not even know what EM was. He thought heat was transferred physically through an ‘aether’ that everyone back then believed existed in empty space.
Even Planck believed that as late as 1900, calling EM heat rays. He later admitted that if he had paid closer attention to the developing electron theory in the 1890s that it would have made his understanding of heat transfer much easier.
Heat cannot pass through a vacuum but EM can. That should tell you right there that heat requires atoms to be transferred.
This is a post from a CBC blog here in Canada submitted by a poster called Seeingblue. The statements reveal the agenda of certain alarmist climate scientist to lie to the public if required.
“We need to get some broad based support, to capture the public’s imagination… So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements and make little mention of any doubts… Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest.” – Stephen Schneider, lead author of many IPCC reports
“Unless we announce disasters no one will listen.” – Sir John Houghton, first chairman of IPCC
“It doesn’t matter what is true, it only matters what people believe is true.” – Paul Watson, co-founder of Greenpeace
“We’ve got to ride this global warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing in terms of economic and environmental policy.” – Timothy Wirth, President of the UN Foundation
“No matter if the science of global warming is all phony… climate change provides the greatest opportunity to bring about justice and equality in the world.” – Christine Stewart, fmr Canadian Minister of the Environment
“The only way to get our society to truly change is to frighten people with the possibility of a catastrophe.” – emeritus professor Daniel Botkin
“We require a central organizing principle – one agreed to voluntarily. Minor shifts in policy, moderate improvement in laws and regulations, rhetoric offered in lieu of genuine change – these are all forms of appeasement, designed to satisfy the publics desire to believe that sacrifice, struggle and a wrenching transformation of society will not be necessary.” – Al Gore
“Isn’t the only hope for the planet that the industrialized civilizations collapse? Isn’t it our responsibility to bring that about?” – Maurice Strong, founder of the UN Environment Program
See the rest here:
http://www.informationliberation.com/?id=27941
Ah yes, the litany of elided quotes. Quote-mining by axe-grinders was ever deceptive. Schneider’s well-worn quote goes thus. The bolded bits are what has been elided from the oh-so neutral collection above.
On the one hand, as scientists we are ethically bound to the scientific method, in effect promising to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but which means that we must include all the doubts, the caveats, the ifs, ands, and buts. On the other hand, we are not just scientists but human beings as well. And like most people we’d like to see the world a better place, which in this context translates into our working to reduce the risk of potentially disastrous climatic change. To do that we need to get some broadbased support, to capture the public’s imagination. That, of course, entails getting loads of media coverage. So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have. This ‘double ethical bind’ we frequently find ourselves in cannot be solved by any formula. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest. I hope that means being both.
Pretty bloody different with the whole thing, isn’t it? Someone who is torn between the rigour of science and the genuine need to be effective in making the world a better place according to his genuine concern about the danger of AGW. It’s the well-known difficulty of the nexus between scientific rigour and politics. This isn’t a snake-oil salesman, this is someone reflecting on that difficult nexus, and ultimately hoping that scientific rigour and political effectiveness can go hand in hand. And it is a self-avowed personal take, which the vile elisions also manage to get rid of, and turn into a general conspiracy.
Stephen Schneider died a few years ago, having given his life to science, and was genuinely worried about AGW. These perversions of his work and comments are pretty foul to my mind, whatever one’s view on AGW.
Translation: “We are such caring people, and very smart, so that makes it okay to lie to the sheep.”
That’s the same mentality that is used for all crimes, perversions, and atrocities, throughout history.
The road to hell is paved with good intentions.
“The road to hell is paved with good intentions is a proverb or aphorism. An alternative form is “Hell is full of good meanings, but heaven is full of good works.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_road_to_hell_is_paved_with_good_intentions
How about:
Heaven has lot’s a work available- Hell is a giant unaccountable welfare state with the head of this state, ruled by a dumbass, like Al Gore.
Translation: You’re a grotesque idiot.
When barry has to face reality, he loses control.
It’s fun to watch.
As you broke our civility pact I no longer feel obliged to be polite. You can blame your own lack of control for that.
Well, it could be that. Or it might be that you are learning that you are not exactly “fair and balanced”. You have a closed mind, but attempt to cover up with a mask of civility.
Hopefully my occasional jabs will help you to better see reality.
Looking to you for clarity is like looking to a pig for etiquette.
barry…”Translation: Youre a grotesque idiot”.
You stole that from Monty Python.
What, they used the phrase too?
You lie and don’t give a shit.
The frantic desperation is fun to watch.
barry…”So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have. This double ethical bind we frequently find ourselves in cannot be solved by any formula. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest. I hope that means being both”.
You have a serious inability to decipher fact from fiction. and bs from integrity. He admitted it’s OK to lie. Full stop!!
Even though he tried to soften it by claiming, “I hope that means both”, he is still condoning lying and misleading people. There is no double ethical bind, you lie or you don’t. What is ethical in thinking you have to lie to people for their perceived own good?
I don’t think Roy or John Christy at UAH suffer from that problem, they just tell it like it is. The dif.fer.en.ce is, they have the data to prove their claims and modelers like the author of the ex.cerp.t above do not.
more WordPress censor bs.
It’s either difference or ex.cerp.t.
That’s why I have so much trouble with the alarmist POV, they don’t care if they lie. Appell has taken to calling me a liar, as have you, when I present the facts to you with direct proof.
This goes back to the IPCC declaration of the warming hiatus. You called me a liar. When I presented the actual statement from their literature, you did not back off, you carried on making excuses.
You called me a liar for claiming NOAA has slashed over 75% of their reporting stations globally. I posted the link in which they admitted to doing that and you went off on another tangent rather than acknowledge it.
Now you are supporting a scientist who claims lying is OK.
It’s ex.cerp.t. It must be in the p.t as in absorp.tion.
You called me a liar for claiming NOAA has slashed over 75% of their reporting stations globally. I posted the link in which they admitted to doing that and you went off on another tangent rather than acknowledge it.
I not only acknowledge the link, I posted it and quoted the article.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/12/uah-global-temperature-update-for-november-20170-36-deg-c/#comment-274976
You failed to deal with it. You. Are. A Liar.
Serially.
And not one link so that an interested reader could background the quotes and get context. This is woefully shady stuff. The kind of dross Robertson laps up. I used to rigorously fact-check shady stuff like this. It got boring the zillionth time it became clear it was obfuscatory BS. With no links, it’s instantly recognizable for what it is. I just happened to know the full Schneider quote from the first dozen times someone paraphrased it to perversion.
barry…”I just happened to know the full Schneider quote from the first dozen times someone paraphrased it to perversion”.
I knew of the full Schneider quote as well. It would have made no difference to quote it. He still infers it’s OK to lie and that the decision is up to the author.
All of the quotes have a reference to the author and I supplied a link to the article. Do you think anyone would take the chance of posting such quotes if they were not true?
They are elided to pervert their meaning, as I demonstrated and described.
Your take is as insightful as always.
Shady operators do not reference properly. BS artists don’t reference at all.
Jeez Gordon, every time I make a substantive rebuttal on the NOAA station data it’s as if you suddenly become blind. This has happened for months. I think you have particularly strong blinders.
Follow the links: Two clicks.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/12/uah-global-temperature-update-for-november-20170-36-deg-c/#comment-275146
BTW, woodfortrees is now up to date with the latest global temperature time series: GISS, Uk Met Office, UAHv6 and RSSv4.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/
What do you think the temperature will rise or fall?
http://images.remss.com/data/msu/graphics/TLT_v40/plots/RSS_TS_channel_TLT_Northern%20Mid%20Latitudes_Land_And_Sea_v04_0.short.png
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/12/uah-global-temperature-update-for-november-20170-36-deg-c/#comment-274387
Yes barry, and Paul Clark even added BEST l+o. He does wonderful work.
But a problem remains: for necessary baseline adjustements in multiple anomaly plot charts, WFT requests an offset specification, instead of allowing us to specify the baseline period we need and shifting by the average.
Thus you always need to know the offset.
If the data is available as monthly anomalies in text form: no problem, this offset can easily be computed by downloading the data into Excel or a similar spreadsheet guy. But I really lack any motivation to extract such data out of a 100 MB netcdf data base!
On the other hand, if I generate for example a monthly time series for the Nino3+4 area (5S-5N 170W-120W) out of Roy Spencer’s 2.5 degree grid, I would be glad if it was possible to upload it as external data into WFT, instead of creating an Excel chart, printing it into a pdf file and uploading that file in jpeg or png form.
Sure Paul will say ‘To implement at best 10 % of all extension wishes I would need to clone myself at least 10 times’.
If I care enough to match baselines, I just choose the baseline period for one data set and then chose the same period for another data set, copy it to Excel and average. The value obtained is the shift needed.
If the baseline (eg, 1901-2000) doesn’t cover the other data (eg, satellite), I just pick mutual periods, average and then subtract to get the value needed for the shift.
Oh barry…
If the data is available as monthly anomalies in text form: no problem, this offset can easily be computed by downloading the data into Excel or a similar spreadsheet guy. But I really lack any motivation to extract such data out of a 100 MB netcdf data base!
I just import the text files into Excel. Takes a minute.
Oh, I see what you’re saying. I have access to all global temp data in text form, same with ENSO and sea ice and some other stuff. If you tell me what you’re looking for I may be able to point to a text format.
I have access to all global temp data in text form…
You think you have, don’t you, barry? How do you get e.g. monthly GISS temperature anomaly output for 64N-90N in text form?
I don’t think there is text form for monthly zonal, but you can get annual values for zonal.
https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata_v3/ZonAnn.Ts+dSST.txt
But you don’t need to extract from the netcdf data base to get the baseline difference between GISS and some other baseline, just use the GISS global text data to discover that. Then you extract the regional/zonal data you need already knowing the offset.
barry…”If the baseline (eg, 1901-2000) doesnt cover the other data (eg, satellite), I just pick mutual periods, average and then subtract to get the value needed for the shift”.
How is that possible when the surface record has a baseline from 1950 – 1990 and the sat record is from 1980 – 2010? The surface record has already been tainted with the unrealistic baseline featuring the 1950s and 1960s, which were cooler.
As John Christy has pointed out, the cooler decades accent warming in more recent decades by affecting the baseline.
I just explained how.
You don’t understand baselines. Or anomalies. Or trends.
Neither does Chiefio, who hilariously imagines that because there are fewer weather station data from cooler climes, that this raises the trend.
I wonder if he ever learned what anomalies are.
As John Christy has pointed out, the cooler decades accent warming in more recent decades by affecting the baseline.
The baseline is absolutely, positively, utterly irrelevant to the trend.
But you don’t know why, do you?
barry…”As John Christy has pointed out, the cooler decades accent warming in more recent decades by affecting the baseline”.
The baseline is absolutely, positively, utterly irrelevant to the trend.
But you dont know why, do you?”
Obviously that was a typo, brain lock, or my fingers typing out of sync with my brain. I guess you are perfect and have never done that. I meant trend rather than baseline. Of course, now you won’t understand how cooler temperature in the beginning over the range could affect temperatures later on in the range.
The problem with you number crunchers is that you have no idea what statistics theory is about, you simply find numbers and type them into a computer within understanding the context.
barry…”You dont understand baselines. Or anomalies. Or trends.
Neither does Chiefio, who hilariously imagines that because there are fewer weather station data from cooler climes, that this raises the trend”.
From your failure to understand what I have tried to point out about baselines, anomalies, or trends, I’d say you are the one who is statistically-challenged.
Your comment on chiefio relegates you to the statistical idiot category. If you have a field of statistical data points on a graph, and you remove a significant number of the cooler dots, what does that do to your best fit of the data when you draw a trend line?
Here, try it.
data sets 1)
…………
…….. hotter data
……
..
. cooler data
Where is your trend line? Somewhere between the top set and the bottom set, right, at some angle?
now remove the cooler set.
data set 2)
…………
……. hotter data only
….
Where is your trend line now?
It has risen into the hotter data and it’s tilt has changed, become more shallow. You are not that stupid are you?
Still hilarious???
barry…”I just explained how. You dont understand baselines. Or anomalies. Or trends”.
No…it’s you who does not understand them and it’s a travesty that you think you do.
Based on your explanation you claim you can simply take a range in two unrelated data sets and compare them. Anyone who tries this takes great pain to normalize the data first, otherwise it’s like comparing apples to oranges.
You seem to think you can take the had.crut data set for example, with a baseline of 1950 – 1990 and compare that one to one with the UAH data set with a baseline from 1980 – 2010. The difference in baselines affects the data dramatically by offsetting the data points from the baseline. That affects the trend.
Furthermore, the data has been acquired differently. The surface record uses thermometers that are read twice a day and averaged. The sats use a bulk retrieval system in one sweep of the scanner that gives a far more accurate representation than two a day, averaged thermometer readings. The sat coverage is 95% compared to the 30% surface coverage.
Barry…you have been so egregiously wrong with other matters in physics, like your confusion over EM from a colder object warming a hotter object that I now suspect your understanding of statistics.
I had a full year of intense, honours level probability and statistics drummed into my head at one time and other intensive course in calculus and engineering drawing. I was well schooled in visually interpreting graphs.
You are still nattering about the 0.12C/decade trend of UAH, apparently thinking it indicates anthropogenic warming and that the trend is valid. There is a 19 year part of that trend which is a rewarming phase from volcanic aerosol cooling(below baseline) followed by a 15 year flat trend.
You and your fellow alarmists don’t even begin to understand what I’m talking about. As I told you, UAH is compelled to throw their data into an algorithm and produce an overall trend. That’s how things are done in general science. However, no one is required to give a context and that’s why statistics can be used to misrepresent a situation.
The UAH data cannot be reliably represented by a trend drawn as a best fit through the data. The only scientific representation would be using two trend lines: pre 1998 and post 1998. They represent entirely different contexts. Until you understand this stuff you are wasting your time and energy blindly tossing data into a calculator.
barry…ps…do you understand that UAH and had.crut could have the same trends, by fluke, yet the trends could be unrelated?
Context.
Paul also gives some baseline offsets at the bottom of this page:
http://www.woodfortrees.org/notes
2nd graph from bottom.
I know barry. I was speaking about all those not present.
Why does a simple publication of temperature numbers incite a full-blown deluge of armchair alarmist and anti-alarmist posturing, conjecture, and beratement? It may be best to stand up your own WordPress blog as a means to declutter *this* blog.
Agreed. Dr. Spencer’s blog devolves into histrionics and base accusations and all he did was post data.
WizGeek
What happens is most other blogs highly restrict the material that can be posted. Both sides. Skeptical Science bans most everyone who does not support the site conclusion. You cannot challenge points on that site for very long. Postma bans anyone who does not hold his view.
So the different views come here and work to convince each other of their views. My view will stick with established science until a valid experiment can overturn hundreds of years of research on the heat exchange mechanisms. It seems Roy will tolerate these super long exchanges as long as people do not become too offensive.
His idea of “too offensive” is not evenly applied. He NEVER deletes a denier’s comment regardless of how offensive it is. Further, the threshold for what is considered inappropriate is MUCH lower when he is the target.
Now that’s interesting, des.
I see it exactly the opposite!
Roy actually banned a skeptic for spamming ‘dragonslayer’ rubbish too often. Otherwise, he pretty much deletes nothing.
Why does a simple publication of temperature numbers incite a full-blown deluge of armchair alarmist and anti-alarmist posturing, conjecture, and beratement?
Why does a random commenter single out one group for bad behaviour and ignore the other group?
Because the random commenter isn’t actually interested in decorum, but rather pipping for the tribe they belong to.
@Barry: Did you miss the part about “alarmist and [ANTI_ALARMIST]”? That’s both groups, yes?
WizGeek on December 5, 2017 at 9:53 AM
Brad on December 5, 2017 at 10:30 AM
If these comments disturb you: why don’t you create an own blog where they would not be permitted, instead of smugly teaching people about what’s good and what isn’t on a blog you after all are not the manager of?
I personally have nothing against heavy but polite discussion about controversial matter, and it seems to me that Roy Spencer has a similar view. I guess that otherwise he would make his meaning about that more perceptible.
What disturbs me is that instead of publishing really valuable contradiction, some ridiculous trolls call me an idiot or answer with ‘Hilarious! Pseudoscience!’ just because I write things which do not fit to their narrative.
That’s hilarious, Bin.
☺
binny…”What disturbs me is that instead of publishing really valuable contradiction, some ridiculous trolls call me an idiot …”
I have done both. I have engaged you in intelligent debate when merited.
However, when you continue to defend the chicanery of NOAA, after I present you with a direct link to their site, in which they admit to slashing 75% of their data, and when they use a 48% confidence levels to rate a year as the warmest, I can’t help but call you an idiot.
I call myself an idiot when I have been that stupid and blind.
they [NOAA] admit to slashing 75% of their data
Liar.
Here’s why.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/12/uah-global-temperature-update-for-november-20170-36-deg-c/#comment-274976
The link to the article is there. Please point to any sentence in there where they “claim” they deliberately deleted, cut, removed or “slashed” any data.
The El Nino 3.4 index is currently very low.
https://www.tropicaltidbits.com/analysis/ocean/nino34.png
Great news! Things are dropping back down to normal. I have a feeling we’re moving back to pause territory again! I was worried that we were stepping up. Although months to come will determine if we are sliding back down to 2000 era temps, I’m hopeful.
You don’t determine this over mere months.
For the pause to return we need to slide back to temps as they were around 1994-1996. This needs to happen from next month, and stay that way until 2020. Then we’ll get a flat line. In the UAH record.
Layman
you are now on the receiving end of what’s known as the religion of climate change ….doesn’t take much does it
Harry
No, I actually worked that out numerically. WUWT published it in an article earlier this year.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/03/14/how-imminent-is-the-rss-pause-now-includes-january-and-february-data/
I worked it out again last month, including the most recent data. For a flat line since 1998 to reappear by 2020, temps would have to progress as I said.
If you have an alternative view, by all means present it. Or carry on with talk of religion. Whatever floats your boat.
barry…”If you have an alternative view, by all means present it. Or carry on with talk of religion. Whatever floats your boat”.
I took a look at the WUWT article and I find it far too analytical. I am very wary of in-depth statistical studies to prove a point.
Your W4T graph of the RSS average shows 2008 above the baseline and 2016 well above 1998. According to UAH, 2008 was a very cold year with anomalies well below the baseline. All it would take is another year like that to pretty well even out the average and bring it closer to a flat trend again.
I am not holding my breath, I just don’t think there is any proof that the warming is anthropogenic in nature. It all seems to revolve around ENSO and possibily as Tsonis et al 2007 claimed, other oscillations.
Of course, if you believe there are anthropogenic influences all you’ll see is evidence of it.
It was fairly simple. Just run the trend to present in excel and then a little trial and error adding monthly temps to 2020 and voila. The result that gives a straight line since 1998 is a monthly average of -0.07 over two years.
2008 annual average didn’t get that low, and even if it did you’d need 2 of them in a row from now until 2020 to get the flat line.
The last 12 month period of average temps that low was May 1993 to Apr 1995. That’s what we’d need to see to get a flat line by 2020. Nothing tricky about it, just a simple linear regression, which is exactly what the original “pause” was based on. Apples and apples.
Your W4T graph of the RSS average shows 2008 above the baseline and 2016 well above 1998.
Some months in 2008 were below the baseline, but not the annual average.
2016 was higher than 1998 in RSS (v3 was used in that post). 2016 is higher than 1998 in UAH, too.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah6/from:1998
Both peaked in 2016 about 0.1C higher than in 1998. Is there a problem with the UAH data?
“The last 12 month period of average temps that low was May 1993 to Apr 1995”
Should be “the last 24 month period,” of course.
Specifically, for the global trend to go flat since 1998 by 2020, the average monthly UAH TLT temp from now to Dec 2019 would have to be no warmer than -0.07 C.
Most recent 2-year period where temps averaged that low was May 1993 to Apr 1995.
You can see what that looks like here:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/UAH_LT_1979_thru_October_2017_v6-1.jpg
Thanks Barry. When you put it that way, it does seem rather unlikely that original pause will return. Maybe a new pause from a higher baseline though.
There could be a century of short-term “pauses” over an overall warming trend. All you have to do is carefully pick your start/end points. You can already do that with last century. And there is a statistically significant pause from about 1940 to 1970 – the only statistically significant pause in the temp record. *
A supermassive volcanic eruption in the next month or 4 could depress near-surface temps for the next couple of years to bring about a “pause” since 1998. Otherwise I agree that a return is highly unlikely.
* By statistically significant, I mean that the uncertainty in the trend 1940 – 1970 was distinct from the previous and following long-term warming trend uncertainties. An actual pause that eclipsed the canonical 95% confidence limits on temp trends.
A supermassive volcanic eruption…
No thanks. Imagine a redo of something like Mt Samalas on Lombok in 1257…
I can’t imagine anybody being bloody enough to hope for any pause resuming that way!
barry…”There could be a century of short-term pauses over an overall warming trend”.
According to Akasofu, who thinks the majority of the warming is related to a re-warming from the Little Ice Age, the re-warming should be just about over, at 0.5C re-warming per century.
There may be more warming in store but it should just about have leveled off.
On Akasofu :
all of these errors in a single study guarantees that its conclusions cannot be supported and, in fact, are demonstrably incorrect.
http://www.mdpi.com/2225-1154/1/2/76
An actual greenhouse is something that prevents convectional heat loss.
Earth’s greenhouse is the troposphere.
Wiki, troposphere:
The troposphere is the lowest layer of Earth’s atmosphere, and is also where nearly all weather conditions take place. It contains approximately 75% of the atmosphere’s mass and 99% of the total mass of water vapor and aerosols. The average depths of the troposphere are 20 km (12 mi) in the tropics 17 km (11 mi) in the mid latitudes, and 7 km (4.3 mi) in the polar regions in winter.”
So this big greenhouse unlike a small manmade greenhouse, has weather, though bigger manmade greenhouses can have a little bit of weather within them.
So Earth has 10 tons of atmosphere per square meter, and 75%
of that is 7.5 tons of air per square meter. And all this air must warm in order for the surface air to get warmer.
It requires 1 joules to heat one gram of air by 1 K, Or
1000 joules per kg and 1 million joules per ton.
So needs 7.5 million joules to warm 7.5 tons of air per square by 1 C.
So get a transparent box which is 20 km square, have one end open and put open end into the tropical ocean.
If let air escape so box was 1/2 full of water or top was 10 km above sea level, it would float. Then if add air it would rise higher. If air inside the box was warmer than outside the box, it go higher without added air, and if colder it will fall without removing air from the box.
So let’s add 200 meters to bottom of box so it could be at 20 km high and can go up and down depending on it’s air temperature inside the box as compared to outside the box.
Now to be accurate, one would have determine the mass of the greenhouse structuce, but at this scale the massive if structure could tremendous and not make much difference- as has tremendous amount of buoyancy.
But generally, there is 20,000 meter by 20,000 meter times 7.5 tons of air. And in terms of water buoyancy 20,000 meter by 20,000 times 1 ton per 1 meter depth of water.
If air inside pushes water one meter down, it require 1/10 of 1 Atm added inside pressure, which lifts 20k x 20 x 1 tons which 400 million tonnes. And how does that compare to weight of structure. Say 10 kg per square meter: 400 million square meter times 5. Or 50 vs 1000. Or 1/200th of 1 meter of water depth is need to float structure. And mass was 10 times greater, still insignificant.
And the mass of air is 7.5 times more the 1 meter depth of water 400 times 7.5 is 3000 million tonnes of air inside box. So it seems slight changes in air temperature will move box up and down by quite a bit. Or will warm enough air box could float like hot air balloon. But sucking water up, above sea level, there would massive amount of force to stop it from floating away.
Anyhow box has this 200 meter foundation which allows box to go up and down and it’s also going to insulate inside water from outside water [down to about 200 meter depth].
So with all that. Does air and water warm up in the tropical ocean?
— Bindidon says:
December 5, 2017 at 3:20 PM
You cant view the troposphere as a greenhouse, as it is not closed on top.–
One could have a greenhouse 20 km tall. Greenhouse increase air temperature by preventing convective heat loss and a 20 km elevation one doesn’t have convective heat loss- or the ceiling of greenhouse at 20 km elevation would not prevent convection heat loss.
Or putting ceiling on it, doesn’t do anything, but I put one on it anyhow. Or whether it’s triple pane or thin plastic it wouldn’t make difference in terms of convectional heat loss.
Whereas if greenhouse was only 10 km high, it would matter if ceiling had triple pane vs thin plastic as ceiling in term convection heat loss.
“If there were no infrared-active gases in the atmosphere, i.e. if it would solely consist of nitrogen, oxygen and argon, all infrared emitted by Earth in response to Suns radiation would directly reach outer space: the atmospheric window would encompass the entire frequency band.
How warm would it then be on global average at the surface, gbaikie?”
In example given the cube is on the ocean, a problem could be if sealed, one could get too much vapor.
But since it’s so large one could get cloud formation inside the cube. So one could ask would you get too much cloud or too much vapor, or both? Or neither.
If put cube on land or seal bottom of cube on the ocean, one prevent having water vapor in the cube.
The dry [or drier] air would be denser than tropical air surrounding it. The dry air would inhibit convection [or with ocean evaporating it increases convectional heat transfer. Or the lack of water vapor gives a dry lapse rate:
“When the air contains little water, this lapse rate is known as the dry adiabatic lapse rate: the rate of temperature decrease is 9.8 C/km”- wiki
And with a dry air lapse rate one lower the elevation of the cube and still have the same reduction of convective heat as it being at 20 km.
Have 10 km cube, put dry air in it. The top of cube will be colder then the air above it. The top won’t have conventional
heat loss, it would if anything have conventional heat gain from warmer air above it.
Put dry air 10 km cube on Land- Sahara desert.
Sahara desert has fairly dry air, but air in box can be drier.
Or were air to cools below 0 C, you could have air dry enough to not get no dew/frost.
So take cryogenic nitrogen which has less water in it, that normal cryogenic N2 has, or 99.9999% pure N2. Unlike normal N2 which is very cheap.
Put it in box which on some flat part of desert. Instead ceiling going to have plastic bag, so warming and cooling of air, doesn’t explode/implode the box. So bag hangs down within box 1 km and with more air pressure, bag stick up the top and box [inflated] 1 km higher [11 km in total]. In addition we had emergency pressure release if over or under pressure exceeds .5 psi. Add N2 so it’s 30 C.
So should lapse rate of 9.8 C per 1000 meter or at 10 km it should be 30 C – 98 K so -68 C. And Sahara desert if at 30 C should have higher temperature at 10 km than -68 C.
And desert air at surface during the day may warm to 40 C or warmer, and during nite the air might cool to 0 C or cooler.
If air in box at surface cools to 0 C, the air at 10 km would be -98 C in the box.
It generally seems to me that desert air will not cool the air in the box, and instead will warm the air in the box by some amount. Or box will be unlike a normal greenhouse which doesn’t warm from the air surrounding it, and instead is warmed by sunlight to be warmer than surrounding air.
But I don’t think the surrounding air would warm the box by very much due to it’s large size. And the air inside box will mostly be warmed by sunlight.
If imagine the box would be warmed by surrounding air by a lot, we could add “triple pane windows”. But think it’s a minor effect.
Now I think land is cooling effect and ocean is warming effect. So I think ocean is making desert air cool less during night [have warmer air temperatures]- or the ocean creates Earth’s average global air temperature. But of course the desert causes it’s air temperature to warm to higher daytime temperature.
And the box would get less of this ocean warming effect during the night- because it’s insulated/isolated from it.
Or roughly the cube is an anti-greeenhouse, and it will be slightly cooler- though not a freezer- or couldn’t make it a lot colder if add “triple panes”. [Though the dry air would feel a lot cooler- or such air is much drier than anyone has ever experienced- it’s dangerously dry.]
Oh, yeah, what’s lowest humidity:
“The concept of zero percent relative humidity air devoid of water vapor is intriguing, but given Earth’s climate and weather conditions, it’s impossible. ”
“The world’s lowest recorded relative humidity value occurred at Coober Pedy in the South Australia desert when the temperature was 93 degrees and the dew point was minus 21 degrees producing a relative humidity of 1 percent.”
http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2011-12-16/news/ct-wea-1216-asktom-20111216_1_relative-humidity-zero-dew-point
If the 93 degrees temperature lowers the relative humidity
increases – or at 93 degrees that still a lot of water in the air. Or higher the air temperature increase capacity of air to hold water and it’s only 1% of it’s capacity at the 93 F temperature.
You can’t view the troposphere as a greenhouse, as it is not closed on top.
If there were no infrared-active gases in the atmosphere, i.e. if it would solely consist of nitrogen, oxygen and argon, all infrared emitted by Earth in response to Sun’s radiation would directly reach outer space: the atmospheric window would encompass the entire frequency band.
How warm would it then be on global average at the surface, gbaikie?
“How warm would it then be on global average at the surface”</I
A little above ~255K. That atm. would still have a (low) emissivity. The emission spectrum of the atm. would shift to regions for which it is nonzero as it would have a temperature, would not be completely transparent. N2, O2, Ar are all (weak) absorbers.
Better: “How warm would it then be on global average at the surface”
A little above ~255K. That atm. would still have a (low) emissivity. The emission spectrum of the atm. would shift to regions for which it is nonzero as it would have a temperature, would not be completely transparent. N2, O2, Ar are all (weak) absorbers.
Ball4 on December 5, 2017 at 3:34 PM
Thanks for answering, even if I would have preferred gbaikie doing.
1. N2, O2, Ar are all weak absorbers.
If you compare, by taking their relative abundance into account, their absorp-tivity with that of H2O / CO2 / CH4 / N2O etc etc using SpectralCalc’s line editor, you see that it is zero for Ar and N2, and 10,000 times smaller for O2 (not O3).
Thus absorp-tion should be negligible, isn’t it?
2. A little above ~255K
That would mean an atmosphere solely consisting of infrared-inactive gases would give us the same surface temperature as if there was no atmosphere at all.
But would that not mean that no conduction / convection processes would take place starting directly at the surface?
Hard to imagine.
“SpectralCalcs line editor”
I’ve been informed there is no data for Ar in there, is there also no data for N2? 10,000x smaller than what for O2?
Again, because an Ar, N2, O2 atm. at 1atm. surface pressure would have a temperature, it will have a non-zero emissivity meaning if the ideal transparent atm. would be at ~255K the real Ar,N2,O2 atm. would be driven slightly above this in global median T. How much would depend on how much the resultant atm. emissivity is above zero as there would be non-zero atm. opacity from these absorbers.
The Ar, N2, O2 fluid would still be warmed from below in a gravity field so there would be convection but I would guess not very windy. Of course there would be conduction at the surface contact.
2012 paper on O2, N2 (weak) contributions to the natural GHE.
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2012GL051409/abstract
Here is a chart with SpectralCalc plots with linear scaling by atmospheric abundance from 0.7 to 40 microns for H2O, CO2, O2, N2:
http://4GP.ME/bbtc/1512517010910.jpg
If you repeat the job using only N2/O2, you see minuscule lines for O2, and none for N2.
Indeed, my bad: Ar is not present. But I read (where?) such atoms absorb/reemit nothing.
Thanks for the paper, Ball4!
Indeed, collision-induced warming of these molecules certainly will play a role. In theory.
The article is behind paywall, but already from the abstract you can see that we are here in a range of about 15% of OLR reduction by CH4.
Here is the same SpectraCalc output as for H2O, CO2, O2, N2, but now for CH4:
http://4GP.ME/bbtc/1512518305780.jpg
If you now compare the intensities, you see immediately that H2O / CO2 absorp-tion/emission gives a factor about 10^4 higher than CH4 and thus for the effect of N2 / O2 collision-induced warming.
“and none for N2”
There should be more for N2 than O2; as you seem interested possibly dig into details, discover why and learn more about the program. I’ve never been interested in it.
If Ar has a temperature, the atoms absorb. Noble gas spectra have been measured, again more research could be a learning experience. Who knows – you might become the ready expert when an exoplanet with Ar atm. is discovered.
“The article is behind paywall..”
Sometimes a little google-fu finds it stored somewhere free. Heck, couple days ago, I was over at the local college library looking up a somewhat ancient, then more modern paper. Ref. Librarians are eager to apply their craft and of course live for the challenge of opportunity to do so.
And you know what, they gave me a guest pass to the computer system, showed me how to download the pdf off the electronic journal, and…AND email it to myself. All free!
Ball4 on December 5, 2017 at 6:07 PM
If Ar has a temperature, the atoms absorb.
That, Ball4, I don’t understand.
Absorp-tion / emission is, as I have understood until now, not a matter of temperature but of atomic / molecular structure defining electronic, vibrational and rotational transition states.
But as I read in addition, electronic transitions request photons of much higher energy and hence frequency than IR.
They therefore play a role only in incoming solar radiation.
If my assumption is wrong, please show me a valuable source contradicting me…
As always, I recommend Bohren 1998 text. In this case, Chapter 3. It used to be free on the internet but I think the copyright thugs got there first. Sometimes amazon will have the pages you need.
What I read is, among other contributions, this one:
http://tinyurl.com/y89x4kka
That’s a pretty good resource. The author is unclear of the source of emissivity which is always measured.
Bohren 1998, 3 will be better as he deep dives into the classical and QM details of how atoms (like Ar) were found to emit and absorb in a conversational style & provides his source material cites. Here’s some logic clipped from your link to focus on:
“The Planck explanation of the continuous spectra of the blackbody…when properly extended, the theory of quantization also led to the understanding of the line spectra of the atom…More generally, however, the absorbing power does not become zero between lines because of the overlapping effects of many lines.”
Thanks. Bohren is an excellent source:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/11/uah-global-temperature-update-for-october-2017-0-63-deg-c/#comment-274203
binny…”1. N2, O2, Ar are all weak absorbers”.
At IR frequencies. They are not weak absorbers or emitters in the proper frequency range.
The heat transfer equation: q = e s (Th^4 Tc^4) Ac does not specify any particular molecule or frequency, it applies to all molecules. The only thing governing emissions/absorp-tion is temperature.
N2/O2 are always absorbing/emitting in the atmosphere, just not a whole lot in the IR band. The AMSU units on satellites depend on O2 emissions in the microwave band.
There is also the emissivity factor, e, which is pre-calculated for substance based on the emissivity of an ideal black-body being 1. That should govern the relative amount radiated by a substance but the overall radiation is based only on the temperature difference between the surface of the substance, A, and the temperature of the surrounding atmosphere.
the heat loss equation should read:
q = e s (Th^4 minus Tc^4) Ac
I don’t know why WordPress is so lame that it loses minus signs.
And, yes, it is a heat loss equation, not a heat transfer equation as I incorrectly indicated.
“yes, it is a heat loss equation”
It is EMR 1LOT balance eqn. and Gordon is always…ALWAYS and forever telling we street urchins that EMR is not heat.
One can nevertheless view it this way.
From a physical point of view what “closes the tropospheric greenhouse on top” is simply the presence of IR active gases in atmosphere. This prevents the heat from earth’s surface to readily escape in the form IR radiation transfer to cold outer space.
What closes the top of a gardener’s greenhouse instead is a transparent film or glass cover. This prevents the heat from greenhouse ground to readily escape in the form of convection transport to the atmosphere outside the greenhouse.
In both cases one necessarily ends up in a steady state ( energy in = energy out) with a higher surface temperatures.
The analogy is clear-cut.
The relevant heat transfer modes are quite different as well as the nature of the “tops”, yet the physical mechanism of the final effect or GHE is exactly the same.
gummy, you appear to understand how a real greenhouse works. But, it’s your understanding of Earth’s atmosphere as a heat transfer medium that is lacking.
G*r*u*m*p*y, I suggest you too “argue” a little bit and provide some of your funny clown physics reasonings for our amusement.
Because all the plain morons lurking here of course agree that “my understanding is lacking”. Not breaking news.
Yet the other morons “argue” and do “support” their view for our best entertainment.
Look at your bedfellow, senile Gordy, just below. He shows at length all the amusing clown physics at work and obviously thinks so hard about it that every now and then he breaks even in a sweat !
gamma…”From a physical point of view what closes the tropospheric greenhouse on top is simply the presence of IR active gases in atmosphere. This prevents the heat from earths surface to readily escape in the form IR radiation transfer to cold outer space”.
That theory is wrong. The rate of emission from the surface is controlled only by the temperature of the adjacent layer of the atmosphere, which is 99%+ nitrogen and oxygen.
Here’s your heat transfer equation: q = e s (Th^4 Tc^4) Ac
q represents the heat loss
Th = temperature of hotter surface
Tc = temperature of cooler atmosphere
If Th = Tc, the term equals 0, and the heat loss is 0. If you put an ice cube at 0C on a surface at 0C in a container kept at 0C, the ice won’t melt.
There is nothing in that equation specifically about GHGs.
As the surface heats the adjacent layer of atmosphere, that air warms and rises, being replaced by cooler air. Radiative heat transfer needs cooler air in order for the surface to lose heat. If the surface layer was hotter than the surface, the surface would absorb heat.
As it stands, the surface absorbs much higher frequency radiation and emits much lower frequency radiation. The rate of radiation is always varying. Keep in mind, however, that a great proportion of surface heat is lost directly to conduction and convection, as well as evapouration over bodies of water.
This is a complex problem that cannot be reduced to GHGs and radiation. Radiation has been pushed by climate modelers since there are convenient equations representing radiation that adapt readily to computer algorithms. It’s not so easy to fit the complexities of conduction and convection into a model.
Essentially, the modelers have reduced a complex problem to a simple solution and they are wrong to have done so and claim the models to be accurate.
Laura’s (and Gordon’s) comment upthread that ‘alarmists’ are hoping for ever warmer global temps is not matched by anything written here.
But have ‘skeptics’ hoped for a return to the “pause”?
Yep.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/12/uah-global-temperature-update-for-november-20170-36-deg-c/#comment-275020
No doubt Laura will stop by to castigate this scallywag for having a preference….
barry, the actual global temps are way under what the AGW/CO2 nonsense predicted. So, either there is a “pause”, or the AGW/CO2 nonsense is a hoax.
(I know which one I’d go with.)
You will be long gone from this world before a pause occurs.
How long before I will have to go pp?
Dear Professor PP,
I’m sorry to burst your bubble, but we’ve already experienced a near 45 year cooling period while CO2 levels increased:
https://tinyurl.com/y7cxjg6b
Bummer man.
SGW – Great cherry pick! One of the best seen this year.
Pity it ended 35 years ago – probably before you were born.
LMAO. A cherry pick?? Climate is supposed to be defined as a 30 year period, Einstein.
Hey loser, what are you a professor of? Basket weaving?
Skepticgonewild have you calculated the uncertainties in the trend for this period?
You can calculate it, without autocorrelatio using Excel. Just use the linear regression module co trained in data analysis section.
If you want to calculate the uncertainties with autocorrelation then consult the paper by Foster and Rahmstorf 2011 paper. Just google it.
Once you have done the calculations with respect to this data set then get back to us and we can discuss further.
And by the way skeptic, you should also read Barry’s excellent comment at
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/12/uah-global-temperature-update-for-november-20170-36-deg-c/#comment-275444.
Also the 30 year period is an heuristic not a law. It depends on the trend relative relative to the “noise” and the autocorrelation of the data
M-i-c k-e-y M O U S E,
Here’s the same time period with the trend calculator at Skeptical Science:
Trend: -0.016 0.033 C/decade (2σ)
β=-0.0015657 σw=0.00047747 ν=11.720 σc=σw√ν=0.0016346
Same result. Bummer, man.
Now go away and play in your sandbox.
Skepticgonewild,
For some unknown reason you left off you left off the uncertainties of your copy and paste from the skeptical science trend calculator.
Trend: -0.016 0.033 C/decade (2σ)
Was this an inadvertent error or just an attempt to deceive? It would have required some deliberate effort to remove the uncertainties so I will go with latter.
So you can see, from this blatant cherry pick, that the uncertainty is twice as large as the magnitude of the slope.
If you bothered to read Barry’s comments, that I suggested you do you earlier, then this result shows that the trend has essentially no statistical significance.
So SkepticGoneWild are you trying to prove your credentials as just a foolish manipulator of facts or do you have another agenda?
In the latter case you have a lot of work to do if you want to compete with g* and Gordon for crackpot of the month. Keep up the good work.
MikeR,
Thanks for confirming a pause, Einstein.
SkepticGoneWild,
Your lack of understanding of the concept of uncertainties is obvious. I told you to read Barrys comments so that you would not make a total tool of yourself.
Th uncertainty being twice the magnitude of the slope (for the period from 1937 -1981) for Had*crut (kriging) means you cannot state any of the following propositions with confidence.
This may be way too subtle and nuanced for Skeptic so it will probably go straight over his head but from comparing the trend to its uncertainty we cannot conclude any of the following
1 There has been increase in temperatures from 1937 to 1981,
2. There has been a decrease in temperatures during the same period, and likewise
3. There has been a pause for the same period.
If we remove the cherry pick by using all the data post 1937 in contrast we get
Trend: 0.088 +/- 0.018 C/decade (2σ)
Which in contrast means
1. There has been increase in temperatures from 1937 to 2017
Like wise for the following intervals the trends are significant
1850 to 2017 the Trend: +0.055 +/- 0.007 C/decade (2σ)
For 1979 to 2017 Trend: +0.189 +/- 0.039 C/decade (2σ)
If anyone disputes these numbers then you can use the calculator that SkepticGoneWild used at – https://www.skepticalscience.com/trend.php .
I should remind myself to be kind to SkepticGoneWild as it is clear that the damage he or she received after falling off the cherry picker extended to their frontal lobes. The part of the brain that allows one to comprehend complexities such as nuanced thought.
Poor Mike. Left stuttering and bumbling about trying to explain this cooling period that is almost 3 times the length of the recent pause.
So pathetic.
Skepticgonewild.
Your constant reminder of your inability to understand the concept of uncertainty is possibly, in the overused words of my good friend g*, hilarious. However, an alternative description for your brief contributions is pathetically deplorable.
The damage to your frontal lobes could also be the reason why you have a tendency to go wild when faced with uncertainty. See –
https://www.neuroskills.com/brain-injury/frontal-lobes.php.
Look I wouldnt despair as the modern field of neuroplasticity has demonstrated the ability of the brain to mend itself, even in intractable case like yours. You may need years of therapy but you may learn to cope with uncertainty and not continue to exhibit aggressive , wild behaviour directed to others.
Good luck on your journey.
Finally, I really think you should employ protective head-ware next time to you ascend a ladder to pick cherries, or better still, keep to the low hanging fruit.
What great logic (sarc.):
The warming trend is less than predicted.
Therefore there is no warming trend.
That’s your “great” logic, pp.
My logic, based on IPPC AGW/CO2 predictions, was either we are in a pause, or the IPPC predictions are wrong.
And, of course, most of us know the IPPC is wrong.
Thanks for allowing me to expound again.
Make up your mind.
(A) There is no warming trend because the trend is not as large as predicted
or else
(B) There is no warming trend because “most of us know the IPPC is wrong”.
Either way you sound confused.
pp, I’m glad to see you us “warming trend”.
That might just me a “Freudian slip”, or you may be realizing that the AGW/CO2 nonsense is a hoax.
either there is a pause, or the AGW/CO2 nonsense is a hoax.
The old false bifurcation fallacy. No third (or fourth, fifth) option for limited minds.
Realists recognize the hoax.
Fantasy fanatics and sci-fi dramatists imagine endless unreal scenarios. That’s why there’s a new entertainment movie out almost weekly.
So you don’t know the fallacy of bifurcation. Figures.
So you make up fallacies about what I know, or don’t know.
Figures.
Can only go by what you write. Dodging points infers ignorance.
barry, you are responsible for your own inferences, not me.
barry…”But have skeptics hoped for a return to the pause?”
Of course, I think it is inevitable since AGW is pseudo-science.
Prove it.
pp, AGW/CO2 heating the planet was disproved over 100 years ago.
That’s why, today, it’s pseudoscience.
Oh really? I suppose they were trying to explain the increase in global average temperatures back then?
And the warming trend in their satellite data?
And the shrinking glaciers and sea ice?
I haven’t seen such discussions from 100 years ago. I wonder how they launched their satellites back then?
g*r…” AGW/CO2 heating the planet was disproved over 100 years ago”.
Professor R. W. Woods circa 2009. Disproved both the GHE and AGW. Woods proved a greenhouse warms due to a lack of convection and that radiation is not effective more than a few feet above the ground (inverse square law).
Gordon Robertson
Maybe you missed this post by Roy Spencer a few years ago. I suggest you read it.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2013/08/revisiting-woods-1909-greenhouse-box-experiment-part-i/
Gordon, it’s “Wood”, no “s”. And the year should be 1909, not 2009.
I imagine you did that on purpose to rankle the Warmists. I do the same from time to time. Keep up the great effort. They don’t realize the humor they impart with their “mud slinging”.
norman…”Maybe you missed this post by Roy Spencer a few years ago. I suggest you read it”.
Do I have to agree with Roy, given that he’s an outspoken advocate of the GHE and out to prove Wood wrong? I admire Roy for his integrity in standing up to the scientific community and I defer to him on matters meteorological. However, I disagree with him on matters like the GHE and heat transfer.
R. W. Wood (thanks g*r) was a brilliant scientist and researcher who was consulted by Neils Bohr. His results have already been corroborated by Nahle, who went to great pains to replicate the experiment of Wood.
The link you provided was only the intro from Roy, where is the link to his results?
There was another experiment that claimed to negate the findings of Wood but the experimenter failed to take moisture into account, as Roy queried the water vapour in the Wood experiment. Someone else queried Wood using glass over rock salt but he ran the experiment with and without yet both boxes were within 1C of each other.
I have no idea why Roy did the experiment. It’s blatantly obvious that the mass of CO2 available in the atmosphere could not possibly contribute more than a few hundredths of a degree C. Furthermore, Roy’s data at UAH since 1998 has corroborated that CO2 is not significantly warming the atmosphere.
Roy’s UAH data also throws the GHE into question. AGW is also known as the extended greenhouse theory. If the data does not show a sensitivity over 15 years to CO2, that should quash the GHE theory as well.
g*r…I type too fast and find I get dyslexic on keyboards. An obvious typo. thanks for pointing it out. Also, for the no ‘s’ on Wood.
Did you know this guy was consulted by Neils Bohr during his formative years with atomic theory?
profp…”Prove it”.
No,no,no…you alarmists are trying to prove it exists. So far, not even the IPCC has supplied proof, they only claim it is likely.
The IPCC also admitted to a 15 year warming hiatus which is more than enough proof for me that the atmosphere is not sensitive to CO2.
Ye olde “pause”.
What a smelly old idea that was.
“October 2017 Was Record Warmest in 20 Northeast Cities, Including New York City; Record Wet in Parts of the Great Lakes”
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/saskatchewan/cold-weather-breaks-records-in-saskatchewan-communities-1.2556285
http://www.greatfallstribune.com/story/news/2017/11/24/montana-towns-shatter-thanksgiving-temperature-records/892727001/
Allow me to trump your paltry offering with:
“November Warmth Sets More Than 800 Temperature Records Across Colorado”
http://denver.cbslocal.com/2017/12/05/november-warmth-sets-more-than-800-temperature-records-across-colorado/
“A November to remember breaking almost every heat record”
http://www.kvoa.com/story/36976593/a-november-to-remember-breaking-almost-every-heat-record
“New Mexico cities break temperatures records for November”
http://www.newschannel10.com/story/36972579/new-mexico-cities-break-temperatures-records-for-november
Too easy!
Well, pp, you missed the subtle hint: “weather is not climate”.
Too easy!
You missed the even more subtle point that the number of weather records far exceeds, and continues to exceed, the number of cool records. That is evidence of climate change.
You need to think harder!
Would you care to make a significant wager on that, pp?
Sure!
My cheap wine against your cheap champagne.
Which source of data shall we use?
prof…”Ye olde pause. What a smelly old idea that was”.
Came from the IPCC based on peer reviewed papers and Had.crut. Have a problem with either???
“In the Bering and Chukchi Seas, where sea ice should be starting its winter expansion, thousands of square miles of open water stretch out from the states western coastline in late fall 2017. Its the lowest ice extent on record for this time of year for the combined basins.”
Somebody forgot to tell the sea ice to “pause” its downward trend!
Don’t tell me. I know what you are going to say:
“The weather records are fudged, the sea ice record is fudged, and now somebody is fudging the UAH record.”
“..and NASA faked the landing on the moon, Elvis is not really dead, aliens abducted me once, President Trump is really a genius .”
pp, you didn’t mention one of the funniest hoaxes ever–“CO2 can heat the planet”!
Tell me about the time aliens abducted you. That will be really funny.
They had to release me, because I had to go pp.
p.s. Why hasn’t Roy bothered with his “just for fun” graph with the 13-month running average?
“I am out of the office until Dec. 6” so tune in tomorrow.
I have also been out of the office – that didn’t prevent me from generating the graph in under 30 seconds.
Yes OK, but you are a professor. Cela explique tout, n’est-ce pas?
☺
Tempest in a teacup stirred up over a single data point by more than 700 comments. Aren’t there far more serious things in life, such as football, to occupy us?
Yes, seriously, college softball and hockey.
Big 12, go OU!
g*e*r*a*n
No wonder we don’t get along. You are a Sooner and I am a Husker.
That explains it. Well if OU can beat Clemson than they will prove themselves worthy. Clemson killed Miami in the Championship game.
No con-man, the reason we don’t get along is you are a reprobate.
g*e*r*a*n
Probably more to do with jealousy on your part. You were born with a low intelligence and you come on this blog (and others) and see all these different intelligent posters who can grasp basic physics and do not have a compulsion to make up their own physics with untested and unverified conclusions (a hot surface cannot accept radiant energy from a colder one, total stupid made up physics that you are proud of).
You insult and deride people who are far more intelligent than you can possibly be then you go in your little corner and laugh at all the funny names you come up with to call your superiors.
A lot of the comments are hangovers from arguments much older than the latest monthly anomaly.
There are far more delightful ways of treating hangovers.
I agree. Feel free to add your ray of sunshine.
And many commenters debunked several times, in several threads. Yet they resurface for another shot at life. Drawing fire from rest of the dinner party. There must be a Walking Dead quote that is apropos.
Before writing a couple of comments here, I walked, read a book, cooked something nice, drank pretty french wine, loved my lady, drank some more of that pretty french wine.
Isn’t that enough for you, sky?
Now it’s 2 AM here, good night!
Response of Phil Jones of Had.crut to Warwick Hughes when he asked for their data to verify it:
We have 25 years or so invested in the work. Why should I make the data available to you, when your aim is to try and find something wrong with it?
As Patrick Michaels aptly pointed out the point of replication is to find something wrong with it.
Why did Had.crut try so hard to conceal their data and methodology? If you make a claim in science should you not want someone to verify it? That is the basis of the scientific method.
Now NOAA is at it. A US government review lead by Lamar Smith ordered NOAA to release their data and methodology. NOAA refused.
Why??? NOAA is funded by the US government and they are governed by it. How and why would NOAA refuse to cooperate?
Only one apparent answer, they are corrupt.
Fortunately, NOAA seem unable to tamper with their satellite data, therefore UAH is able to use it to present the real story. Hence, the UAH data shows a 15 year flat trend from 1998 – 2015 which NOAA showed at one time for many year. They have subsequently changed the trend retroactively using cherry picked data and methodology.
Give up Gordon. You are sounding sooooo desperate now.
Apparently you believe that repeating your BS claims ever more forcefully somehow makes them true.
Sea level anomalies show where the Pacific is cool (wind direction).
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/ocean/weeklyenso_clim_81-10/wksl_anm.gif
This is the temperature anomaly in November in the lower troposphere.
https://www.nsstc.uah.edu/climate/2017/november/NOVEMBER_2017_map.jpg
Why do the archives only go up to May? I can’t find any maps for June through October.
The map is not generated for every month.
But at least these two you could manage to download:
https://www.nsstc.uah.edu/climate/2017/june/JUNE_2017%20map.png
https://www.nsstc.uah.edu/climate/2017/july/JULY_2017_map.png
The trick is to go back in the address up to
https://www.nsstc.uah.edu/climate/2017/
and to let Firefox display what it is able to see in the directory.
Then you discover also that not all filename parts are separated by underlines; some are with a blank :-((
Do you think it is still so warm over the northern Pacific Ocean?
https://earth.nullschool.net/#2017/12/06/1500Z/wind/isobaric/250hPa/orthographic=-138.68,28.00,393
I am particularly interested in seeing September and October maps. And there WERE generated every month up until May.
The only way to obtain them will be to ask Roy Spencer if somebody at UAH would be willing to complete the stuff in the …/climate/2017 subdirectory like it has been for 2016.
Not sure if NOAA or UAH updates that index.
Dunno. The data is supplied by UAH, I believe.
To be honest, and without any alarmism: I can’t remember having ever seen an UAH anomaly map with a zone above 4 or even 5 C.
I know by computation of linear trend estimates out of each UAH grid cell about places in the 80N-82.5N band showing over 5 C / decade for 1979-2016; but anomalies? No se.
Look around 50N: there you see a really interesting blob in the Northern Pacific. There must be a huge amount of OHC convection toward LT there. Of course: it’s one more time El Nino, hu?
*
What I miss together with these beautiful UAH maps is a little widget allowing us to move the picture up, down, left and right, btw helping uns in better viewing such places.
Nick Stokes provides a nice tool allowing to roll a sphere filled with a table of values in any direction; but it is somewhat difficult to handle, and the default color map is counterintuitive.
Here you can see how the jet stream over the Pacific works.
http://tropic.ssec.wisc.edu/real-time/mtpw2/product.php?color_type=tpw_nrl_colors&prod=epac×pan=24hrs&anim=html5
What do you think, has the temperature of the troposphere dropped?
As you know, your question needs some additional info for a meaningful answer, namely: ‘since when’ and ‘with respect to what’ ?
Bin,
I cant remember having ever seen an UAH anomaly map with a zone above 4 or even 5 C.
I know by computation of linear trend estimates out of each UAH grid cell about places in the 80N-82.5N band showing over 5 C / decade for 1979-2016; but anomalies? No se.
You’d be likelier to see 4/5C anomalies in those zones if the baseline was 1979-1988 instead of 1981-2010.
In a few days the temperature in northern Florida may drop below 0 C.
http://pics.tinypic.pl/i/00950/hrenqc9wvveo.png
Winter happens, ren! Even sometimes in Florida…
Winter starts on December 21.
http://images.tinypic.pl/i/00950/upaja1ocaec5.png
That official date does not protect from harsh snowfall in October with down to -7 C at night!
The way America doesn’t start winter officially until Dec 21 is rather idiotic. It doesn’t match temperatures.
des, you folks that live upside down have your summer in winter!
And you’re talking about “idiotic”?
Some of your comments just don’t need a response for everyone to see your idiocy.
binny…”Winter happens, ren! Even sometimes in Florida”
Better check your geography, it seldom freezes in Florida.
ps. the cold air in Florida sweeps down from the Arctic. You know, where all the ice is melting in -20C conditions, currently.
I am in a wait and see mode not much to comment on given current situation.
Such a distribution of ozone in the stratosphere means severe winter in North America.
http://images.tinypic.pl/i/00950/o3lheq74h5mo.png
La Nina will reduce the amount of water vapor over North America due to the wind direction over the equator.
Could those who were drawing attention to the declining 13-month average last month please comment on its rise this month?
elliott…”Could those who were drawing attention to the declining 13-month average last month please comment on its rise this month?”
Takes a while for it to catch up with last months -0.3C decline in the anomalies. It will surely be heading down.
“It will surely be heading down.”
Of course, It is only ticking up now because the low value which fell off the back end was smaller than the low value which just attached itself to the front end. I merely wanted to draw attention to the fact that all those who were drawing attention to it when it went down have suddenly gone quiet.
The only useful evaluation is of course a trend analysis of the entire data set.
The red line, the 13-month average, is probably going to go down next month.
2016 01 +0.55
2016 02 +0.85
2016 03 +0.76
2016 04 +0.72
2016 05 +0.53
2016 06 +0.33
2016 07 +0.37
2016 08 +0.43
2016 09 +0.45
2016 10 +0.42
2016 11 +0.46
2016 12 +0.26
2017 01 +0.32
2017 02 +0.38
2017 03 +0.22
2017 04 +0.27
2017 05 +0.44
2017 06 +0.21
2017 07 +0.29
2017 08 +0.41
2017 09 +0.54
2017 10 +0.63
2017 11 +0.36
November 2016 (bolded) will drop off the average next update, and Dec 2016 is 0.2C cooler. Next month will almost certainly be cooler than this one, so the average will go down next month. If the current la Nina conditions continue, the red line will keep dropping for a few months. But if it’s a week la Nina as forecasted, it might not drop by much, and could level out instead. If la Nina fails to set in, bets are off about the red line.
The interest in it is a little peculiar. Why is it so important?
barry, since you help me out so much, I’m glad to reciprocate.
“But if its a week la Nina as forecasted”
Should be “weak”.
(Glad to help.)
To be precise, that should be “La Nina”.
Whether or not the average goes down depends on how the new month compares to the month which drops off the back. So we won’t need a La Nina for the average to drop.
But I agree – a 13 month average is too small to remove signals which are unrelated to climate.
“The interest in it is a little peculiar. Why is it so important?”
Only for psychological reasons, otherwise it isn’t. It has virtually no meaning at all for purposes of evaluating climate change. It is just striking how attention wanders back and forth between the moving average, the monthly change and other excuses to see a declining “trend”.
I wouldn’t make any bets about it, partly for the exact reason that it says so little. mpainter insisted it would inevitably decline months ago, but his la Nina failed to turn up, which probably surprised all of us but is not really anomalous. There is too much monthly variation to make firm predictions over such a short period, and ENSO routinely fails to reverse cleanly.
Dr. Roy reports a continuing 0.13C/decade trend rate, which is less than half the change in anomaly from October to November. One simply cannot extract a useful trend from periods shorter than decades.
Solar activity very low.
http://www.solen.info/solar/images/AR_CH_20171205_hres.png
I swapped my 100 Watt globe for a 99.98 Watt globe. The difference in lighting was remarkable – I could no longer see.
Y’all freezing over there in Florida might want to consider moving to Greenland: https://weather.com/news/weather/news/2017-11-30-greenland-temperature-above-average-heat-wave
Yeah, the snow is not setting new high records, currently. While still above average, the snow is not as much, as the past 3 years.
Must be AGW. ..
Hilarious.
Look at the zonal wind anomalies in the upper stratosphere.
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat-trop/gif_files/time_pres_UGRD_MEAN_OND_NH_2017.png
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat-trop/gif_files/time_pres_UGRD_ANOM_OND_NH_2017.png
The polar vortex is broken.
Seen ’em. It’s roughly the same as last year – the vortex is weakened, big lobes of polar air heading South over the land-masses and record-breaking warmth in the Arctic. It’s actually been raining in Greenland. Like it or not, the breakdown of the vortex is an outcome of global warming.
And you only need to look at the graph at the top of the page to see that the overall effect is warmer than normal for this time of year. Greenland is quite a bit bigger than Florida…
Do you think that CO2 influences the waves above the stratosphere? An interesting theory, but no evidence.
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat-trop/gif_files/time_pres_WAVE1_MEAN_OND_NH_2017.png
These high-lying stratospheric layers can be linked to changes in solar activity.
http://ds.data.jma.go.jp/tcc/tcc/products/clisys/STRAT/gif/zu_nh.gif
Look at the jumps of the solar wind speed.
http://www.solen.info/solar/images/swind.png
Where did he say that the weakening of the polar vortex is due to CO2?? He said it is due to GLOBAL WARMING. Try to improve your comprehension.
elliott…”Its actually been raining in Greenland. Like it or not, the breakdown of the vortex is an outcome of global warming”.
The Vikings were farming in Greenland during the Medieval Warming Period, about 1000 years ago. What caused that warming, which has been inferred to have been as warm, or warmer, than today?
“The Vikings were farming in Greenland during the Medieval Warming Period, about 1000 years ago.”
They tried, certainly. Their fate seems to have been rather horrible. From what I gather, they ignored Innuit knowledge of how to survive, eating no fish at all, and so starved to death. One midden was found to contain only a single fish bone. They may have developed a taboo against fish because it is what the “skraeling” ate. At any rate, they didn’t persist for long.
This year there were uncontrolled fires all down the Greenland coast. How things change, eh?
Elliott Bignell on December 6, 2017 at 7:57 AM
Thanks for the news.
It is always interesting to note that exactly as some rather dumb alarmists only report about Greenland’s inlandsis melting, some rather dumb ‘skeptics’ conversely only report about snowfall increase in that region.
In my opinion, it is much better to look at the sum of the two, i.e. the yearly mass balance:
http://polarportal.dk/en/groenlands-indlandsis/nbsp/total-masseaendring/
which we see here in more detail:
http://4GP.ME/bbtc/1512580604374.jpg
Let us ignore the sea level rise at the left, and concentrate on the mass balance at the right: we see that even highest snowfall records can’t compensate the loss.
binny…”Let us ignore the sea level rise at the left, and concentrate on the mass balance at the right: we see that even highest snowfall records cant compensate the loss”.
That’s really good, binny, you present an unlabeled graph as to who made it then you refer to a skeptic as dumbass.
Bin is getting desperate. He’s becoming aware the data are not supporting his pseudoscience.
It’s fun to watch.
you present an unlabeled graph as to who made it then you refer to a skeptic as dumbass.
The unlabeled graph in the second link is shown and explained at the information page in the first link, dumbass.
Thanks barry, I could have written that, but I stopped reacting to the troll’s nonsense: I would have to correct him everywhere the like.
“In my opinion, it is much better to look at the sum of the two, i.e. the yearly mass balance:”
Indeed, and arguably this is the ONLY matter that concerns us long-term. Any more geographically or temporally local events are merely details in the overall picture. It is the overall change in sea level and albedo contributed by the shield which affects the globe as a whole.
An interesting graph besides UAH’s world anomaly map for november 2017 is this one:
https://www.nsstc.uah.edu/climate/2017/november/tlt_update_bar_Nov2017.jpg
It seems that the page
https://www.nsstc.uah.edu/climate/archives.html
is not updated automatically: it contains, for 2017, references only to januar till may.
The amount of ice in Greenland will increase.
https://earth.nullschool.net/#2017/12/09/1500Z/wind/isobaric/1000hPa/overlay=mean_sea_level_pressure/orthographic=-43.50,66.39,1806
https://earth.nullschool.net/#2017/12/09/1500Z/wind/surface/level/overlay=temp/orthographic=-43.50,66.39,1806
As I explained above, ren: this doesn’t matter.
What matters is the yearly balance between increase through snowfall and decrease through melting:
http://4gp.me/bbtc/1512580604374.jpg
The weather is changing. Look at 2016-2017.
http://www.dmi.dk/uploads/tx_dmidatastore/webservice/b/m/s/d/e/accumulatedsmb.png
Top: The total daily contribution to the surface mass balance from the entire ice sheet (blue line, Gt/day). Bottom: The accumulated surface mass balance from September 1st to now (blue line, Gt) and the season 2011-12 (red) which had very high summer melt in Greenland. For comparison, the mean curve from the period 1981-2010 is shown (dark grey). The same calendar day in each of the 30 years (in the period 1981-2010) will have its own value. These differences from year to year are illustrated by the light grey band. For each calendar day, however, the lowest and highest values of the 30 years have been left out.
The short-term weather is changing, ren, but the long-term climate doesn’t. You look at too short a distance.
binny…”What matters is the yearly balance between increase through snowfall and decrease through melting:”
Precipitation is everything with glaciers. If you don’t feed them they shrink. A glacier is nothing more than compressed snow, it is snow compressed into ice that uses gravity as a force to impel the ice downhill.
The Kilimanjaro glacier, near the Equator has shrunk and alarmists have blamed it on global warming. It’s actually shrinking due to deforestation at the base of the mountain which has changed wind patterns and as a result, precipitation.
Most glaciers world wide expanded remarkably during the Little Ice Age. One in the Alps spread across a valley and wiped out a village. Those glaciers have been retreating since 1850 when the LIA officially ended. It’s caused by re-warming, not anthropogenic causes.
Dang Gordon, there you go presenting facts again.
How do you know?
Here’s November 2017 map:
https://www.nsstc.uah.edu/climate/2017/november/NOVEMBER_2017_map.jpg
Sea Surface Temperature Anomalies, Ice and Snow Cover (1995-2009).
http://files.tinypic.pl/i/00950/kk2vqejrh1cf.png
No, ren: these are not the anomalies for 1995-2009!
You see the anomalies for 2017, december 6 wrt their 1995-2009 climatology, i.e. the 366 daily means for the 15 year period between 1995and 2009.
The two sides of one and the same medal:
– https://science.house.gov/news/press-releases/former-noaa-scientist-confirms-colleagues-manipulated-climate-records
and
– https://arstechnica.com/science/2017/01/noaa-temperature-datas-accuracy-confirmed-despite-congressional-objections/
Each of us has his own meaning, depending of which side s/he does trust more…
Choisissez votre camp, Mesdames et Messieurs!
Sorry: the second link was not the one I wanted to show. Here it is:
– http://www.factcheck.org/2017/02/no-data-manipulation-at-noaa/
As John Bates is the source of the criticism leveled by the House Committee, why not take his word for it?
Bates: “….no data tampering, no data changing, nothing malicious… Its not trumped up data in any way shape or form.”
Bates’ complaint was about procedural issues with data.
The Daily Mail was censured by the UK media authority for incorrectly reporting Bates’ opinion. The House Committee has no such oversight.
Exactement, barry!
I am wondering where g*’s surprise exposition regarding the two plates is going to surface. I have been waiting patiently for several days but to no avail.
Some may assume that he is just full of total bullshite but i will give him the benefit of the doubt. Maybe it is just around the corner?
Also has g* worked out the answers to the questions I posed above? I have given him some breathing space and this will be his fourth opportunity. I do hope he is not just going to divert again. It would reflect very poorly upon him.
Sorry, posted the above comment in the wrong thread. It’s just another demonstration of the occupational hazards when dealing with with g*’s diversionary nonsense.
November was the USA’s warmest month (anomalistically) since March. This is despite ren’s talk of the polar vortex at the beginning of the month. He has a habit of being very selective about which weather patterns he mentions.
It was the warmest November on record (since 1895) for Utah, Colorado, Arizona and New Mexico. At the other extreme, Wisconsin was the 52nd coolest November. Looking at Climate Divisions instead (there are 344 divisions in the US), a division in North Dakota and another one in Pennsylvania reached 38th coolest November on record. 24 divisions had they record warmest November.
des, was that before or after the 1930s were “adjusted” cooler?
Nice try my feral friend.
It was after the aliens infiltrated the government and started fudging all the records.
The aliens infiltrated the government in January 2017. When asked whether this infiltration had been a success, the great alien commander replied “Da”.
I almost didn’t get it.
Then I did.
Funny.
It took you some time to get it?? How sad.
Can someone kindly tell me what the average warming in the lower troposphere is over the tropics? If I remember correctly, the theory behind GW is that the LT over the tropics will heat at a rate of 1.2 times that of the surface. Do I understand it correctly that has not happened? Thanks.
Index Nino 3.4 is still falling.
https://www.tropicaltidbits.com/analysis/ocean/nino34.png
Ouch!
Us El Nino lovers can only hope Mr. Sun can help. He’s going to be right over the equator in another two weeks. Maximum solar heating might help.
Obviously CO2 heating is of no value.
“Later on, sea surface temperature data were increasingly used because the ocean was recognized to be a key player in ENSO (Bjerknes 1969, Rasmussen and Carpenter 1982, Wyrtki 1985) (3). Initially, certain regions were defined for measurementsnamely Nino1, Nino2 (combined into Nino1+2), Nino3 and Nino4because of consistently available data coming from ships passing through those areas. Later, an area called Nino3.4 was identified as being the most ENSO-representative (Barnston et al. 1997). Located between (and overlapping with) Nino3 and Nino4”
https://www.climate.gov/news-features/blogs/enso/why-are-there-so-many-enso-indexes-instead-just-one
And:
“Location of the Nino regions for measuring sea surface temperature in the eastern and central tropical Pacific Ocean. The sea surface temperature in the Nino3.4 region, spanning from 120˚W to 170˚W longitude, when averaged over a 3-month period, forms NOAAs official Oceanic Nino Index (the ONI).”
Mr Sun will be in his southernmost position in a couple of weeks. Solstice is approaching, not equinox.
Indeed barry. You are exactly correct. My only excuse involves finding a bargain sale on my wife’s favorite champagne.
I stand corrected. I’ll drink one to you.
That explains your posts.
Too much cheap champagne!
Excuse me while I go pp.
Great summary page on ENSO monitoring, gbakie. Thanks.
You want the tropical mid-troposphere data for that (“hotspot” zone). Jury’s still out on whether there has been enhanced warming there, as different data sources for that zone yield different results.
barry…”You want the tropical mid-troposphere data for that (hotspot zone). Jurys still out on whether there has been enhanced warming there…”
John Christy claims he has found no evidence of it. Why don’t you ask him.
Barry F on December 6, 2017 at 2:02 PM
1. Can someone kindly tell me what the average warming in the lower troposphere is over the tropics?
If you mean the average from say 1 km above surface up to just below the tropopause, you can’t rely on satellite readings, as they will give you the warming rate only for an altitude around 4-5 km (700-500 hPa).
To obtain the whole troposphere, you need information from radiosondes encompassing all the troposphere; but they are in vast majority on land, while satellite readings are performed thoroughly over land and ocean.
If we keep on satellite readings, you may choose between UAH6.0 (or RSS3.3, equivalent) and RSS4.0.
– UAH6.0 Tropics (20S-20N) 1979-2017: 0.12 C / decade
– RSS4.0 Tropics (25S-25N) 1979-2017: 0.15 C / decade
In comparison:
– GISS L+O Tropics (24S-24N) 1979-2015: 0.12 C /decade
(I don’t have newer GISS Tropics data immediately at hand).
2. If I remember correctly, the theory behind GW is that the LT over the tropics will heat at a rate of 1.2 times that of the surface. Do I understand it correctly that has not happened?
As you can see, that depends on which satellite data you trust in. I’m afraid it is more a political decision than a scientific choice.
Bin, the “hotspot” region above the tropics is meant to be around 5-15km altitude, centred at about 10km.
In that case only a comparison of radiosonde measurements at about 100 hPa with GISS land-only at surface would imho give a really valuable answer.
Ooops! I meant 250 hPa, 100 hPa would be to top of the hotspot at 15 km.
It’s imaged here, altitude in kms on the right axis.
Thanks.
binny…”If you mean the average from say 1 km above surface up to just below the tropopause, you cant rely on satellite readings, as they will give you the warming rate only for an altitude around 4-5 km (700-500 hPa)”.
Who are you kidding? Are you trying to tell me an AMSU unit cannot detect microwave radiation from oxygen near the surface?
The sensors can only give bulk readings of a several kilometers altitude, they can’t isolate any finer than that.
http://www.remss.com/measurements/upper-air-temperature/
There is a graphic there that shows the altitude swath covered by the sensors.
http://images.remss.com/figures/measurements/upper-air-temperature/wt_func_plot_for_web_2012.all_channels2.png
For the lowest tropospheric measurement, TLT, the MSU sensor measures brightness temperature from oxygen molecules in the altitude range 0 – 12 km, most heavily weighted at about 4 km altitude.
If they could resolve to within a few meters altitude, then we could have a satellite analog for surface air temperatures, but they can’t do that, which is why satellite temps are referred to as tropospheric rather than surface temperatures.
barry…”The sensors can only give bulk readings of a several kilometers altitude, they cant isolate any finer than that”.
http://www.lmd.jussieu.fr/~falmd/TP/results_interpret_AMSU/AMSU.pdf
“With channels in the oxygen absorp.tion band, AMSU-A is designed to retrieve the atmospheric temperature from about 3 hPa (~45 km) down to the Earth’s surface”.
We need to get Roy into this, he’s the expert.
Did binny not claim that oxygen is not a good absorber?
You are so incredibly ignorant, dumb and naive, Robertson troll.
If you had, like I did, processed lots and lots of UAH data everybody can find in
https://www.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/v6.0/
then you would not need to ridicule yourself so endlessly.
Ask Roy Spencer about all you don’t know. Maybe he answers…
How is it possible to be so DUMB?
So says the clown who takes a quote from Arrhenius and attributes it to Fourier. And the clown is supposedly is French!
SkepticGone[SomehowButCertainlyNotWild] on December 6, 2017 at 9:44 PM
So says the clown who takes a quote from Arrhenius and attributes it to Fourier.
May I request you to publish the corner where I supposedly made that mistake?
You often pretend, like the Robertson troll, unverifiable things.
If you happened to be right, I then would evidently apologise for having made the mistake, like I always do.
The forecast of the stratospheric polar vortex on December 10 is very unfavorable for North America.
https://scontent-frt3-2.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/24774953_746077562264859_2205686547410594515_n.png?oh=1a2104ad40d440cb203ab6670caab8bd&oe=5AD6B7C4
It will be weeks of beautiful winter in the US.
–THIS IS PROBABLY WHERE THE MAGIC SWORD LEGENDS COME FROM: The Most Precious Bronze Age Artefacts Were Made With Cosmic Materials. According to a new study, its possible that all iron-based weapons and tools of the Bronze Age were forged using metal salvaged from meteorites. The finding has given experts a better insight into how these tools were created before humans worked out how to produce iron from its ore.–
https://pjmedia.com/instapundit/
Link:
http://www.sciencealert.com/bronze-age-artefacts-have-meteorite-iron
The “sword from the stone” may also record the discovery of smelting.
ATMOSPHERIC RADIATION IS INCREASING: Since the spring of 2015, Spaceweather.com and the students of Earth to Sky Calculus have been flying balloons to the stratosphere over California to measure cosmic rays. Soon after our monitoring program began, we quickly realized that radiation levels are increasing. Why? The main reason is the solar cycle. In recent years, sunspot counts have plummeted as the sun’s magnetic field weakens. This has allowed more cosmic rays from deep space to penetrate the solar system. As 2017 winds down, our latest measurements show the radiation increase continuing apace–with an interesting exception, circled in yellow:”
http://www.spaceweather.com/
current stretch of spotless is 5 days
I’m still awaiting Tony’s and g*e*r*a*n’s versions of mikeR’s Excel file offer to show us a perfect falsification of Eli Rabett’s little 2 plate show.
Allez Messieurs, faites donc preuve d’un peu de courage!
Bin, so glad you asked.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/12/uah-global-temperature-update-for-november-20170-36-deg-c/#comment-275057
Was that illogical contribution also written after some champagne?
Cabbage Head, are you commenting under another screen name?
No, wrong again.
Cabbage Head sounds like a children’s TV character. You should stick to watching hin/her.
Comme attendu, vous n’en avez pas (vous savez de quoi je parle).
Bin, did you have an intelligent question, or were you just rambling?
Kind of predictable. No sign of any detailed calculations showing he results are self consistent and/or consistent with laws of thermodynamics.
Sounds like mission impossible for the g*.
Sorry miker, rules are rules:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/12/uah-global-temperature-update-for-november-20170-36-deg-c/#comment-274762
Is anyone other than myself getting a perverse satisfaction watching g* squirm? G* when pinned down, links to his personal rules of engagement which of course he ignores.
As for g*’s motive to continue to display his ignorance, who knows? Maybe masochism?
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/12/uah-global-temperature-update-for-november-20170-36-deg-c/#comment-274762
I think g* has fallen asleep at the wheel.
Still waiting for his calculations.
miker, it’s really not that hard to understand.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/12/uah-global-temperature-update-for-november-20170-36-deg-c/#comment-274762
Interesting set of calculations , you have got there.
I think this is the kind of behaviour (continual circular posts) which earned you your asterisks.
binny…”Im still awaiting Tonys and g*e*r*a*ns versions of mikeRs Excel file offer to show us a perfect falsification of Eli Rabetts little 2 plate show”.
You don’t need an Excel file, the physics is wrong. Rabbett fails to understand that EM is not heat. You cannot transfer heat from a colder body to a warmer body…case closed.
Just as water won’t run up hill by itself, electrons won’t flow against a potential gradient from +ve to -ve, a bolder won’t lift itself up onto a hill that is at a higher level, heat won’t transfer itself from a cooler body to a warmer body by itself.
That applies equally to heat transfer by radiation. The 2nd law does not specify conduction and convection only and it says nothing about net radiation transfer. That’s not even implied in the 2nd law, which mentions only heat transfer and nothing about EM.
I don’t know why you alarmists are having so much trouble with such a basic concept.
Gordon, the patron saint of evidence free assertions, wants us to take on face value his latest assertion.
Gordons credibility continued on its never ending trajectory towards infinity (in the negative direction) when he claimed, in the midst of his debate with David Appell that relativity has no relevance to GPS. Like David It took me the whole of 30 seconds ( I have a slow internet connection) the three references that explained in detail why relativistic corrections are needed and used to calculate GPS coordinates.
It is another sign of one of Gordons core incompetencies (or just another sign of his own inflated ego) that he did not bother to do this basic check before mouthing off.
So Gordon , like the above example , is just mouthing off. However his assertion that you cannot transfer heat from a colder body to a warmer body which I think is derived from his understanding of the 2nd law of thermodynamics is indeed true but needs to be stated as the NET transfer of heat- see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_law_of_thermodynamics .
This requirement is not inconsistent with, despite the protestations of Gordon and g* , with the blue plate warming in the presence of the green plate , see again –
https://s20.postimg.org/in6frkozh/Consistency_Tests.jpg .
Read the bottom few lines at left (cells b51 to b60).
If Gordon still disagrees (which I fully expect) then it would be a trivial exercise for him prove it. He probably doesnt need the full power of Excel, and maybe he should use whatever is at his disposal.
Gordons seems to only trust science from the era of pre-1930s (ie. Before Q.M. and relativity) . So an abacus or maybe just fingers and toes might do. However, in the latter case, he may have to borrow these appendages from family , friends or neighbours, just in case his calculations generate digital overflows.
Or, if you want the truth, you can go here:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/12/uah-global-temperature-update-for-november-20170-36-deg-c/#comment-275057
Around and around g* goes, linking to himself.
Where (and when) he stops no one knows.
miker…”in the midst of his debate with David Appell that relativity has no relevance to GPS…”
Your comprehension skills are about equal to those of Appell. I said the time dilation has nothing to do with GPS.
“…his assertion that you cannot transfer heat from a colder body to a warmer body which I think is derived from his understanding of the 2nd law of thermodynamics is indeed true but needs to be stated as the NET transfer of heat-…”
Has it ever occurred to your limited mind that the wiki could be wrong. The fact that you have to refer to a wiki suggests you have no understanding of the subject.
Clausius, who wrote the 2nd law, said nothing whatsoever about net transfer of heat. He said simply that a cooler body, of its own, cannot transfer heat to a warmer body. It’s idiots like the author of the wiki article who have added the notion that a net positive energy exchange of EM between bodies of different temperatures can satisfy the 2nd law. Sheer pseudo-science.
Speaking of idiots, even you could enter an article in the wiki.
As far as the green plate/blue plate, it is clear from Clausius that a cooler body cannot of its own transfer heat from a cooler body to a warmer body. Case closed.
Se Mikey, you don’t need the wiki, just apply the 2nd law as written by the man who wrote it.
As the wise man Clausius once said –
“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.”
I gather his reference to total result is equivalent to the term net. Do you have some other interpretation of the term total result?
Did you actually read the linked references provided by David? Clearly not. With regards to time dilation the on board clocks of the satellites need to be adjusted by 7 microseconds due to time dilation see http://www.astronomy.ohio-state.edu/~pogge/Ast162/Unit5/gps.html .
Hilarious! – expecting a falsification from the 3 Stooges : Moe (Anger), Curly (GR) and Larry (ren).
Obviously pp has nothing substantive to offer.
I thought that very substantive – even amusing. Maybe I have had one wine too many.
(n.b. I would never drink cheap champagne).
do you sometimes comment as “Nate”?
Sorry, no.
But I can see how you would conflate us as we are both very intelligent (at least compared to others here).
Professor Dum Dum,
It’s obvious you don’t understand the scientific concept of falsification.
Skeptic,
Do you mean checking for internal consistency and contradictions?
MikeR,
You are clueless as well.
SGW – maybe we are dealing with the 4 Marx brothers here rather than the 3 stooges.
Yes Prof, right on cue, SkepticGoneWild surfaces for air.
Appropriate, as I have been listening to background music and the last song played was “Send in the Clowns”.
Very nice song. I think you can find it on Spotify. Look up the music from Donald Trump’s inauguration ball.
Professor Dum Dum and Mike R,
Falsifiability is the principle that in hypothesis testing a proposition or theory cannot be considered scientific if it does not admit the possibility of being shown to be false.
Falsifiable does not mean false. For a proposition to be falsifiable, it must at least in principle be possible to make an observation that would show the proposition to be false, even if that observation has not actually been made.
Where did you clowns go to school?
Skeptic, both g*’s and Eli Rabbit’ s models for the system of plates could be falsified by testing for internal contradictions and inconsistencies.
One passed and one failed miserably.
Mike,
OMG. None of them were ever tested scientifically!
Whatever school you went to, I would demand a refund.
MikeR,
Crickets………..
You are CLUELESS regarding the scientific method.
SkepticGoneWild clearly thinks he is an expert on the philosophy of science and in particular falsification.
This is way too easy to falsify.
For instance from https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/popper/ the following extract regarding falsification.
“How then does the deductive procedure work? Popper specifies four steps (Logic of Scientific Discovery, 1.3, 9):
(a) The first is formal, a testing of the internal consistency of the theoretical system to see if it involves any contradictions. ”
Back to remedial class for the Skeptic.
prof…”Hilarious! expecting a falsification from the 3 Stooges : Moe (Anger), Curly (GR) and Larry (ren)”.
Rabbett was told that by two experts in thermodynamics, Gerlich and Tscheuschner, when Rabbett, under his real name, Halpern, issued a paper with others trying to debunk the G&T paper on falsification of the GHE.
When G&T suggested heat could only be transferred one way radiatively, Halpern et al replied that suggested one of the bodies was not radiating, a complete confusion of EM with heat. They were proceeding on the basis of the fabled net energy exchange by which bodies of different temperatures radiate heat to each other, with the sum of the EM representing a net heat transfer.
G&T replied that the 2nd law covered only heat transfer and that one could not sum units of radiation and presume them to be the summation of heat quantities. In other words, only heat quantities can be summed.
Rabbett does not understand that hence his pseudo-scientific thought experiment with the green and blue plates. Neither do you it appears. Until you understand this fundamental fact in thermodynamics you are doomed to forever make a fool of yourself spreading the notion that EM is heat.
Bindumdum,
You have not a clue as the scientific concept of falsification. (Hint: it’s not proving something false)
SkepticGone[SomehowButCertainlyNotWild] on December 6, 2017 at 9:53 PM
http://abyss.uoregon.edu/~js/glossary/principle_of_falsification.html
https://www.britannica.com/topic/scientific-hypothesis
English might be your native tongue, but it nevertheless seems to me that you are far away from mastering it at the level that would be needed to criticize me.
Gordon,
You are terminally naive, barry. I posted a link directly to NOAA where they admitted to slashing their database by 75%
“Slashing” = cutting, deleting, removing.
Lets quote that link, shall we?
“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.”
Where does it say they deliberately deleted anything?
NOWHERE.
The 1500 reporting stations remained relatively constant through the 1990s.
The additional data comes as they said from digitizing historical books.
They retrospectively ADDED data THAT WAS NOT PART OF THEIR AUTOMATICALLY UPDATED STREAM.
They had 1500 weather stations regularly updating when they began the project, and roughly the same number after they collated and digitised hand-written historical weather station data to add to the data base.
THAT’s why there is a ‘drop-off’ after the 1990s.
They did NOT delete data streams, they added more historical data that is not part of the monthly data stream.
THEY DELETED NOTHING.
The source you point to explains it. And NOWHERE in that source is there any mention of “slashing” or deleting or cutting or removing data.
YOUR SOURCE DOES NOT SAY WHAT YOU SAYS IT DOES.
Stop. Lying.
Barry – GR (Curly) can’t help himself – all he has is repetition. A sure sign of incipient alzheimers.
prof…”GR (Curly) cant help himself all he has is repetition. A sure sign of incipient alzheimers”.
I post under my real name instead of hiding behind a nym that changes regularly. Have you not noticed the repetition in your on-going ad homs?
I repeat them because you have short term memory loss.
He has a terminal block for this. He just doesn’t see these posts. Watch as he ignores it yet again, or talks around the point if he does show up to reply.
barry and pp, the perfect match?
Maybe you are right. Barry sounds very intelligent.
maybe he will accept you as a tag-along.
barry…”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.”
Translation….NOAA has slashed over 75% of it’s reporting stations and applied less than 25% of the data to a climate model where the slashed data is synthesized using less than 25% of available data and algorithms from historical books and logs. NOAA does not claim the number of stations has increased, they claim the ‘data record’ has gotten bigger.
Plainly, they are using old data to augment the new data from 1500 stations to synthesize data.
Barry, you are making a serious fool of yourself by trying to rationalize this chicanery. You are so sucked in you actually believe NOAA is increasing surface stations when they tell you plainly they are using less than 1500 stations from a global pool of 6000 stations.
Translation.NOAA has slashed over 75% of its reporting stations and applied less than 25% of the data to a climate model…
They DO NOT SAY THEY SLASHED OR DELETED ANYTHING.
Point to the sentence. The phrase.
This is the tract that you say they “ADMIT” to SLASHING weather station data.
Where is this “admission?”
It’s not there! That’s why you suddenly have to “translate.”
And your “translation” is so obviously just the thoughts in your own head, and nothing to do with the article you cite, because you go on to talk about a “model”, which appears nowhere in the article you cite.
POINT TO THE EXACT PHRASE WHERE THEY SAY “ADMIT” TO “SLASHING” WEATHER STATION DATA.
You are so sucked in you actually believe NOAA is increasing surface stations when they tell you plainly they are using less than 1500 stations from a global pool of 6000 stations.
Jesus.
They do not have a pool of 6000 stations that report their data to NOAA like the 1500 stations.
The data from the other 4500 weather stations came from old hand-written records. Many of these stations were defunct by the 1990s. NOAA sourced the old data and added it retrospectively. None of the 4500 stations were in their automated data stream, so they went to great lengths to get national weather services to send them – a one-time event.
If there were actually a pool of 6000 weather stations that were sending their data to NOAA every month, NOAA could update their data base every month with that amount of data.
But only 1500 (now over 2000) were sending regular updates through the 1990s. When NOAA amassed the historical data and added it retrospectively, that ADDED to their station count. When that project was done, there were still 1500 weather station reporting each month. THAT is the reason for the drop-off – from ADDING old data retrospectively, and NOT from deliberate deleting of data
You’ve been shown the 1997 methods paper that describes all this. How can you not understand this after all this time?
Meanwhile, the UAH trend since 1979 is still +0.13 degrees per decade and rising. Let’s face it, the pause has been long dead and the warmists have won.
pp, you sound like davie.
I’ll take that as a compliment.
Telling.
How does it feel to be a lemming, PP? I’ve never experienced that sensation.
How does it feel to be a loser?
You tell me, McFly.
norman…with regard to Professor R. W. Wood here’s some interesting tidbits for you.
Wood was an expert on infrared, and knowing its properties intimately, he doubted the prevalent theory circa 1909 that greenhouses warmed when IR radiated by the ground and walls became trapped by the glass.
Here is his write up on the experiment and his reasoning.
http://ilovemycarbondioxide.com/pdf/Note_on_the_Theory_of_the_Greenhouse.pdf
Here’s a wiki bio on him:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_W._Wood
As I said, Neils Bohr consulted him for his expertise on certain EM spectra.
Here’s a quote from link one that neatly explains what we call the GHE:
“The solar rays penetrate the atmosphere, warm the ground which in turn warms the atmosphere by contact and by convection currents. The heat received is thus stored up in the atmosphere, remaining there on account of the very low radiating power of a gas. It seems to me very doubtful if the atmosphere is warmed to any great extent by absorbing the radiation from the ground, even under the most favourable conditions”.
A one page note written over 100 years ago, before US Air Force needs for infrared signalling and guidance systems led to a better understanding of infrared transmission in the atmos.
A note that says that the atmosphere doesn’t work like a real greenhouse. Well, frickin’ duh!
That one page note appears to be the sum total of his work on atmospheric radiation. Which no doubt makes him an ‘expert’ on the matter in the eyes of ‘skeptics’.
Gordon Robertson
That would be Wood’s opinion and since it goes against empirical data which shows that the atmosphere can absorb considerable surface emitted IR I would say it is an incorrect opinion. I would not consider this as some form of absolute truth. Especially when testing invalidates the statement.
If you are interested, another scientist wrote about Wood’s testing and conclusion in the same magazine Wood’s published his testing.
Here is a link if you are interested. A critique of Wood’s test from 1909.
http://clim.stanford.edu/WoodExpt/AbbotReplyToWood.pdf
For the ignorant, dumb and naive ‘commenter’s
1. http://www.drroyspencer.com/2013/08/revisiting-woods-1909-greenhouse-box-experiment-part-i/
2. http://www.drroyspencer.com/2013/08/revisiting-woods-1909-greenhouse-box-experiment-part-ii-first-results/
As far as Nasif Nahle’s ‘experiment’ (intended to exactly replicate Wood’s) is concerned, look here:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2013/08/revisiting-woods-1909-greenhouse-box-experiment-part-i/#comment-88116
For Nahle, did you not notice that the box with the IR transparent cover was insulated and the other boxes werent?
Understood?
So Bin, in 50 words or less, what is the significance of your links?
Why don’t you ever ask this of ren and his utterly random and unexplained links?
ren is providing facts.
Bin is promoting a false belief.
Night and day difference.
Bin is an uneducated scientific pretender.
How do you KNOW he is providing “facts” when you don’t understand the graphs he provides?
binny the idiot…”For Nahle, did you not notice that the box with the IR transparent cover was insulated and the other boxes werent?”
Why don’t you try reading the entire experiment in detail before replying like a fool?
“name-calling is thus a substitute for rational, fact-based arguments”.
https://tinyurl.com/y95jkhbm
Naughty naughty – leave the ad homs to experts like me.
A note on trend lines. Barry offered a link to a notes section at woodfortrees and in the notes is this:
“After many requests, I finally added trend-lines (linear least-squares regression)…”
A trend line is NOT a linear least-squares regression, that is a reference to an algorithm used to to produce a certain form of average amongst random data point. And that’s where you alarmists are messing up.
As a linear model, the LLSG does not even have to be a straight-line. If it’s not, however, you cannot express it in degrees/decade. If you apply an averaging to the UAH data, with it’s rewarming phase and it’s flat trend, the curve should be a curve and not a straight-line expressed linearly per decade. A better trend line for the UAH data should be more like an exponential curve with the x-axis as an asymptote.
Why do we have this penchant for drawing straight lines through data points and claiming it means a lot?
A true straight line must be of the form y = mx +b, like any other straight line function. m = slope of line and b = y-intercept, if one exist. Otherwise the line is y = mx. The parameter m is your trend and only a straight line can represent the trend as expressed by UAH.
To get the trend line of random data points, one can estimate the average visually by following the density of data points plotted on a graph and drawing a straight line through the data points. Or, one can use various methods to more accurately determine where the line best fits the data points. The method of linear regression is just one of those methods and is not the trend line itself.
Once the data points are plotted on a graph, using x, y coordinates, and the best fit is determined, the line is drawn. Then the slope of the line and the y-intercept are determined. The slope is the trend. You have degrees C on the vertical axis and time on the horizontal axis. m = change in y divided by change in x.
With the UAH data, one can draw a ‘straight’ trend line from 1979 – 2017 using mainly end points. However, other methods are more accurate. That trend line tells you nothing of the reality, only that a general warming has occurred between 1979 and 2017.
It does not tell you of the volcanic aerosols that caused cooling between 1979 – 1998 and a trend line drawn through that range indicated only a re-warming. In the UAH 33 year report, John Christy makes reference to that fact, claiming TRUE warming did not begin till the 1998 El Nino. Therefore, re-warming between 1979 and 1998 is not classified as a true warming.
Neither does it tell you of the following 15 year hiatus shown by the IPCC and UAH. The trend from 1998 to somewhere in 2015 was flat. How does it make sense to have an overall trend of 0.12C/decade and to have two parallel trends, one with a positive slope and one with no slope?
If you consider 1979 – 1998 alone, the trend will be different than the overall trend. The flat trend from 1998 – 2015 makes an outright lie of the overall trend.
Come on, folks, this is basic statistical theory.
From Gordon, the person who doesnt believe we should use the ENTIRE distribution to analyse a trend, instead selecting the top of the distribution for the start of your trend and the middle of your distribution for the end.
des…”From Gordon, the person who doesnt believe we should use the ENTIRE distribution to analyse a trend…”
I implied that you should determine what it is you are trying to understand before you rush off to blindly analyze data. The first thing we were taught when studying statistics is that averages can be very deceiving when applied inappropriately.
If someone asks you how quickly the planet has warmed the past 37 years due to anthropogenic warming, and you replied 0.12C/decade, you would be misleading that person. You have not told him that half the data is in a region of the graph that was affected by volcanic aerosols, that it cooled and re-warmed.
You would not tell him there had been no warming for 18 years of the second half of the data. The implication would be that anthropogenic forces had warmed the planet at 0.12C/decade, which is a lie.
Gordon, you have finally acknowledged that warming of +0.12 degrees a decade has occurred.
Now we have established that fact, you are allowed to dispute the reasons.
You are not allowed to deny its existence.
“Now we have established that fact, you are allowed to dispute the reasons …”.
Well according to the IPCC at least half the warming ( > 0.06C /decade) was most likely and most ‘unalarmingly’ due to human greenhouse gas emissions.
–Now we have established that fact, you are allowed to dispute the reasons .
Well according to the IPCC at least half the warming ( > 0.06C /decade) was most likely and most unalarmingly due to human greenhouse gas emissions.–
And the IPCC business depends upon human activity having an effect an global average temperature.
The larger amount of humans having an effect upon global climate, the more this validates their continued existence
of something requiring government funding.
IPCC would be a lot happier if they could actually prove that at least half of the warming is due to human activity, instead all they can say is it’s their opinion.
Or they would be more important and would get more money, if they could prove it.
They make the argument, as a lawyer argues their case [and one can expect a lawyer to do this [and a lawyer should do this- it’s their job]].
But what is obvious and what said often by IPCC, is there is uncertainty.
The take away is, anyone claiming they have proof that greenhouse gases have caused more than .06C per decade is disillusional- the IPCC doesn’t have it, and they are quite desperate to get it.
You realize that the researchers writing the IPCC chapters don’t get paid, gbakie?
This foray into a political comment is outside your usual way, but sadly revealing.
— barry says:
December 7, 2017 at 4:05 PM
You realize that the researchers writing the IPCC chapters dont get paid, gbaikie?–
This not related to what I said.
But as for your question, I assume you are not claiming that all these private researchers are unpaid amateurs rather then paid professionals.
The IPCC [and all of the UN] is non democratic governmental agency receiving significant amount of funding by the American tax payers- to whom they are not accountable to.
And the reason for the existence of IPCC is provide evidence of human activities causing effects upon climate.
And if they could find such evidence, they would then be doing their job.
They excessively rewarded for failing to do their job, but they would be better rewarded were they to actual do their job.
Quite simply, there is no doubt they would be adequately rewarded were they to find evidence of their claim that more than 1/2 of recent warming is due to human activity.
This not related to what I said.
It’s tightly related to what you said.
The IPCC report is not written by IPCC administration which “gets the money.”
It is written by qualified scientists, who are not paid to write it.
The authors of the IPCC reports receive no renumeration for their work, so your ‘motive’ for the contents is misplaced here.
Prove to me that “there has been no warming for 18 years of the second half of the data” by not comparing temperatures to 1997/98 (ie. the TOP of the distribution).
Gordon Gordon Gordon
You are talking rubbish again.
Try simply splitting the time series in half and calculating the least-squares trends.
First half it is +0.16 degrees per decade
Second half it is +0.14 degrees per decade
Therefore the warming is not confined.
Cherry picking periods is not allowed.
Otherwise I could just as well claim there is no warming taking place because it cooled from midday to midnight. That is what your argument amounts to.
pp, the more you clowns try to massage the data to find some “AGW”, the more hilarious you appear.
Please continue.
Stuck at the bottom:
https://tinyurl.com/y95jkhbm
“the more you clowns try to massage the data to find some AGW, the more hilarious you appear.”
Dr. Roy is entirely clear about this: The data shows an overall trend of 0.13C per decade. End of.
The only person massaging is you. Stop it or you will go blind.
Elliott, the mean global warming trend of UAH is 0.13 C/decade.
G’s comment was about attribution (that is the inherent in the acronym ‘AGW.’). The UAH mean linear trend says nothing about attribution.
A trend line is NOT a linear least-squares regression
Yes it is. It’s one kind of trend analysis.
The Ordinary Least Squares procedure seeks to minimize the sum of the squared residuals. This means that given a regression line through the data we calculate the distance from each data point to the regression line, square it, and sum all of the squared errors together. This is the quantity that ordinary least squares seeks to minimize.
Linear regressions are estimates of the likeliest linear change in a system, and come with an uncertainty interval around the mean slope. Typically, the confidence interval is 95% (or 0.05), which means that 95% of the data points fall within this envelope. Typically the results are written in this form:
x per [unit time] (+/- a)
Where 95% percent of the data points fall between the parallel lines x – a per [unit time] and x + a per [unit time].
When both values are positive
Eg: 4 C/decade (+/- 1)
= 95% confidence interval: between 3 and 5 C/decade
The slope is positive and statistically significant.
When both values are negative
Eg: -4 C/decade (+/- 1)
= 95% confidence interval: between -3 and -5 C/decade
The slope is negative and statistically significant.
When one value is positive and the other negative
Eg: 1 C/decade (+/- 2)
= 95% confidence interval: between -1 and 3 C/decade
The slope, whatever it is, is not statistically significant.
In his case neither warming nor cooling is occurring according to the model parameters.
Neither does this mean by default that the trend is flat. Only that within 95% percent confidence limits, the evidence for change is too uncertain to verify.
It’s not the only method of trend analysis, nor the only method that derives a straight line. Nor is a 95% confidence interval the only choice.
But it is most definitely a trend analysis.
If you apply an averaging to the UAH data, with its rewarming phase and its flat trend, the curve should be a curve and not a straight-line expressed linearly per decade. A better trend line for the UAH data should be more like an exponential curve with the x-axis as an asymptote.
That’s fine to do, but you must test for goodness of fit, and discover a model type (eg higher order polynomial iterations) that reduces the error (uncertainty) in the model.
Why do we have this penchant for drawing straight lines through data points
The attraction is the relative simplicity of the model and its utility for long-term trend analysis. There is a maxim that better results come from making fewer choices. The fewer degrees of freedom the better.
“With four parameters I can fit an elephant, and with five I can make him wiggle his trunk.”
– John von Neumann
Neither does it tell you of the following 15 year hiatus shown by the IPCC and UAH.
The “hiatus” has been so called precisely because of regression analysis. You mention 1998 to 2012 (or 1998 to 2015) precisely because those periods produce a flat or negative straight line from linear regression analysis on certain data sets.
Take UAH:
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah6/mean:13/plot/uah6/from:1998/to:2013/trend/plot/uah6/from:1998/to:2016/trend
Both negative slopes. What happens if we first add a year to the beginning, and then add a year to the end of the longest trend line?
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah6/mean:13/plot/uah6/from:1997/to:2016/trend
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah6/mean:13/plot/uah6/from:1998/to:2017/trend
Adding one year either way changes the slope.
This time frame is touted precisely because of the fact it is the longest line of calendar years in the record that shows a flat or negative slope from linear regression.
The claim of “hiatus” comes precisely from the trend model you are denigrating.
and claiming it means a lot?
It’s a probabilistic estimate of change (or not). That’s it.
That trend line tells you nothing of the reality, only that a general warming has occurred between 1979 and 2017.
Yes, its an algorithm that estimates general change (or not), accounting for but not representing shorter term fluctuations in the data.
How does it make sense to have an overall trend of 0.12C/decade and to have two parallel trends, one with a positive slope and one with no slope?
Er… two different slopes are not “parallel.”
The flat trend from 1998 2015 makes an outright lie of the overall trend.
It’s a different mean trend for a different (shorter) period.
But let’s complete the analysis and supply the confidence interval. The following result is from a linear model, ARMA (1), that accounts in a certain way for autocorrelation (when data variation point to point is not completely random).
UAH 1998 to 2015
-0.009 C/decade (+/- 0.183)
= 95% confidence interval: between -0.192 and +0.174 C/decade
The slope is not statistically significant, because it could be negative or positive or flat within 95% confidence limits. We have no evidence of change.
As this is a null hypothesis test, it gives a negative (or positive), but not deterministic result.
H1 = change
Falsified hypothesis: change is not assessed to have occurred
The result is not:
The trend is definitely flat
Anyone who believes the trend line should be a curve would never accept a flat result anyway.
With uncertainly intervals, one can make a preliminary test for a change in trend.
If the uncertainty envelopes for two trend overlap then the null is not falsified. No statistically significant change in trend to 95% confidence limits.
If the uncertainty intervals of two trend estimates are distinct then we have evidence that there has been a change in trend.
The uncertainty interval of the trend (flat or negative) from about 1940 to 1970 is statistically distinct from the 30-year trends before and after. This could be said to be a pause.
The uncertainty intervals of the trend for the 1998-2012 or 1998-2015 “pause” periods is not statistically distinct from any sequential 15/18+ years trends. Evidence for change is not statistically significant.
There may be better ways to estimate trends in the global temp data, but that comes from demonstrating it mathematically, not from assertion.
You don’t want to have to make a choice if you can help it, just let the math tell you the best model of fit.
I stopped reading at “A trend line..”.
No one is going to read that long diatribe.
binny…”Yes it is. Its one kind of trend analysis”.
How can it be a trend analysis and a trend ‘line’ at the same time? A trend is an average and a line is a line defined mathematically as y = mx + b. Regression is an analytical tool that can be expressed as a line but referring to a statistical regression as representing all trends is ingenuous.
It did occur to me later that the guy associating the two may have been emphasizing that his particular trend line was a least-squares regression.
I was not trying to nitpick, I was trying to demonstrate that applying data blindly to a regression function is dangerous. It’s always dangerous to apply averages blindly.
In engineering, we were taught to always draw a diagram using the supplied information from a problem. Often, we quickly sketched diagrams to see visually what was involved
For example, y = sinx + 2x can be described by drawing a sine wave with a straight line y = 2x.
We know immediately that sinx and 2x go through 0,0 on an x, y plot. Therefore we know the line intercepts the sine wave in at least one place. Does it intercept it in more places? Lay out a table of x, y values for both cases to get a quick visual.
sinx rises quickly to +1 but 2x rises more slowly. After +1, sinx drops quickly to pi/2. We know immediately that 2x must intercept it again, but where? We did all forms of such problems, getting into 3D diagrams. In engineering drawing we drew the 3D structures accurately in different views.
If you plot the UAH data on a graph, then tried to draw a trend line through it freehand, you get an idea immediately that something is amiss. You’d have to bend the trend line after 1998 to get it through the next 15 years of data.
If you don’t, you get a trend that is unrealistic. That’s what happens when you take raw data and plug it into an algorithm without checking the context.
Regression is an analytical tool that can be expressed as a line but referring to a statistical regression as representing all trends is ingenuous.
Huh? Read again – carefully – the bit you just quoted of me when you typed that.
“Yes it is. It’s one kind of trend analysis.”
Do you need me to explain why what you quoted of me, and what you said of that quote, are diametrically opposite ideas?
I’m worried that plain English may not be enough. A linear regression is indeed a trend line. It is one way of computing a trend, a linear one. There are others ways to compute linear trends, and there are models that compute curved trends.
And my name is Barry, not binny. May I politely suggest you read more slowly and carefully?
In engineering, we were taught to always draw a diagram using the supplied information from a problem.
When analysing data to discover if there is a trend, be it straight or curved or wavy, the best method is a property of the data – somethuing that must be derived from the data itself, not from a particular choice given by an examiner or person with a penchant. You don’t want to have to make a choice if you can help it. The data trains the modeler, not the other way around. The appropriate model is the one the provides the best fit (often lowest uncertainty) to the data.
If you plot the UAH data on a graph, then tried to draw a trend line through it freehand, you get an idea immediately that something is amiss. Youd have to bend the trend line after 1998 to get it through the next 15 years of data.
If you dont, you get a trend that is unrealistic.
‘Unrealistic’ is a value judgement, which has no place in trend analysis.
Say a statistical analyst sees a flattening out of data by eyeball, as in the UAH satellite temp record.
The analyst has a hypothesis. She says, “the trend before 1998 sure looks like it changes after 1998” (or whatever year they ‘feel’ is most appropriate).
This is where you stop doing analysis.
But a statistical analyst then subjects their hypothesis to mathematical testing. There are a suite of statistical tests that may be run to see if their hypothesis is falsified or not. There is break-point analysis (various kinds), to see if there is a statistically significant breakpoint. Or they may try a regression with increasing degrees of freedom (parabolic curve, quadratic, wavy line), and see if the uncertainty is reduced compared with other trend analyses (such as the straight linear trend).
Only AFTER they have tested their hypothesis of a change – rigorously and objectively – will they know if their hypothesis has been falsified, or remains plausible.
This rigorous testing of the data to see which model best fits the data is something skeptics – all of them – never, ever do.
They stop at the point at which their eyeballs see something, and then simply assert that it is so.
Your belief that there is a statistically significant change in trend – in the face of data fluctuations that are 3 times larger than the actual trend – remains completely and utterly unsubjected to rigorous testing.
A proper skeptic does not settle for what their eyeballs tell them, they investigate to see if maybe they’re wrong.
But lest I presume, and you’ve simply not been forthcoming. I’ll ask you: – in what ways have you rigorously, mathematically tested for a change in trend in the middle of the UAH record (or a step-jump, as some skeptics promulgate)?
What form did this analysis take?
What were the results?
barry…”Yes it is. Its one kind of trend analysis.”
Sorry for mistaking you for binny.
We are differing on the difference between a trend and a trend line. You could say that climate is a trend of daily weather. A trend does not have to be linear hence not a line.
When you state a trend as 0.12C/decade it has to be a straight line because time is linear. I am calling that a trend line. Whether or not that is an appropriate term in statistics, I don’t know.
I am using the term ‘line’ because you can draw a trend line freehand through data, averaging the data visually. You don’t need an algorithm, which as you say, is more rigourous. It may be redundant to use a term like trend line but I am using it in the sense that I have drawn a line through the data and have calculated the slope and y-intercept later which defines the line.
If I was drawing a trend line through the UAH data on a graph, I might notice that I had a trend from 1979 – 1997 that ended abruptly at 1998 then became flat for 15 years. That would pose a problem to me personally because I would be aware that I could draw an overall trend line as well as two trend lines, one from 1979 – 1997 and another from 1998 – 2015.
Do you see what I am saying? With your trend of all the data you would get about 0.12C/decade. But how could that trend have validity if there is also a flat trend for 15 years? Obviously, the 0.12C/decade trend is not telling the real story. That is a danger in averaging.
Let’s take the decade from 1999 – 2009. Your trend suggests a warming of 0.12C over that decade whereas the IPCC claimed there was none. Obviously your trend is interpolating a trend from other data that has a trend and imposing it on data that does not have one.
If you plug data straight into an algorithm you won’t see that and it may mislead you into thinking there has been a smooth 0.12C/decade warming due to anthropogenic warming when that has been far from the case. That is compounded by the first 19 years of the record which were affected by volcanic aerosol cooling.
I have no argument that there has been warming over the UAH record I just cannot agree on what caused it.
barry…”When analysing data to discover if there is a trend, be it straight or curved or wavy, the best method is a property of the data somethuing that must be derived from the data itself…”
I think you’d agree that data has to come from ‘something’ and the complexity of that something can change dramatically. I don’t like viewing trends from the POV of models, I am inclined to the practical. However, when you examine data, you had better understand clearly how the data was derived before you try giving meaning to what the data is saying.
There are no doubt many instances where examining the source of the data is not vital and in a classroom on statistics you will find many theoretical instances of data sources where the context has no bearing. In a classroom, they will give you all sorts of inane problems where it’s simply a matter of plugging data into a calculator and determining an average, or whatever.
The UAH data does not lend itself to such an approach. The data has been affected for 19 years by volcanic aerosols and for another 15 years by something mysterious. I am still wondering why, following the 1998 spike, the anomalies (using the red running average curve) went back below the baseline then suddenly, between 2001 and 2002 leapt 0.2C into the positive anomaly region. Then the average remained relatively flat the next 13 years.
Trenberth tried to explain the flat trend as heat being hidden in the ocean below 700 metres but that’s not what the graph says. It says there was a relatively massive EN that never really dissipated. I have theorized that the EN spike shocked the climate system somehow and the resulting flat spot is the result of dampening.
Prior to 1997, the red running average curve was highly variable in an almost regular manner, for no apparent reason. Post 1998, it was still variable but there were reasons, three significant El Ninos.
It’s as if the climate has gone schizophrenic and I cannot for the life of me see how anthropogenic CO2 could cause such dysfunction.
barry…”When analysing data to discover if there is a trend, be it straight or curved or wavy, the best method is a property of the data…”
In engineering we are interested in the practical aspects. If you have data that can be plotted visually you can often tell from a cursory glance what is going on.
On exams, if you laid out a good, labeled freebody diagram that indicated you understood the problem, you were given partial marks even if you blew the rest of the answer.
If you had the UAH data plotted on a graph and someone told you beforehand there was a flat trend from 1998 to roughly 2015, and that you were to find a trend representative of the data, how would you proceed?
As an engineer, I am not interested in theoretical statistics, I want to know what has happened and why. There are situations where you can form a conclusion, apply a statistical analysis, and find there is something wrong with your conclusion. However, there are times when you do the statistics, look at the problem, and find the statistics are misleading. I think that’s the case when you declare a 0.12C/decade warming to the UAH data.
barry…”This rigorous testing of the data to see which model best fits the data is something skeptics all of them never, ever do”.
That’s a broad generalization. Roy and John Christy of UAH are skeptical of the catastrophic global warming/climate change theories. They are skeptics because they did examine the data and found it did not fit the theory. Both still claim anthropogenic forces are likely a contributor to the warming.
John Christy has a degree in climate science and he did his grad work under Kevin Trenberth. Do you think John was not schooled in AGW theory? He accepted it till the data analysis of NOAA satellite data convinced him the theory did not fit the data. In particular, he found no evidence of the hot spot above the Tropics claimed as a signature of AGW.
Personally, I did not set out with an overall skeptical mind. I was only suspicious of the IPCC claim in 2007 that it is 90% likely humans are causing global warming. Having studied confidence levels I wanted to know why they could apply a confidence level to opinion.
I thought that a bit egotistical. It’s akin to offering an opinion that you think such and such is right and that you’re 90% sure you are right.
When I began researching the problem via Google, one of the first hits I got was from Richard Lindzen. That likely influenced me to the skeptical side because what he revealed about the IPCC was not good. He did not sound like he was on a skeptical mission, his analysis was to the point.
Lindzen pointed out that the 90% figure did not come from the IPCC review per se, it was the opinion of the 50 politically-appointed lead authors who write the Summary for Policymakers. He revealed further what I regarded as a shady policy. Before the main report, written by 2500 reviewers, is released to the public, the Summary is released. Then the main report is amended to reflect the Summary.
The more I read about the IPCC, the more I began to see a political bent. I have yet to see rigourous testing of any data from alarmist scientists. In fact, many of them have dark clouds hanging over them whether it’s involvement in Climategate where they said questionable things to the outright refusal to release data for third party study.
No one has done rigourous testing of the effect of CO2 in the atmosphere they are leaning on theories up to a century old.
Gordon,
I asked you what rigorous testing you have undertaken to determine if the supposed flat trend from 1998 to 2012/2015 is a valid deviation from previous or indeed the overall trend.
I see now that you have applied no mathematical rigour, just used the eyeball method. Your comments:
In engineering we are interested in the practical aspects. If you have data that can be plotted visually you can often tell from a cursory glance what is going on.
But you don’t just take a cursory glance and decide what you’ve seen is the *truth*. You test what you think you see.
You do no such testing. You see what you see – a flattish trend from 1998 to 2012/2015 – and you ask no questions about whether it is significant with respect to all the data. You simply decide that it is because it looks that way. then you mis-reference the IPCC as some kind of support for your view. The IPCC says that this kind of short-term data does not reflect long-term trends.
A true skeptic would read that sentence in the IPCC and ask, “so let’s determine if this length of data is indeed reflective of the long-term trend. Let’s test it’s deviation WRT all the data and discover if it is meaningful.
If you had the UAH data plotted on a graph and someone told you beforehand there was a flat trend from 1998 to roughly 2015, and that you were to find a trend representative of the data, how would you proceed?
I would get the underlying data and perform some tests on it. First test would be for statistical significance of the linear trend for the whole period, then a linear trend for the ‘flat’ period (as I’ve already done above and in previous threads).
I would try to discern if the variability in the data was such that it could produce flat trends for certain periods just because of that variability. I would ask – what does it mean that this flat period I’ve been told about begins with the highest anomaly in the entire record?
I would find that choice suspicious on its face – absent any global warming politics. I would ask the person pointing at the flat trend WHY they had decided to select 1998 as their start year. If they replied that it is because it is the start year that gives them the longest flat period in the record, then I would tell them that they went looking for the trend they wanted rather than let the data tell them about what trends are significant.
I would say to them that they – the modeler – has trained the data to get the result that they want, and remind them that they need to have the data train the model.
As an engineer, I am not interested in theoretical statistics, I want to know what has happened and why.
There is a huge literature on attribution of causes in short-term fluctuations and long-term changes in global data, including aerosols, volcanism, solar, cosmic rays, ENSO, and a range of other factors, including GHGs and CO2.
BTW, it is from studying attribution that probabilities are derived for the anthro contribution to warming. Not from some “opinion,” as you put it upthread. There is mathematical rigour behind the analysis, which is based on examining all the factors that can cause global temp fluctuations and longer term changes.
I think thats the case when you declare a 0.12C/decade warming to the UAH data.
I don’t “declare” anything. I note that the full UAH record has a linear warming trend of:
0.128 C/decade (+/- 0.060)
All this means is that from 1979 to present there is a general warming trend in the UAH data that is statistically significant…
And that to 95% confidence limits, the possible trend range is between
0.068 and 0.188 C/decade
It’s absolutely fine to examine factors that affect the progression of temperature for the whole period, whether short-term factors, like ENSO, or anything else.
And indeed, that is what I’ve done for 10 years during these discussions.
The influences are many. as for their relative contribution – we haven’t even got there yet in this recent discussion, because you keep assigning a view to me that is not mine.
I only know that you do not test your own beliefs on trends and their possible changes, but instead refer to the IPCC as an “authority” – which you then ignore when the same “authority” says that short term data do not reflect long-term trends.
I do not overinterpret linear trend analysis. It’s a starting point, not an end.
So do not overinterpret how I understand linear regression.
Taint a diatribe. It’s an explanation.
You wouldn’t expect SkepticGoneWild to understand. He has the attention span of a g*n*a*t.
binny…”With uncertainly intervals, one can make a preliminary test for a change in trend”.
I follow what you are saying and I have no issue with your math. All I am saying is once in a while, get your head out of the numbers to see if the math makes sense.
The 0.12C/decade trend for UAH, or whatever it is, is used by many to claim an anthropogenic warming trend. Does that make sense in light of the UAH graph. No it doesn’t.
Between 1979 and 1997, you have 5 major peaks of the red running average with swings from 0.3C to 0.5C. Most of the anomalies are under the baseline. Volcanic aerosols have been offered as an explanation for that but can volcanic activity explain 19 years of such activity?
You can see a slight trend visually leading up to 1997, then …bam!!!…the atmosphere is hammered (in a relative sense) by a major El Nino. The anomalies are suddenly thrust into the +ve region and except for 2000 and 2008 have never dropped back below it.
Following the 1998 EN, things settle down to a flat trend. Why? We have a major temperature increase in 1998 and another in 2010, yet the trend remains flat. Then in 2016, another major EN which has played havoc with temperatures.
I would like to see a graph featuring absolute temperatures. I think anomalies based on a 30 year average can be misleading. The baseline is changing each year and trying to think through that gives me a headache.
We need an absolute baseline that is fixed with absolute temps so we can see the actual global scene. On such a graph, the activity we have amplified greatly on the UAH graph would appear as a mere ripple.
Gordon,
Your eyeballing of the data is absolutely fine and dandy, and the questions you ask are a great starting point for investigation.
There are some things you’ve got wrong, though.
I think anomalies based on a 30 year average can be misleading. The baseline is changing each year and trying to think through that gives me a headache.
The baseline is not changing year after year.
The baseline for UAH is the average of each calendar month from 1981 – 2010. That has been the baseline ever since UAH data extended beyond 30 years. The GISS baseline has been the same for nearly 40 years. Similar with NOAA and Had.CRU. RSS have had the same baseline for 20 years. In fact, the group that changed their baseline most recently was UAH (in 2011, if I remember correctly).
Let me go into a little detail about baselining and anomalies. I aim to be as clear as possible.
Anomalising data is an excellent way to remove artefacts that are nothing to do with long-term change – if your interest is in examining global fluctuations and long-term change.
For example, the Earth’s temperature swings up and down by 2C each year (on average), owing to a preponderance of land mass in the Northern hemisphere. Global temp is lowest in January, and highest in July, by about 2C (on average) This is an annual cycle based on the orbit of the sun around the Earth. Dr Spencer explains it here.
By working out the average of every January from 1981 – 2010, the average of every February from 1981 – 2010, and so on, and making that average for each month the baseline (the zero point), the annual cycle is removed. We only want the annual cycle to be there if we want to specifically examine the annual cycle. If we want to figure out how other factors affect global temperature, the annual cycle complicates the analysis, so we remove it.
Anomalising data for different latitudes is also helpful if we want to do analysis on the global average. If I want to figure out global trends of fluctuations, having data in the -10s C (say Antarctica), and other data averaging in the mid 20s C (say tropics) makes figuring the global average more difficult (but not impossible), and makes figuring out overall global fluctuation and change very difficult (but not impossible).
Baselining does not get rid of the fluctuations, nor of the degree of fluctuation for individual weather stations or for global. These are maintained, but offset, to make the data easier to work with as a global average temperature.
There is one group that does work with absolute temperatures as well as anomalies, if you’re interested: The Berkely global temperature project (BEST).
We need an absolute baseline that is fixed with absolute temps so we can see the actual global scene. On such a graph, the activity we have amplified greatly on the UAH graph would appear as a mere ripple.
This is a great way to hide information.
You can go further in hiding information by scaling the y axis to, say, a thousand degrees.
On a graph of this scale, the ice ages – where great ice sheets covered and then disappeared from the Northern continents, and where sea level rose and fell by 100 meters with global temp change of 6C – would be unnoticeable.
The MWP and LIA would cease to exist – visually.
They’d also be barely a ‘ripple’ on a y axis scaled to Earth’s absolute temperatures.
But why would one construct a graph to hide or minimise such information? We want the information clear, whatever it says.
We are interested in testing global change. We arrange the data and the accompanying visuals to most clearly see that change. The positioning of the baseline does not matter one whit. Setting the baseline 10C lower or 10C higher changes nothing about the fluctuations in the data (I demonstrate below). The profile remains the same. Changing the baseline only changes the offset – by an equal amount for every data point.
Here is UAH data with three different baselines on 3 different graphs: 1st is with the actual UAH baseline, 2nd is with baseline 10C lower, 3rd is with baseline 10C higher.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah6/mean:12
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah6/mean:12/offset:10
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah6/mean:12/offset:-10
The fluctuations – and trends for any given period – are exactly the same. Because changing the baseline changes only the offset – and the change is the same for each and every data point.
You want to see a graph that uses absolute temperature? Well OK, here ya go:
https://tinyurl.com/ybqb4urq
Shall we try real hard to hide the information in UAH data? Easy – I’ll change the scale of the y axis to some large number. I’m going to pick roughly the highest and lowest temperatures you see on Earth – say -80C and +50C. This gives us a scale factor of 130C. The UAH plot now looks like the line in the middle of the graph.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah6/mean:12/plot/uah6/mean:12/scale:130
No el Ninos and la Ninas to see. No volcanic eruptions causing depressed tempos, and happily for you, I suppose, no indication of overall warming.
Unfortunately, also no indication of any change from 1998.
I’ve effectively reduced the visual information to make it inscrutable. Is this what you wanted to see?
From Gordon, the person who doesn’t believe we should use the ENTIRE distribution to analyse a trend, instead selecting the top of the distribution for the start of your trend and the middle of your distribution for the end.
Oops – posted in wrong place
Here’s a good video showing the calculation of a basic regression. They call the regression line a trend line but it’s only one way of calculating a trend line. You could do it just as easily by drawing an apparent trend between the data points then calculating your slope and y-intercept from that.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JvS2triCgOY
The point to note is this. If you look at all the data points on Roy’s UAH graph, would you choose a least-squares regression to fit that data? If you did, what would it mean? Nothing, without understanding the context in which the data was derived.
If you were given those data points as a problem for a class, and asked to draw a least-squares regression for the data points, you would be perfectly correct in drawing a straight-line curve through the data with a slope of 0.12C/decade.
However, if you wanted to accurately portray the meaning of that data you could not do that. You would have to break the data into regions of at least two sections, 1979 – 1997 and 1998 – 2017. More accurately, you would use 1979 – 1997, 1998 – 2015, then 2016 onward. We don’t know as yet what is in store but including 2016 and beyond tells a false story of the preceding 18 years, which had a flat trend.
Why stop at 3 sections? Why not 4,5,6 ?
Why not 39? i.e. one section per year. Plenty of flat trends to be found if you did that.
Except, your teacher will fail you.
prof…”Except, your teacher will fail you”.
The teacher would have to fail the IPCC and UAH as well. They’d even have to fail NOAA for declaring no trend a decade ago then going back a decade later and changing the data to show a trend.
There is nothing in statistics theory that advises changing and fudging data retroactively based on a political motive.
There is nothing in statistics theory that advises changing and fudging data retroactively based on a political motive.
There is nothing inherently political about regular reviews of data sets to improve them. It’s standard procedure.
Unless you believe that the data is perfect.
Absolutely: why would you “have to” make the breaks exactly there, and why only two?
And if you do make a choice like that, then you absolutely must test it to see if your choice is statistically valid or how meaningful.
That’s the step most – I think all – ‘skeptics’ do not take. They select with no mathematical testing at all. There’s absolutely no rigour to it, just a couple of results that handily fit a certain narrative.
barry…”Thats the step most I think all skeptics do not take. They select with no mathematical testing at all. Theres absolutely no rigour to it, just a couple of results that handily fit a certain narrative”.
I have taken it further and applied one of the basic tenets of statistics, to define the context. Unless the context is defined the statistics become meaningless numbers leading to meaningless inferences.
It’s been a long time since I formally studied statistics so I looked up context to refresh my mind. Here’s one article:
http://bigthink.com/experts-corner/understanding-data-context
“Without context, data is useless, and any visualization you create with it will also be useless. Using data without knowing anything about it, other than the values themselves, is like hearing an abridged quote secondhand and then citing it as a main discussion point in an essay. It might be okay, but you risk finding out later that the speaker meant the opposite of what you thought”.
https://learnandteachstatistics.wordpress.com/2013/04/01/context-fun/
“Statistics without context is merely the mathematics of statistics, and is sterile and theoretical”.
“When one is part of a long-term project, time spent learning the intricacies of the context is well spent. Without that, the meaning from the data can be lost”.
What does the data mean, what is it telling you? You cannot ascertain either by blindly plugging the UAH data into an algorithm that calculates linear regression, and have the outcome be meaningful. In some cases, the meaning is obvious, but not in this case.
How do you explain the meaning of a 15 year flat trend in light of an overall trend indicating no flat trend? What’s wrong here? How do you interpret the overall trend as meaning anthropogenic global warming?
How do you explain a 19 year positive trend when you know the data has been affected by volcanic aerosols? How do you put the +ve trend with the flat trend other than to claim the atmosphere has cooled, re-warmed, then not warmed at all?
During the flat trend, Trenberth of NCAR said in frustration something to the effect that the warming has stopped and it’s a travesty that no one knows why. The linear regression shows no such flat trend yet Trenberth could find no warming. Neither could the IPCC, UAH, or even NOAA, at that time. It was a decade later that NOAA created a trend retroactively using nefarious statistical methods and methodology.
How do you explain the meaning of a 15 year flat trend in light of an overall trend indicating no flat trend?
By applying rigour. By subjecting the choice you have made to a suite of mathematical tests to discover if your personal choice is meaningful. By testing for breakpoints in the data. By comparing trend uncertainties. By noting that there is a sudden ‘jump’ in data if you break the series in the way you do, and then asking questions about that jump, instead of assuming a cause, which is what you do.
YOU APPLY NO MATHEMATICAL RIGOUR TO TEST YOUR INTERPRETATIONS.
And so you ask how to do it, naturally.
You want to do away with linear regression analysis? Fine. BUT YOU MUST THEN DERIVE A BETTER METHOD – FROM THE DATA, NOT FROM YOUR PERSONAL SELECTIVITY.
This is what you (and all ‘skeptics’) have failed to do, imagining that a series of assertions amounts to rigorous TESTING of those assertions.
Such behaviour is the opposite of skepticism – a true skeptic tests her OWN opinion as a matter of course. You do not. You just write a bunch of assertions and rhetorical questions.
Make the questions unrhetorical and get to work answering them. By subjecting them to rigorous testing.
barry…”YOU APPLY NO MATHEMATICAL RIGOUR TO TEST YOUR INTERPRETATIONS”.
You are waving your arms in the air and shouting, sure sign of an emotional alarmist.
Here’s another caveat of statistical analysis, why bother when it’s already been done. i.e. don’t re-invent the wheel.
Both the IPCC and UAH have done the math and found a warming hiatus on the part of the IPCC and ‘little or no warming’ on part of UAH.
As far as the re-warming, it’s indicated right on the UAH graph that there was cooling due to volcanic activity.
Why are you alarmists sitting around clucking like old ladies at a knitting bee over plugging the data of others into your biased algorithms and reaching different conclusions to those of the IPCC and UAH? Why are you supporting the scientific misconduct of NOAA when they go back retroactively, move the goal-posts, and find a trend where no one else, including themselves, found no trend at the time.
Don’t you understand the abject arrogance of going back in history and claiming duly gathered data must be wrong?
Of course you don’t, silly me for asking.
barry…”How do you explain the meaning of a 15 year flat trend in light of an overall trend indicating no flat trend?
By applying rigour. By subjecting the choice you have made to a suite of mathematical tests to discover if your personal choice is meaningful”.
So you’re inferring the IPCC sources and UAH did not do that, and that you, a rank amateur, can do it better? In the meantime, you support chicanery at the highest level by NOAA, when they go back over their own numbers a decade later and claim they must have been wrong.
Oh Gordon. Fancy disparagingly referring to Barry as a rank amateur. This is coming from someone who’s amateur status is not in doubt, unless he has been successfully concealing his qualifications in the area of physics, atmospheric physics and climatology along with his vast publication list in these areas.
He laughingly then reveals his unique insights that, even if one of them was true, would revolutionise these areas of science. Gordon, do us all a favour and publish your speculations where they be could be reviewed by professionals in these fields.
Other wise the only relevant professionas that could help Gordon out would be those who are used to treating patients with delusions of grandeur and related maladies (Dunning Kruger yet again comes to mind).
If Gordon doesn’t like being treated like a dithering idiot he should try and present evidence to the contrary.
Gordon,
You quoted me saying you apply no mathemtical rigor to test your assertions.
I hoped you would then demonstrate the rigorous methods you had undertaken that back your assertions about the global temperature data.
But you did not.
You referred to the IPCC. I will quote that document on the ‘pause’ period, now for the umpteenth time.
“In addition to robust multi-decadal warming, global mean surface temperature exhibits substantial decadal and interannual variability. Due to natural variability, trends based on short records are very sensitive to the beginning and end dates and do not in general reflect long-term climate trends. As one example, the rate of warming over the past 15 years (1998 – 2012; 0.05 [-0.05 to 0.15] C per decade), which begins with a strong El Nino, is smaller than the rate calculated since 1951 (1951 – 2012; 0.12 [0.08 to 0.14] C per decade).”
And look again at the uncertainty intervals.
To 95% confidence limits, the trend from 1998 to 2012 is anywhere between -0.05 and 0.15 C/decade.
Could be cooling, could be flat, could be warming.
And look how it compares with the uncertainty for the trend from 1951 to 2012: 0.08 – 0.14 C/decade.
Not only do the uncertainties overlap, but the entire uncertainty for 1951 – 2012 is included within the 95% confidence limits of the uncertainty for 1998 – 2012.
Which means that the trend from 1998 – 2012 is not statistically distinct from the trend from 1951 – 2012.
As a first test of the hypothesis that we have a statistically significant change in trend after 1998, this one fails.
I ask again: WHAT RIGOROUS TESTING HAVE YOU UNDERTAKEN TO DEMONSTRATE THE VALIDITY OF YOUR HYPOTHESIS THAT THERE WAS A CHANGE IN TREND AND AFTER 1998?
Please explain your methods here.
They call the regression line a trend line but its only one way of calculating a trend line. You could do it just as easily by drawing an apparent trend between the data points then calculating your slope and y-intercept from that.
The latter method is an arbitrary choice with no mathematical rigour. Linear regression constrains the data such that we do not have to make a choice.
In the simplest possible terms, a linear regression is a straight line that is derived from the lowest sum of the distance between the straight line and every data point.
Formally, it’s the lowest sum of the distance squared between the straight line and every data point. Hence the name – Ordinary Least Squares.
barry…”The latter method is an arbitrary choice with no mathematical rigour”.
I agree. It’s always best to use a rigourous approach. All I was trying to point out is that a trend line has different meanings. They are essentially averages and there are many methods for determining averages.
All the same, when you take a collection of data and blindly apply it to a statistical method, you cannot infer much from it unless you fully understand the context or contexts in which the data was gathered.
A trend of 0.12C for UAH data over the range of 1979 – 2017 tells you only that a general warming took place. It does not tell you what caused the warming or what affected it during the range. To infer the 0.12C/decade is due to anthropogenic warming is sheer pseudo-science.
In a scientific sense we have no idea what is going on during this range other than a vague inference that anthropogenic forces are at work. Little attempt is being made to study the effect of natural forces, either in the short term or over the past few centuries.
A trend of 0.12C for UAH data over the range of 1979 2017 tells you only that a general warming took place.
Yes.
It does not tell you what caused the warming or what affected it during the range. To infer the 0.12C/decade is due to anthropogenic warming is sheer pseudo-science.
Nobody makes that claim! This is where you invent other people’s ideas.
Attribution of causes comes from other, multiple lines of evidence, not just from temperature data, or from a single linear regression.
You just make stuff up!
It’s snowing in Texas.
https://scontent-frt3-2.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/24796697_746238902248725_5733349765480045048_n.jpg?oh=e29f9af5d64f93e65e5c6134c923ca64&oe=5ACFD03D
The stratospheric polar vortex reflects solar activity. Forecast for Christmas.
https://max.nwstatic.co.uk/gfsimages/gfs.20171207/00/384/npst30.png
The weakening polar vortex reflects a reduced temperature gradient between the Arctic and regions of lower latitude.
The point to note is this. If you look at all the data points on Roys UAH graph, would you choose a least-squares regression to fit that data? If you did, what would it mean? Nothing, without understanding the context in which the data was derived.
*
Did I well understand the troll?
Are Roy Spencer’s trend communications everybody finds within the file
http://tinyurl.com/y997zl7w
all plain wrong? Does Mr Spencer ignore how to compute his trends, and with him the rest of the world?
Look at the end of the file, and you will see what Mr Spencer writes:
Trend 0.13 0.18 0.11 0.15 0.19 0.13 0.10 0.15 0.09 0.12 0.16 0.11 0.17 0.20 0.15 0.09 0.14 0.08 0.25 0.22 0.28 -0.00 0.07 -0.04 0.17 0.17 0.18
All these 27 trends (from ‘Globe’ to ‘Australia’) are of course calculated world wide on the same way, using a linear estimate based on Carl Gauss’ ordinary least squeare computation he invented 200 years ago.
See e.g.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Least_squares
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linear_trend_estimation
Once it has been decided to fit a straight line, there are various ways to do so, but the most usual choice is a least-squares fit. This method minimizes the sum of the squared errors in the data series y.
or Excel’s function ‘LINEST’
https://support.office.com/en-us/article/LINEST-function-84d7d0d9-6e50-4101-977a-fa7abf772b6d
The LINEST function calculates the statistics for a line by using the “least squares” method to calculate a straight line that best fits your data, and then returns an array that describes the line.
or the function ‘gsl_fit_linear’ available from GNU’s Scientific Library:
Linear regression
The functions described in this section can be used to perform least-squares fits to a straight line model, Y = c_0 + c_1 X.
*
So I guess nobody will wonder about the fact that using Excel’s LINEST function, you will obtain, e.g. for the three first UAH zones from dec 1978 till oct 2017, the following output in C / decade with 2 sigma CI (for various reasons, I have by default 3 digits behind the decimal point):
Globe: 0.126 +- 0.007
Globe land: 0.167 +- 0.010
Globe ocean: 0.108 +- 0.007
what exactly corresponds to Mr Spencer’s communication when rounded to 2 digits after the d.p. The same results of course are obtained for all other zones / regions.
*
How is it possible to be so loud-mouthed and ignorant at the same time?
I asked Gordon to drop the name calling, perhaps we can all try that.
Svante on December 7, 2017 at 8:59 AM
I’m afraid he will never stop doing. He repeatedly calls me an idiot, what I didn’t before.
But that name calling, Svante, in fact is no major problem for me: I have been insulted in much heavier form at WUWT.
My problems with him are elsewhere.
1. As long as he writes nonsense like that written on December 6, 2017 at 9:27, I don’t see how not to view him as a troll.
2. Even worse are comments like this (December 3, 2017 at 7:20 PM):
You have the UAH data on this blog from two scientists, Roy and John Christy, who have proved to have integrity and who have been awarded medals for excellence by NASA and the American Meteorological Society for their work.
You come on this blog, like the troll you are, and try to insult the intelligence of these two good scientists with your references to politically-driven, politically correct yes-men. You even tried to prove UAH wrong using data from the disgraced NOAA, who are currently being investigated for climate fraud by a US government panel.
*
As long as he writes such lies like that, insulting both myself and (in this special case: NOAA) I don’t see how not to view him as just a liar.
*
As you can imagine, Svante: I have no preferences for any institution managing temperature or associated time series.
All of them: UAH, RSS, NOAA etc etc: their do their job following their convictions.
binny…”All of them: UAH, RSS, NOAA etc etc: their do their job following their convictions”.
I have been following the work of Roy and John at UAH for some time because I feel they are men of integrity. I may disagree with some of Roy’s views on thermodynamics but I respect him due to his integrity.
Can’t say the same for Karl at NOAA, who has apparently worked hand in hand with the Obama administration to support their Climate Action Plan. Can’t say that for Hansen at GISS who became politically involved to push his ideas on catastrophic climate change.
I am not claiming in any way that Karl or Hansen lack integrity as individuals. For all I know they are both honest men. As you claim, they are likely following their convictions. However, sometimes convictions are wrong, even if they are supported by other scientists.
Roy and John have the data from NOAA satellites and they have been awarded medals for their expertise. Their integrity has come from presenting the results of their data sets and standing by them, even though they fly in the face of popular opinion. NOAA amended the surface record to appease the Obama administrations Climate Action Plan.
I don’t know what Karl was thinking, to both ignore their own satellite data and use questionable science to re-write the surface record. Some people are of the opinion that ‘business’ and politics justify veering from integrity, and in some places that delusion has become entrenched as normal.
The fact is that Karl rushed out a paper to erase the warming hiatus reported by the IPCC to apparently appease the Obama administration, and the issuance of that paper contravened established protocols at NOAA. That’s what the whistle-blower reported.
There is no doubt in my mind that NOAA and NASA GISS are politically motivated and that politics interferes in their objectivity.
binny…”As long as he writes such lies like that, insulting both myself and (in this special case: NOAA) I dont see how not to view him as just a liar”.
I’ll tell you how, look at the evidence with an open mind:
1)NOAA slashed over 75% of the data from their global database, applied less than 25% to a climate model, then interpolated and homogenized the data to synthesize the data they’d slashed. In the process of doing so, they omitted cooler stations and emphasized warmer stations.
Barry is trying to claim they have increased the number of stations whereas NOAA admits they have increased the database (not the stations) using historical data. In other words, they have increased their database using statistical methods, applied to old data, in a climate model.
2)NOAA issued a claim for 2014 as the warmest year ever based on a 48% confidence level. That alone should have you questioning their integrity if you were not blinded by your appeal to authority.
3)NOAA has refused to cooperate with a US government panel investigating them for amending the historical record. The panel wants to see the data and the methodology.
Why the heck would a government agency want to hide information from the government who funds them?
None of you alarmists have replied to these charges other than an oblique reply by Barry to obfuscate NOAA chicanery.
Ill tell you how, look at the evidence with an open mind:
1)NOAA slashed over 75% of the data from their global database
NOWHERE in the reference you cite does NOAA claim, say, or “admit” that any weather station data was “slashed”, removed, cut or deleted.
All you have to do is point to the sentence where they say this, per your closed minded belief, to demonstrate otherwise.
You can’t, which is why you feel a need to “translate” their section explaining how they ADDED data.
Your view is cobbled from skeptic blogs, and is not corroborated by any source material. Your own reference to NOAA DISPROVES your claim. But you’re so close-minded you’re not only completely blind to it, you completely invent what is said. It’s incredible. And a little sad.
Svante, if you applied yourself to some “facts”, you would find that Gordon is not the worst offender. In fact, like me, he is just responding. I wouldn’t take it either.
This is historically wrong as far as I am concerned as a target of the Robertson troll.
Funnily enough I agree. Gordon is relatively restrained compared to others (including myself).
However, even he seems to be a bit testy lately – probably because he is starting to realise how wrong he has been all this time.
prof…”However, even he seems to be a bit testy lately probably because he is starting to realise how wrong he has been all this time”.
The testiness is likely related to the weather (cold), the time of year, irregular sleep, etc. I have noticed it myself.
But thanks for noticing.
svante…”I asked Gordon to drop the name calling, perhaps we can all try that”.
You did not ask that expressly but I agreed in principle that you and I are on the same page as far as how atoms work. At least, I hope my presumption is correct.
I have actually pared back my name calling considerably. I have come to edit my posts, removing name calling I find unnecessary. I can’t help it sometimes when someone makes a statement that contradicts basic physics then patronizes me as an ignoramus.
I don’t worry about being right or wrong, I like to discuss fact. If someone can present me with fact that is irrefutable, based on science, I’ll accept it. In blogs like this, however, no one is an expert on science, including me, and there are large grey areas to be exploited. Hopefully from exploiting them we will become better advised.
In an ideal world we would laugh at our mistakes. When Linus Pauling missed a third Nobel due to his stubborn insistence on following a certain method to identify the shape of the DNA molecule, when a planned trip to England to consult with an expert xray-crystalographer would have revealed the shape to him immediately, he laughed at his own stubbornness. His wife reminded him of it many times, according to Pauling.
Planck admitted that if he had studied the available research on electrons in the 1890s with regard to the absorp-tion/emission of EM, it would have helped him immensely. There are people in this blog telling me I am crazy for presenting such theory that was established in the early 20th century.
I am finding that even so-called experts can be egregiously wrong. I think certain paradigms have shaped scientific thinking so much that even experts are affected by it. A Ph. D is no guarantee that a scientist is right. Although I respect anyone who puts in the time and effort to get one I refuse to automatically accept their views as gospel. Had Einstein done that he’d have gotten nowhere.
I go onto sites where people with Ph D’s are presenting their views on thermodynamics and they contradict fundamental principles established by Clausius. Some people defend that using inane argument like the principles of Clausius are old. So are the principles of Newton.
I have no respect for authority figures who expect people to accept their dogma from a standpoint of the fact they have set themselves up as authorities. Gavin Schmidt of GISS presents himself as such an authority on physics even though he’s a mathematician. By the same token, I have little time for people who buy into such authority simply because they need an authority figure.
People should be viewing NOAA right now under a microscope but I find people defending them just because they are NOAA. Any scientific organization who presents certain years as record warming years while using a 48% confidence level are cheaters. They are using the low confidence level to do what Schneider suggested, to get a political message across using deviousness.
NASA GISS has used even lower confidence levels. The fact they are offering confidence levels at all proves much of their claims are based on unvalidated climate models.
Can anyone here explain why anyone would provide a 48% confidence level for 2014 as a record warming year when a 90% confidence level moves it into 4th place?
Open your eyes, you are being worked.
Can anyone here explain why anyone would provide a 48% confidence level for 2014 as a record warming year when a 90% confidence level moves it into 4th place?
What is this nonsense?
2014 was at the time the warmest year in the surface records.
It would remain at top rank regardless of the confidence level. The uncertainty estimate is the probability that it was the warmest year, and 2014 had the highest probability (48%) of any other year in the record of being the warmest year. Changing the confidence level would change the numerical probability, not not the fact that 2014 has the highest probability of being the warmest year.
You understand so very little.
binny…”Did I well understand the troll?
Are Roy Spencers trend communications everybody finds within the file
http://tinyurl.com/y997zl7w
all plain wrong? Does Mr Spencer ignore how to compute his trends, and with him the rest of the world?”
*********
One problem I find with you alarmists is your lack of comprehension. Where did I suggest that Roy’s trend calculations are wrong?
As a scientist, Roy must adhere to certain scientific practices. When he presents a trend, he must present the trend for the entire range. He can’t claim the trend from 1979 – 1997 is such and such based on volcanic aerosols and the trend from 1998 – 2015 is flat due to the interaction of El Nino and La Nina. He is constrained by protocol to state the numerical trend for the entire range.
I asked a simple question, and without considering the meaning, you rushed to a conclusion and responded. I asked if anyone would use a least-square regression to formulate a trend for the UAH data, given the re-warming effect from volcanic aerosol cooling and the flat trend from 1998 – 2015 that is obviously related to ENSO.
Several times, I have admitted the 0.12C/decade trend is no doubt accurate for the full range of the data. I am not interested in questioning Roy’s expertise in calculating trend, I happily accept his calculation. All I am trying to point out is that the trend has no meaning with respect to anthropogenic warming and no meaning overall. Like the global average, it is just a number that has no relationship to what is going on in the world.
Roy does not come right out and say so but he has hinted that he does not think the warming is entirely due to anthropogenic activity. He has stated that part of the warming may be related to anthropogenic forces. You alarmists seems to presume the 0.12C/decade trend is proof of anthropogenic warming.
It’s not. The IPCC cannot prove it nor can you.
No one thinks a trend line demonstrates cause. That is yet another falsehood in your long line of fictions.
You’re not only wrong in much of what you talk about, you’re wrong in much of what others talk about.
The troll one more times lies:
1. Several times, I have admitted the 0.12C/decade trend is no doubt accurate for the full range of the data.
and distorts:
2. You alarmists seems to presume the 0.12C/decade trend is proof of anthropogenic warming.
The best is we all let him write his eternal mix of lie and nonsense, barry.
I bet a million dollars that GR would contradict himself the minute the trend became negative!
Otherwise he would have to say:
“You denialiists seem to presume that a COOLING trend represents evidence against anthropogenic warming.”
binny…”The best is we all let him write his eternal mix of lie and nonsense, barry”.
The best for me is that you have no idea what you’re talking about.
I have been trying for months, maybe years, to point out to unwitting alarmists the theory behind contexts in statistics. You hackers keep blithely carrying on, plugging numbers into a calculator or similar algorithm, without having a clue what the data means.
Answer the question. How can you have a trend of 0.12C/decade on top of a known flat trend of 15 years. Don’t you even begin to understand what I’m saying? I have tried to explain that UAH is constrained by scientific protocol to issue a trend over the entire range of their data.
However, in their literature they make it clear there are other forces at work affecting the data. In statistics, those other forces are the contexts. You must pay attention to them in this situation otherwise your trends are meaningless.
That’s why I call you an idiot. I don’t mind a guy trying to learn physics, thermodynamics, or statistics through discussion and asking questions. It’s when people like you and barry set yourselves up as experts on statistical methods, when both of you clearly have no understanding of interpreting data, I get a bit wrankled. Especially when you talk down your noses to me like you are some kinds of authority figures.
Norman is even worse. He talks down his nose to me when he is plainly a rank amateur in physics. I have applied physics for decades at a high level after studying it in engineering at university. I don’t mind discussing differences of opinion but I don’t tolerate arrogant fools well.
Gordon Robertson
YOU: “Norman is even worse. He talks down his nose to me when he is plainly a rank amateur in physics. I have applied physics for decades at a high level after studying it in engineering at university. I dont mind discussing differences of opinion but I dont tolerate arrogant fools well.”
You do not know anything about real physics. You make up your own brand and peddle it to people who don’t really know science so they can’t tell your are full of crap! You certainly did not study any high level physics from a University or you would not get the physics so wrong.
When I get something wrong I go to some valid sources and read up on it to correct my errors. You do not.
You are wrong when you claim Mid-IR is the result of electron transitions. Saying this a few times before correction is okay. It has been pointed out by many you are wrong and several have linked you to the correct material that shows you wrong.
Then you have this insane and stupid notion (shared by the greatest moron on this blog, g*e*r*a*n who is so stupid he posses zero reasoning or logic ability) that an emitting hot surface cannot absorb energy from a cooler surrounding one even though it is a good emitter. If you know any physics that why don’t you understand Kirchhoff’s Law?
If you make up physics and distort truth I will not give you a free pass to pollute the thinking of others. If you think I am arrogant for this then too bad. Your made up physics has no place in the science world.
Gordon,
“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.”
Translation… NOAA has slashed over 75% of its reporting stations and applied less than 25% of the data to a climate model where the slashed data is synthesized using less than 25% of available data and algorithms from historical books and logs.
TRANSLATION?
You claim that they “ADMIT” to “slashing” weather station records in this link.
It should be plain as day and need no “translation.”
And your “translation” speaks of models, which appear nowhere at the link. So your “translation” is nothing more than thoughts in your own head, not what Is said at the link you consistently reference.
POINT TO THE EXACT SENTENCE WHERE THEY “ADMIT” TO SLASHING WEATHER STATION RECORDS.
Just point it out.
barry…”You claim that they ADMIT to slashing weather station records in this link.
It should be plain as day and need no translation.”
I offered the translation, free of charge.
How do you think NOAA can provide a confidence level for 2014 as the hottest year without using a climate model? A confidence level comes from a statistical projection. In real science, they use error margins.
Hello barry…
I just move along here and see this:
In real science, they use error margins.
Look at this
http://tinyurl.com/ybeuzq9r
and this
http://tinyurl.com/y8vzj32m
You then know what ignorance means…
binny…you don’t even know the difference between an error margin and confidence level so why bother pretending.
The margin of error is the range of values below and above the sample statistic in a confidence interval.
barry…here’s proof of NOAAs chicanery and arrogance. They have the tem.erity to go over historical recorded temps and change many to what they think makes more sense.
URL removed for a test of WordPress censors. To follow.
Compare the NOAA graph titled, “Comparison of monthly average adjusted USHCN (historical network) and USCRN (refernece network) temperatures between January 2004 and October 2015”. to the NOAA satellite data on the UAH graph. In many places it is a.s.s-backwards.
2010 is shown as a minimum whereas UAH shows it as an EN-induced maximum, the third hottest year between 1998 and 2016. 2012 is shown as a maximum while UAH shows it as a minimum. 2006 appears as a warming spike while UAH shows nothing unusual. This is NOAA satellite data versus NOAA fudged data and the fudged data is obviously wrong.
NOAA never bothered to check their own sat data. WHY????
From the article, and they are defending NOAA fudging, “Fixes to in.consis.tencies in temperature data have effectively doubled the rate of U.S. warming over the past century compared to the raw temperature records”.
It should be noted that most of the surface stations, by far, are in the US.
How do you think they homogenize temps, by hand? They apply the data from less than 1500 stations globally to a climate model, interpolate it with the nearest real data, then homogenize the data to make everything nice and smooth. Then declare record breaking warming.
NOAA IS SYNTHESIZING DATA TO WHAT THEY THINK IT SHOULD BE.
Enjoy your delusion with NOAA. They are first rate cheaters.
blast wordpress and their idiotic censors.
Here’s first part of URL as a test
http://www-users.york.ac.uk/
rest to follow
WordPress dickheads!!!
~k.d.c.3/p.a.p.e.r.s/c.r.n.2016/background.html
remove all dots except dot before html
note: the first part of URL ends in a /
add second part right behind the / and remove all dots except dot before html.
It’s not really worth it but it may be fun.
How can an a blog centre like WordPress exist with such stupidity? I even wrote to them and pointed out the censor issues.
Gordon,
You mean this web page?
https://tinyurl.com/yczsmqbz
This is US temps. Not global. There is absolutely no reason why they should be the same.
You can go to the UAH page on regional temperatures and see the UAH data specifically for the US.
https://tinyurl.com/y997zl7w
If you look at the bottom of that page you can see the linear trends for global and US for the satellite period.
Global: 0.12 C/decade
USA: 0.18 C/decade
My point is not about relative warming, of course, but simply that the data produce different results.
US monthly temperature does not march in lock-step to global. The correlation is just not that close.
Here is a graph of first global and then US temperature. Open them in different tabs to see the difference. This is all UAH data, straight from source.
2010 is ALSO a relatively cool year in the UAH USA data.
You made a mistake thinking global and US should look the same. From misunderstandings like this you build your conspiracy theories.
Gordon,
Your translation is an invention. NOWHERE on the NOAA page you reference does it say any data was deleted.
In fact, the bit you have quoted recently says data was ADDED.
Your own source says the opposite of what you are peddling.
Furthermore, I have corroborated many times that data was retrospectively added and NOT deleted, as described in the methods paper for the project that added the old data, explaining the real reason for the lower station count after the 1990s.
Your call your take a “translation.” The NOAA page is written in English. Your take is PURE FABRICATION.
STOP. LYING.
Especially – stop lying to yourself.
Increased US rainfall (some leading to flooding) coinsides with increased irrigation and increased water vapor. http://nca2014.globalchange.gov/highlights/report-findings/extreme-weather
http://globalclimatedrivers2.blogspot.com
Test
Read
I noticed a little confusion upthread regarding Greenland’s ice sheet.
The surface mass balance (SMB) doesn’t include calving, and typically increases from the start to the end of each year.
The total mass balance (tracked by GRACE’s satellites) is different. It does include calving and has been declining:
https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/land-ice/
Skeptical websites will point to an increase in SMB and claim NASA’s data is wrong, that Greenland’s ice sheet is actually growing.
Totally false and typical misinformation.
I agree!
http://polarportal.dk/en/groenlands-indlandsis/nbsp/total-masseaendring/
In July it looked like Greenland SMB might increase over the previous year for the first time in the satellite record.
Then there was a melt spike in August and a really big one in September, but I don’t know if that prevents 2017 SMB being larger than 2016.
Couldn’t access daily data to compare, and the most recent NSID.C update doesn’t mention the impact on SMB compared to last year.
Guess we’ll have to wait and see.
Barry
The 2016/17 season was probably the first time the total mass balance increased during the satellite record, but like I mentioned, total mass balance is not the same as SMB.
http://polarportal.dk/en/nyheder/arkiv/nyheder/end-of-the-smb-season-summary-2017/
There is a news report from the same web site on total mass balance for 2017.
So far weve only discussed the SMB year, what about the other component of ice loss in Greenland, calving icebergs?
Since at least 2002, the total mass budget has been substantially negative (on average from 2002 onwards it has lost -200 to -300 Gt per year). This year, thanks partly to ex-hurricane Nicoles snow and partly to the relatively low amounts of melt in the summer, we estimate the total mass budget to be close to zero and possibly even positive.
http://polarportal.dk/en/nyheder/arkiv/nyheder/
What’s causing global atmospheric water vapour to increase?
Fig 3 and 3.5 in my blog/analysis shows WV increase coincident with irrigation increase.
Corroborating is increased US rainfall (some leading to flooding) coincides with increased irrigation and increased water vapor. http://nca2014.globalchange.gov/highlights/report-findings/extreme-weather
What part of that link refers to “increased irrigation”?
Source links are provided in my blog/analysis. e.g. Ref 37 http://www.fao.org/nr/water/aquastat/water_use/index.stm and others
I used the search function to locate any mention of “irrigation” at that link.
Nada.
Your confirmation bias is showing
When you linked to this page, claiming something about irrigation, I searched the page and there is no mention of irrigation there.
So don’t play smart. Are you trying to pretend I failed to notice your latter link to an irrigation source? You posted it 14 hours after my comment.
I’m not sure what you’re ‘showing’ here, but it isn’t honesty.
Dan Pangburn is quite correct with his knowledge of increased water use from irrigation. It is considerable a few thousand cubic kilometers of water a year. Part of the ocean level increase is due to ground water removal. In some studies they have 25% of the sea level rise is because of ground water removal. Also irrigation is done in dry areas that have considerable evaporation which could easily increase water vapor levels downwind of the irrigation.
Here is the data on ground water removal over the years and showing the rapid increase in volume.
http://www.fao.org/nr/water/aquastat/water_use/index.stm
” Norman says:
December 8, 2017 at 8:09 AM
Dan Pangburn is quite correct with his knowledge of increased water use from irrigation. It is considerable a few thousand cubic kilometers of water a year. ”
US is somewhere around 600 billion tonnes- so about 600 cubic km per year. China or India with their significantly larger populations are withdrawing significantly more water than US, but not more per capita. US population about 300 million so about 2000 tones per person. Most used for farming and significant amount is for industrial use- powerplants, etc. But likewise a significant amount is used for residential uses.
I would say that mars settlement would require about 500 tons of water per captia per year- even if water was 100 times the cost as it is on Earth. Or for Mars settlements it’s a requirement that water cost less than 100 times the cost of water on Earth. Or any human settlement, anywhere needs the cost of water to less than 100 times the cost.
Though the Moon is viable if water was $500 per kg [thousands of times the cost of water on Earth] but in terms lunar settlements, but water used to make rocket fuel. Or most people working on the Moon could be living on Earth.
Though given enough time [decades] lunar water could lower so it’s less than 100 times earth water. And given enough time water in space could cheaper than water on Earth.
I’m no fan of SkS at all, but I found the long discussion about WV influence within this thread’s
https://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php?p=1&t=299&&a=19
comment sequence (especially between commenters ‘Mimizi’ and ‘Chris’) very interesting.
Norman,
Water withdrawal by humans has increased tremendously as population and standard of living increased. Very unfortunate but quite inevitable though better and wiser human practices might seriously alleviate this” problem”.
Now the total amount of rainfall during one year is equivalent to about one meter.
This yields about 500 000 Km^3, still roughly 1000 times more than total withdrawal of water by mankind and clearly not all of the water withdrawal by humans ends up in the form water vapor in atmosphere.
So i still can’t see why this might be really significant on a global scale. Of course locally it certainly may affect more or less the climate (of dry regions for instance) but globally, in particular as to the mean global temperature and the GHE, that’s not at all obvious and I’m curious whether a more serious argument in favor of such a thesis exists or might ever show up.
Oups, erratum:
This yields about 500 000 Km^3, still roughly 100 times more…
gammacrux
I like your posts. Intelligent and thoughtful and one can learn from what you add.
I did check the link again. It is just all water removal for human use and not just aquafiers (that are slow to recharge).
In the link they state: “The amount of precipitation falling on land is almost 110 000 km3 per year. About 56 percent of this amount is evapotranspired by forests and natural landscapes and 5 percent by rainfed agriculture. The remaining 39 percent or 43 000 km3 per year is converted to surface runoff (feeding rivers and lakes) and groundwater (feeding aquifers).”
Yours includes water falling on oceans. The point I want to bring up is that 5% of the precipitation on land is from rainfed agriculture. If you included the water surfaces it would still mean about 1% of the precipitation is due to rainfed agriculture which could. increase water vapor globally by 1% which is significant in climate science.
Noeman,
Unless I am seriously mistaken the 1% figure is (an upper limit of) the relative increase in average water vapor partial pressure in atmosphere due to human activities.
It means that the average partial pressure of water vapor in air is multiplied by a factor 1.01, hardly significant in terms of climate.
It is not an absolute increase in partial pressure of 1% of total atmospheric pressure, such as from 3 to 4 % absolute humidity.
For comparison the CO2 in air shows around 45 % increase since preindustrial times that corresponds to its evolution from 0.028 % (280 ppm) to 0.04 % (400 ppm).
gammacrux says, December 8, 2017 at 10:05 AM:
It isn’t.
Let’s have a look at the observational data from the real Earth system, shall we? See what it says. Rather than just speculating about this.
https://okulaer.files.wordpress.com/2017/03/oiv2-vs-rss-tpw.png
Global tropospheric WV goes up … because global SSTs go up. Duh!
As I understand it, the amount of water vapour that the atmosphere holds is a function of atmospheric temperature and pressure. A warmer atmosphere has more capacity to hold water vapour.
The amount of water vapor in an atmosphere is constrained by the restrictions of partial pressures and temperature.
Water vapour is a short-lived phenomenon. The cycle is very quick ( amtter of days). If we suddenly doubled the amount of water vapour in the atmos, it would rain out in short order and return to the equilibrium set by atmospheric parameters.
We were not talking about water vapor feedback in global warming !
We were not talking about the influence of temperature on water vapor content of atmosphere !
Right ?
We were talking about human use of water such as massive irrigation that obviously moistens artificially the air around in particular in dry region where relative humidity is naturally low.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/12/uah-global-temperature-update-for-november-20170-36-deg-c/#comment-275510
This human practice injects additional water vapor into the atmosphere even if global temperature stays perfectly constant.
Yet as I pointed out it remains essentially negligible in terms of GHE.
barry says, December 8, 2017 at 2:44 PM:
Then I’m afraid your understanding is incorrect, barry.
The tropospheric temperature (and pressure distribution) is rather to a large degree a function of the amount of water vapour circulating in and out of it.
The amount of water vapour in the troposphere is in turn a function of (ocean) SURFACE temperature. A higher (ocean) surface temperature will put more water vapour into the troposphere. And the troposphere warms as water vapour condenses into water droplets (clouds, precipitation):
https://okulaer.files.wordpress.com/2016/12/heating-vs-precipitation-jra-55.png
More water vapour in the troposphere in a warming world is therefore NOT a positive feedback to the warming. It is a NEGATIVE feedback to SURFACE warming, and a CAUSE of tropospheric warming.
It’s not like the troposphere FIRST warms from some unknown cause (? ehem, CO2 anyone?), and THEN sucks more water out of the oceans as a result. It’s the other way around.
” Comas form when ice on the surface of the comet’s nucleus turns into gas. For Halley’s Comet, this occurs when it gets within about 3 astronomical units of the sun, Moorhead said. (One astronomical unit, or AU, is the distance between Earth and the sun, or about 93 million miles (150 million kilometers).)
If you were on a comet when it had a coma, the cloud would likely obscure the stars. And during the day (a full day on Halley’s Comet is between 2.2 and 7.4 Earth days), your field of view would be filled with diffuse light, similar to what you’d see when standing in a deep fog, Moorhead said.”
And:
“When the Giotto spacecraft visited Halley’s Comet in 1986, the comet was 0.9 AU from the sun and had a surface temperature of about 170 degrees Fahrenheit (77 degrees Celsius). Rosetta, on the other hand, measured a temperature for Philae’s comet, 67P/C-G, of minus 94 F (minus 70 C) in July 2014, when the comet was more than 3 AU (about 279 million miles, or 450 million km) from the sun.”
https://www.space.com/29024-how-to-live-on-a-comet.html
At 3 AU [or further] ice evaporates. At 3 AU Philae’s comet
had measured temperature of -70 C and ice was evaporating.
Lacking any partial pressure of H20 in atmosphere [very dry air], ice at -70 C will evaporate, until until it has enough partial pressure of H20 to inhibit the evaporation.
Were a planet cold enough to prevent H20 ice from evaporation, the CO2 would also be frozen.
Then Im afraid your understanding is incorrect, barry.
I think your view is wrong. Atmospheric water vapour content is a function of the atmosphere’s capacity to hold water vapour (based on temperature and pressure). High SSTs make evaporation more likely, but the atmospheric structure determines whether WV stays in the air or gets rained out. You’ve only covered one half of the cycle with your comment.
barry says, December 9, 2017 at 4:33 PM:
I’m sure you do. Based simply on “your understanding”.
Yes, and what determines the tropospheric temperature? Is it completely independent of its content of water vapour?
What heats the troposhere, barry? And HOW does what heats it heat it?
https://okulaer.files.wordpress.com/2016/12/heating-vs-precipitation-jra-55.png
Listen, the correlation is more or less bulletproof. Go to the tropics; compare it to the polar regions. Solar heating of the surface is much higher in the former region, which results in much higher SSTs, which in turn lead to much higher evaporation rates, which give considerably higher tropospheric amounts of WV … AND considerably higher tropospheric amounts of clouds and precipitation. At the same time.
Oh, yes, there is definitely a causation loop in operation here. The ocean and the tropospheric air masses above it most certainly affect each other in a chicken-and-egg kind of way. That’s how the ENSO process works, for instance.
But if you want to know how the Clausius-Clapeyron relation works, you need to follow the heating. You need to understand and appreciate that the initial warming always start at the surface, not in the gas/air above it. The WV content of the gas is a function of the SURFACE temperature. Simply because the gas temperature is a function of the same …
Don’t you ever forget that, barry.
Kristian says: “The WV content of the gas is a function of the SURFACE temperature.”
Yes, and the surface temperature is partially a function of the gas’s water vapor content. It works both ways.
“Dont you ever forget that, barry.”
A reminder to everyone what an ass Kristian is.
Listen, the correlation is more or less bulletproof
As skeptics used to remind people ad nauseum:
Correlation does not prove causation.
Replaced in correct context…
Im no fan of SkS at all, but I found the long discussion about WV influence within this threads
https://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php?p=1&t=299&&a=19
comment sequence (especially between commenters Mimizi and Chris) very interesting.
An interesting comparison of lower troposphere and surface air monthly anomalies
UAH6.0 TLT
https://www.nsstc.uah.edu/climate/2017/november/tlt_update_bar_Nov2017.jpg
vs.
ERA-Interim
http://4GP.ME/bbtc/15127478303.jpg
The latter was extracted out of
https://climate.copernicus.eu/resources/data-analysis/average-surface-air-temperature-analysis/monthly-maps/surface-air-3
Even more interesting once you actually superimpose curves.
ERA Interim gl T_sfc vs. UAHv6 gl TLT:
https://okulaer.files.wordpress.com/2017/12/erai-ts-vs-uah-tlt.png
ERA Interim gl T_2m vs. UAHv6 gl TLT:
https://okulaer.files.wordpress.com/2017/12/erai-t2m-vs-uah-tlt.png
ERA Interim gl T at 700mb vs. UAHv6 gl TLT:
https://okulaer.files.wordpress.com/2017/07/erai-vs-uah.png
ERAI data from the ‘KNMI Climate Explorer’ site.
As usual, Okulaer was so heavily busy with playing Grand Teacher that he didn’t manage to ask himself why the charts were presented that way.
If you think I could have any problem with any kind of superposition:
http://4GP.ME/bbtc/1512766360921.jpg
http://4GP.ME/bbtc/1512766600986.jpg
http://4GP.ME/bbtc/1512766839861.jpg
etc etc etc etc
Alles klar, Herr Oberlehrer?
— g*e*r*a*n says:
December 8, 2017 at 12:52 PM
Perfect example of your pseudoscience, Nate. You still have no understanding of the correct physics.
A resistor does not supply energy to the circuit. The energy is supplied by the voltage source. The current through the resistor produces the V1 and V2. Youve got it backwards, still.—
One thing which seems to be left out [in the endless “debates”] is the intensity of sunlight.
Sunlight is both a low density of energy AND high intensity of light.
It’s not practical to make “artificial sunlight” which closely appropriate sunlight. Or no one has done it- because the sun is something very hot- 3000 K is easy, + 5000 K not easy.
A million K is possible- lasers or nuclear explosions- but containing very hot material [such as done with fusion research is difficult- or wanted to do it, one could look for ways to magnetically contain the heat [no known material can- or we don’t have the comic book Iron Man tech, some superduper tiny and easily portable magnetic containment system].
Upshot is sunlight makes a blackbody about 120 C in vacuum with the heat source 149.6 million km away.
Though quite easy to have light heat a blackbody to 120 C
in a vacuum, but it’s a different light.
You can reflect sunlight a distance 10 Km and heat blackbody to 120 C- that would be quite different issue. Though lasers could work- one could melt a part of lunar surface from Earth will a laser. Transferring energy from the Moon to Earth using laser or microwaves- the energy can be focued. And can also magnify [focus] sunlight collected at the Moon an incinerate a small section of earth [Ie, deathrays:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_ray
It says: “…Tesla explained that “this invention of mine does not contemplate the use of any so-called ‘death rays’. Rays are not applicable because they cannot be produced in requisite quantities and diminish rapidly in intensity with distance. All the energy of New York City (approximately two million horsepower) transformed into rays and projected twenty miles, could not kill a human being, because, according to a well known law of physics, it would disperse to such an extent as to be ineffectual.”
But not true of laser, sunlight or large microwave disks.
Or war purpose microwave is not practical but lasers are being used for military purposes: shooting down aircraft, missiles, rockets, etc.
And if harvested energy in space one send harmless microwaves to Earth surface and use it, to make electrical power. Or could also use lasers to transmit energy to Earth.
Or as Russians were interested, one could reflect sunlight and light large regions of Russia as remedy to their long dark winter nights.
Or blackbody at 120 C emit less intense light a diffused light which if it had “All the energy of New York City (approximately two million horsepower) transformed into rays and projected twenty miles, could not kill a human being”
unless focused as laser light, or if all sunlight of NY were focused to size of city block, it would kill humans [and incinerate the city block- and you can’t magnify or focus the light emitted by blackbody at 120 C but you have 1 or 10 diameter of it, and not do jack at 10 miles distance, though 1 mile or 5 miles from it, would warm something to room temperature or maybe higher temperature.
Atmospheric water vapor is measured by satellite and reported at http://data.remss.com/vapor/monthly_1deg/tpw_v07r01_198801_201710.time_series.txt. The date embedded in the filename, 201710, will soon change to 201711 and the old file will disappear. The data is graphed (with base 28.73 added) in Fig 3 at http://globalclimatedrivers2.blogspot.com
It is increasing twice as fast as calculated from average global temperature rise and vapor pressure vs temperature for liquid water.
Dan Pangburn says, December 9, 2017 at 10:03 AM:
I’ve already shown this to be untrue:
https://okulaer.files.wordpress.com/2017/03/oiv2-vs-rss-tpw.png
https://okulaer.files.wordpress.com/2017/10/plotdecomp-total-precipitable-water-tpw-2.png
Tropospheric WV content is simply a function of global SSTs.
Nice graphs but that is not the way to do it. A steady increase in WV from other source is masked by the multiplier used to make the graphs overlay.
It is necessary to use the vapor pressure vs temperature for liquid water as a percent increase as was done in my blog/analysis.
Kristian,
You’ve only covered evaporation there. The hydrological budget is determined by evaporation, dew point, precipitation. Dan is quite right that the total WV content in the atmosphere is a function of the atmosphere’s capacity to hold water vapour, which is dependent on temperature and pressure. SSTs could rise and evaporation increase, but the atmosphere determines how quickly it gets rained out. There’s a cycle at work and you’re only pointing to one part of it.
barry,
But how does the tropospheric temperature rise?
https://okulaer.files.wordpress.com/2016/12/heating-vs-precipitation-jra-55.png
Tropospheric temp cannot ever in any way be decoupled from that of the surface. The surface puts whatever water vapour it wants into the troposphere, and the troposphere adjusts its temperature accordingly …
The Sun heats the surface, the surface heats the troposphere. The troposhere sends (most of) Earth’s heat back to space.
Global SSTs do not set the atmospheric temperature. That is a function of many factors (including SSTs).
The surface “puts whatever water vapour it wants” into the atmosphere, but the reason we don’t have a runaway greenhouse efect is that the atmosphere precipitates it out.
You are only looking at one component of the hydrological cycle.
We are discussing global average water vapour. That is a function of the average temperature and pressure of the atmosphere, which are set by a range of factors.
GLOBAL water vapour is not a just a function of SST values. That only accounts for one part of the hydrological budget – the part that adds water vapour to the atmosphere.
Dan Pangburn
The point of Kristian’s graph is that SST and WV do correlate but you could still be correct on causation.
Kristian assumes that the warmer SST is the cause of the higher WV. Correct me if I am wrong, your assumption is opposite. The increase in WV from mankind’s use (irrigation in dryer areas that increase the WV to a possible 1%) is causing the warming which warms the ocean. Either view may be correct.
Here is one graph that supports Kristian’s graph>
https://troyca.files.wordpress.com/2010/08/humidity1.jpg
This one could support your view. gammacrux pointed out that mankind’s water use is only at top about 1% of the total moisture content in the air. This graph shows the change in WV over the ocean in percentage of change. The overall change over time is around 2% which fits into the mankind use hypothesis.
https://skepticalscience.com/images/Water_vapor.gif
The point you make is the human race is forcing this added WV in the air that normally would not be there and even if WV precipitates out in a few days the human use keeps forcing more raising the amount.
I am not sure of which view is correct but at this time both seem plausible. Both match the correlation, it then would depend on which factor is the cause. The oceans heating (possibly increase in CO2) driving up SST increasing WV, or yours that the increase in WV increases GHE which warms the oceans but the warming oceans are the not the major cause of the WV increase but could be responsible for some of it.
The amount of water vapour that can be held in the atmosphere is dependent on temperature and pressure of atmos. There is more water vapour in the air because atmospheric temperatures have risen.
We see this locally – warmer air hold more water vapour, colder air is dryer. It works the same for the global average.
barry
What you state is true as far as I can tell. But you might want to consider that you can add water vapor to the air if you irrigate dry areas. Without irrigation the air would have a low Relative Humidity and could hold lots of WV if there was water available. The soil is dry and there is little evaporation. With irrigation you change this dynamic.
I agree you could change a local dynamic, but this shuffles the distribution of water around. And one might consider other direct anthropogenic effects on the water cycle, such as deforestation, dams etc. I read somewhere that deforestation, which has the opposite effect of irrigation on local humidity, has had an equivalent influence to irrigation on average. But as far as I understand it, these effects are local, and the global concentration of water vapour is ultimately a function of atmospheric heat capacity.
Correction:
As far as I understand it, these effects are local, and the global concentration of water vapour is ultimately a function of atmospheric capacity to hold water vapour.
bar, water vapor is always less than “atmospheric capacity to hold water vapour” (a gas) except in clouds (drops/flakes).
We’re talking about global average. You are talking about local variation, which is obvious and barely needs mentioning.
Apparently I was not clear enough. I will try again.
[on global average] water vapor is always less than atmospheric capacity to hold water vapour (a gas) except [locally] in clouds (drops/flakes).
How do you figure that – for global?
–Dan Pangburn says:
December 10, 2017 at 11:17 AM
Apparently I was not clear enough. I will try again.
[on global average] water vapor is always less than atmospheric capacity to hold water vapour (a gas) except [locally] in clouds (drops/flakes).
barry says:
December 10, 2017 at 4:22 PM
How do you figure that for global?–
In the shade, water will evaporate.
One has conditions of rain or dew which will add water.
And if you have water colder than the air temperature, it might add water, but if water is at air temperature, water is generally evaporating.
Of course, drier air water evaporates quicker, and high humidity reduces evaporation of water. And wind will cause higher rate of evaporation.
Unless it’s during fog, dew, or rain, water tends to evaporate.
And cold glacier ice will eventually completely evaporate unless moisture of sort is added [water vapor or snow.
water droplet or ice particles in air [say in clouds] are evaporating and condensing. Moist lapse rate is due to continuous process of evaporation and condensation in the atmosphere, and H20 gas molecule has higher velocity that nitrogen molecules. Or H20 gas molecule will go up and down [and sideways] but will tend to go up [zillions of them definitely will go up].
bar,, Relative humidity is a measure of the actual amount of water in the atmosphere compared to its capacity to hold water. 100% RH means actual = capacity. Relative humidity is not ‘figured’, it is measured. If RH gets above 100% clouds form. The observation of blue sky means RH is less than 100%. Or look at pictures of the planet from space. Its not all covered by clouds, therefore global average RH is less than 100%.
Nor, Response to Kris also applies to the troyca graph.
Fig 3 in my blog analysis extends the TPW data thru Oct, 2017.
We are in a solar minimum and there are many volcanoes erupting. Very large eruptions are typically seen before an Ice Age. We have no control over this.
We are taught that we are in an interstadial, in fact we do have continents of ice so technically the ice age is already upon us.
Everything is cyclic and whatever anyone does to change global temperatures is like a drop in the ocean. It is going to be cold enough to wipe us out.
We should be educating people about living underground, growing their own food, alternative food supplies and other basic skills that will be necessary for survival.
Sapa…”We should be educating people about living underground, growing their own food, alternative food supplies and other basic skills that will be necessary for survival”.
Governments and alarmist will blame the signs of an impending ice age on global warming, claiming it was predicted by climate models. As they freeze to death, they will rejoice in the wonders of global warming/climate change.
Sapa on December 9, 2017 at 4:51 PM
1. We are in a solar minimum and there are many volcanoes erupting. Very large eruptions are typically seen before an Ice Age. We have no control over this.
You are right! Nobody can exclude a remake of what happened on Earth from 1250 till 1600:
Samalas 1257, VEI: 7-8
Quilotoa 1280, 6
Kuwae 1452, 6
Bardarbunga 1477, 6
Billy Mitchell 1580, 6
Huaynaputina 1600, 6
Samalas no longer exists: it was the volcano near Rinjani on Lombok island, and literally exploded. Only a caldera reminds us of its existence.
In 1259, 33% of London’s population died.
In comparison with that terrific sequence, the influence of all solar minima even when put alltogether probably isn’t very high.
So it’s easy to imagine what would happen today under similar natural circumstances.
2. We should be educating people about living underground, growing their own food, alternative food supplies and other basic skills that will be necessary for survival.
Which people do you mean here, Sapa? Half a billion of Mankind financially and technically able to do?
Sapa on December 9, 2017 at 4:51 PM [2]
I forgot a little volcano detail: the sweet, little magma plot within Yellowstone’s Supervolcano, whose eruption happens all 600,000 years, what means that the next event of that kind is, expressed on the paleoscale, right now :-))
If that happens, then you might soon forget ‘educating people about living underground’.
— Sapa says:
December 9, 2017 at 4:51 PM
We are in a solar minimum and there are many volcanoes erupting. Very large eruptions are typically seen before an Ice Age. We have no control over this.–
We are taught that we are in an interstadial, in fact we do have continents of ice so technically the ice age is already upon us.–
We have been in icebox climate for a few millions of years, and this period is an ice age.
–Everything is cyclic and whatever anyone does to change global temperatures is like a drop in the ocean. It is going to be cold enough to wipe us out.–
The tropical zone which 40% of earth surface always stays warm having average temperature of 25 C or more. The contiguous US has average temperature of about 13 C, Canada average is -4 C- and people are living and growing crops in Canada.
“We should be educating people about living underground, growing their own food, alternative food supplies and other basic skills that will be necessary for survival.”
80% of tropics is ocean- why live on oceans.
But anyhow, I see no reason to assume temperatures will lower much with next few decades or centuries.
Though I agree it’s cold outside of the tropics, which has fairly normal in last few thousand years.
I have been assailed over my criticism of NOAA in various ways. I don’t want to get into the evidence of their chicanery at this time, I’d like to say something about what their practices mean to science in general.
NOAA believes you can recreate historical data, and current data, by observing the temperatures in certain locales then using those locales as a standard again which other temperatures can be compared. They are currently setting up reference stations in the US to do just that. If a station does not agree closely with the reference station it will be adjusted to comply.
The basis of this to me is sheer arrogance. I recall reading about the Great Pacific Climate Shift in 1977, when global temps suddenly rose 0.2C. Several scientists considered it a mistake and wanted to erase it. It was not till the 1990s that another scientist discovered a system in the Pacific Ocean, now called the Pacific Decadal Oscillation that caused the sudden 0.2 C rise.
http://ocp.ldeo.columbia.edu/res/div/ocp/arch/climate_shift.shtml
https://web.archive.org/web/20040301155825/http://www.jisao.washington.edu:80/pdo/
NOAA has no right to do what they are doing. They are rewriting the historical record then erasing the old record. Had.crut does the same. It should be against the law to do so.
Not only is NOAA re-writing the historical record, they are using similar techniques to largely synthesize the current temperature record. The full extent of this has been revealed at the chiefio site but alarmists here waste there time ad homming him while they could be educating themselves on the corruption of science.
https://chiefio.wordpress.com/gistemp/
NOAA results are corroborated by the other surface data sets, but also by:
GSOD – a large collection of daily weather reports
Skeptic Jeff Condon – who used raw data and constructed his own global land temp record
BEST – which used absolute raw temps and didn’t do any ‘adjustments’ of weather station data
The raw data itself – which shows a higher overall warming rate than the adjusted versions
The big picture on the global temp record is verified by anyone who troubles to do the number crunching.
With different data sets. With different methods.
THIS is science, not the nit-picking and utter lack of proper testing of the global data by pretty much every skeptic out there.
The raw data has been available for years.
Why in hell has only one skeptic bothered to construct their own global temp record from this data?
And why do skeptics completely ignore that skeptic – the ONLY ONE to have done the work?
The criticisms are innuendo and omission. The corroborations are comprehensive work.
Wake me when a skeptic bothers to do the work instead of carping from the sidelines about temperatures in La Paz or some other location.
NOAA believes you can recreate historical data, and current data, by observing the temperatures in certain locales then using those locales as a standard again which other temperatures can be compared. They are currently setting up reference stations in the US to do just that. If a station does not agree closely with the reference station it will be adjusted to comply.
For Pete’s sake, the temperature compilers cannot win.
Anthony Watts set up surfacestations.org (mostly now defunct) to complain about station siting problems. He got a bunch of people to photograph weather stations to determine if the local surroundings biased the record, and posted online ‘reports’ about some of them.
The reference was set up in the ealry 200s to have pristine conditions for each weather station – no concrete buildings or air conditioners nearby, no station moves.
This was a perfectly reasonable response to Watts’ complaints, although the project was actually started a few years before he started publicizing his ‘analyses’.
Using the pristine reference network as a base would seem a great way to answer Watts’ complaints, but, no, now they are criticized for using it to improve the historical record.
This is exactly what ‘skeptics’ should have applauded, after saying the old records were useless.
Watts and friends worry about bias in the raw records. Gordon believes they’re perfect and need no tinkering. Which complainers should be heeded?
Damned if they do, damned if they don’t. The only constant is the endless carping.
Well, at least Watts got a paper published, and what did he find?
Bias in the min and max records depending on station classification (a result already known), but his results were a near perfect match for the mean temperature record.
10 years of moaning, and when he finally did the work, he corroborated the mean temperatures of the USA.
Is this part of the skeptic narrative?
Nope. It doesn’t fit the necessary for demonizing the temp record compilers every day.
The BS is endless.
We don’t have a global surface instrument temperature record. It’s very sparse. We have some hybrid Frankensteinian mishmash of air temps combined with ocean surface temperatures taken from ships intakes, buoys, etc. Talk about BS. Mixing surface air temperatures with underwater temperatures? Lunacy.
We have multiple records that use different data sets and different methods that come up with very similar results. We even have a surface record that doesn’t use GHCN. The differences are minor.
And there is also the GHCN V4 daily dataset which, from beginning of GHCN readings to present, summarises over 100,000 stations, over 6,000 of which I could detect for activity in 2017.
Unfortunately, V4 is organised as station set in one giant directory, and not as yearly sequence you just read the tail of. So when updating your local data, you have to parse the entire stuff each time.
And it is unpacked about 30 GB in size.
One more time (I did that many times) I try to explain how ridiculous and unscientific it is to claim about NOAA having ‘slashing’ GHCN stations.
Apart from the fact that it is a lie and that it is moreover deepest social misconduct to endlessly repeat that lie, let us have a look at a real slashing of stations, and at its true consequences.
1. In July 2017, I have extracted, out of the GHCN V3 data, all data provided by those of the 7280 stations which were active at that time: there were 2686.
The reason to do so was in fact a rather nonsensical request by skeptic people who told they would trust only in those stations actually active.
The consequence of such a radical cut is evident: a huge amount of stations having provided data during the early part of the measurement period chosen here (1880-2017) were discarded.
That leads to huge deviations from the mean, what is visible in the chart below (see blue and green plots).
From the original, complete data set, I created a time series, and so I did for the data set described in (1).
2. For both data sets, I created a second time series by allowing for each set only one station per 2.5 degree UAH grid cell.
That reduces e.g. for CONUS, for the full station set, the amount of contributions from 1872 stations to no more than 167, and the 7280 stations worldwide are reduced to 1761.
Similarly, the 2686 stations active in 2017 are reduced to 1206.
Here is the result:
http://4GP.ME/bbtc/1512863201740.jpg
As you can see, despite these two fully arbitrary cuts in the station set, the 60 month running means automatically computed by EXCEL out of the 4 monthly time series remain surprisingly near.
3. To show you now definitely how irrelevant this slashing discussion is, I superposed, in a second chart, the four time series with a fifth, black plot: that is GISS land, constructed together with Antarctic’s SCAR data out of the GHCN V3 record:
http://4GP.ME/bbtc/1512865600763.jpg
It is the result of lots of work, e.g.
– elimination of outliers
– homogenisation
– downgrading of highly UHI influenced stations with an average of their immediate urban environment (done since 1998).
The result is a linear trend reduced by about 50% compared with those of the original station datasets.
You see in this black plot that the influence of the original GHCN data litterally vanishes: this data is only a part of a whole within the time series construction.
4. As you know, GHCN and SCAR represent the land contribution, i.e. no more than 30% of the Globe.
GISS LOTI (i.e. the land & ocean variant) is constructed out of these land part plus the Sea Surface contribution by ERSST. And since the latter is 70% of the whole, GHCN’s influence again becomes reduced.
*
Those incredibly naive persons who think that UAH data is some kind of one-to-one transcription of O2 microwave soudings, better should ask Roy Spencer how many elimination and homogenisation steps are required until the UAH monthly time series get ready for publication… on ths page.
The text in the chart does not fit to the plots: these are a result of selecting one GHCN station per grid cell, and not of averaging all stations within a grid cell to a single monthly value.
There were many comparisons between active and retrospectively added stations and how the difference affected the progression of global temps.
The differences were very minor in every test that did this. It was also demonstrated – contrary to the claims of skeptics – that keeping only the regularly updated stations resulted in a slightly lower global trend.
IOW, cutting many high latitude stations (mostly near or in the Arctic) cooled the trend, not warmed it. And this should have been intuitive, because the trends in Arctic temps has been greater than for mid-latitude or global.
So even if they “deleted” the data to try and get more warming, they shot themselves in the foot.
WUWT
This test indicates that higher elevation stations tend to see higher rates of warming rather than lower rates of warming. Thus, dropping them, does not bias the temperature record upward. The concern lies in the other direction. If anything the evidence points to this: dropping higher altitude stations post 1990 has lead to a small underestimation of the warming trend.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/08/19/the-big-valley-altitude-bias-in-ghcn/
Dr Spencer:
But at face value, this plot seems to indicate that the rapid decrease in the number of stations included in the GHCN database in recent years has not caused a spurious warming trend in the Jones dataset
Skeptic blogger Jeff Condon>/a>:
I also verified the dropout issue seemed to have little effect back when this was being discussed. No posts on it but if anything the stations cut short seemed to have slightly greater warming trend.
https://tinyurl.com/yb2mmpq
https://tinyurl.com/yd2bzzmj
https://tinyurl.com/yb5w5poy
Anyone who crunched the numbers came up with the same result – station ‘dropout’ resulted in a lower, not higher warming trend.
barry,
You seem to be fixated on the trends of raw vs. adjusted temperature data and which ones turn out to be steeper in the end.
And thereby missing the whole point …
It’s not about the raw vs. adjusted data per se. The raw data are NOT ‘closer to reality’ than the adjusted data. They DO need to be adjusted.
The question is only: WHEN, WHERE, HOW, and by how MUCH do they need to be adjusted in order to get the final data series as close to reality as possible?
We’ve talked about this exact issue before, barry. And as I recall, you didn’t get the point then either. I showed you how a simple unweighted mean of all available unadjusted Arctic station temperature data (of GHCNv3) came out with a considerably larger overall rise than did the weighted mean of all adjusted Arctic station temperature data (in CRUTEM4), but how the trend of the official surface Arctic temperature series (CRUTEM4) was still substantially steeper than that of the satellites (UAH, RSS):
https://okulaer.files.wordpress.com/2017/04/arctic-1.gif
Arctic: +1.0 degree in 1990 (GHCNv3 relative to CRUTEM4).
https://okulaer.files.wordpress.com/2017/04/arctic-sfc-vs-tlt.png
Arctic: +0.9-1.0 degrees from 1979 to 2015/16; +0.9 (C4 relative to RSSv3.3), +1.0 (C4 relative to UAHv6).
The point here is NOT that the adjusted series (CRUTEM4) brings the overall Arctic trend down from the ‘raw’ series (‘GHCNv3’). It does. And it should.
The point is that it doesn’t bring it down FAR ENOUGH.
When and if you realise you have to adjust the data to ‘get it right’, how much do you adjust …? There’s a fair amount of leeway to be found in that whole process; room for your confirmation biases to leak through and significantly impact the final result.
The satellites, having by far the best coverage north of 60N, there’s not even a contest, strongly indicate that the downward adjustments made to the ‘raw’ surface data aren’t at all sufficient. That the official surface series STILL show way too much warming in the Arctic. Sure, there’s plenty of warming in the Arctic, more than anywhere else on the planet, and everyone agrees that there is, even the satellites. But at the same time there’s pretty clear evidence to suggest that the official surface dataset providers greatly oversell this warming. They’re not ‘making it up’. They’re simply exaggerating it …
If you want, you can read more about this whole thing here:
https://tinyurl.com/yb35rt4o
https://tinyurl.com/yacuc7ze
The point is that it doesnt bring it down FAR ENOUGH.
There is simply no way for you to know that.
Deciding that the satellite record is closest to the truth is allowing one’s bias to creep in. Strong coverage isn’t enough to justify it. It ignores all the other challenges facing the satellite records, which are considerable, and why both RSS and UAH have had revisions and will continue to do so.
They’ve both also had the largest revisions of all the data sets. The largest change in the UAH revision of a couple of years ago was the Arctic data. The trend went from 0.45 C/decade to 0.25 C/decade from version 5.6 to 6.0.
Anyone that believes the satellite data are closer to reality than the surface data is just fooling themselves. Or possibly ignorant of the difficulties facing the satellite records. Or hopelessly optimistic that the last revision got it *right*.
All the records are best estimates. All the compilers try to avoid making personal choices, and they all subject their processing to various tests to ensure they are not letting bias creep in.
It’s also good to remember that the satellite and surface records are measuring 2 different fields of temperature. There’s no reason to believe that a 10 kilometer swathe of the atmosphere weighted at 4 km, will display the same temp progression as the first 2 meters above the surface.
I reckon you might just be aware of the challenges facing the satellite records, but I’m willing to bet you have no idea of the kind of testing done to quality check the processing methods for the adjustments to the surface records. You should read up on this stuff before opining about bias.
Of course, you sailed right by the point I was making with those posts. The skeptical community who looked at station drop out with rigour determined that it doesn’t warm the surface record.
This is the complaint Gordon is always making about NOAA and station “drop off.” I regularly post these items for him because his lies about it are offensive. As usual, he disappears from the conversation only to re-emerge in the next thread spouting the lies.
Two skeptic groups have taken the raw data and compiled their own global temp record.
Guess what, Kristian?
Oh, and regarding your thoughts on Arctic ocean v Arctic land:
UAH has the warming rates at:
Arctic land: 0.22 C/decade
Arctic seas: 0.28 C/decade
https://tinyurl.com/y997zl7w
As you’re a fan of UAH, would you agree that, conversely to other parts of the globe, the Arctic ocean is warming faster than Arctic land?
And did you check this out before you posted?
Barry,
RSS also shows ocean warming slightly more than land.
RSS TLT v4 has the following trends for 60 to 82.5 N from 1979-present
for land + Ocean 0.448 C per decade
For Land only 0.435 C per decade
For Ocean only 0.475 C per decade
Looking at the data sets mentioned by Kristian
for GHCNv3 (1979-present)
for land + Ocean 0.439 C per decade
for Land 0.455 C per decade
for Ocean 0.325 C per decade
For HAD*Crut4 (1979-present)
for land + Ocean 0.502 C per decade
For CRUTEM (1979-present)
for land 0.562 C per decade
For UAH v6 (1979-present)
for land + Ocean 0.25 C per decade
for Land 0.22 C per decade
for Ocean 0.28 C per decade
As Barry has pointed out for the UAH 5.6, the data trends are much higher and in line with all the other data sets
For UAH v5.6 (1979-July 2017)
for land + Ocean 0.45 C per decade
For Land only 0.42 C per decade
For Ocean only 0.50 C per decade
I think this is another reason why the UAH 5.6 to UAH 6 adjustments were massive and probably retrograde.
I also note Kristian prefers the older deprecated RSS v3 TLT to the newer RSS V4 TLT data set while for the parallel situation with the UAH data it is the opposite.
Strange is it not? If I was a cynic then I would think he is indulging in the cherry picking of data sets. Fortunately I am not (sarc/off) .
Because going from 60-60 to 90-90 normally doesnt introduce any significant changes at all to the total when investigating most climate parameters.
Of course it does. The Arctic is the region of fastest warming on the planet. Even the UAH record, of which the latest revision resulted in a significant downsizing of Arctic trends, warms fastest in the Arctic, although the revision was so large it is now (for the first time) basically offset by the lack of warming in the Antarctic. But UAH is alone in this.
oceanic temperatures down to +.210c
Stop! The “sky is falling” crowd will start howling and gnashing their teeth. Quite comical though.
Interesting prediction. Let us know if it bears out.
Salvatore
I posted this upthread with you in mind. Not sure if you saw it:
“Heres an interesting article on recent solar irradiance. Salvatore will be pleased. Apparently, were headed for an unusually quiet period.
The AMO is headed downward, a significant la nina is looking more and more likely, and a solar minimum to top it off. The deep freeze is on!”
https://climate.nasa.gov/news/2659/four-decades-and-counting-new-nasa-instrument-continues-measuring-solar-energy-input-to-earth
Manna from the frozen ocean sky?
New discovery boosts possibility of life on Jupiters moon
By Jamie Seidel, News.com.au
December 7, 2017
…Ingredients for life
As the ice is forced downward, it would carry dust and compounds that have been falling on Europas surface into the potentially life-giving liquid water.”
https://nypost.com/2017/12/07/new-discovery-boosts-possibility-of-life-on-jupiters-moon/
Instead of playing Grand Teacher and telling you what is right and what is wrong, I prefer to show you a graph comparing five temperature plots of yearly anomalies for the Arctic region (i.e. latitudes 60N-90N) in 1979-2016:
– 2 surface (GISS LOTI, Japan’s JMA);
– 3 troposphere (UAH6.0, RSS3.3, RSS4.0).
http://4GP.ME/bbtc/1512929456992.jpg
Unlike GISS LOTI, JMA’s data doesn’t rely on GHCN stations on land, nor does it on ERSST for the oceans.
Here you see that pretending ‘that the official surface dataset providers greatly oversell this warming‘ is somewhat arrogant, especially when based on unverified assumptions or even deprecated time series.
Never and never can anybody associate JMA to any intention of overselling warming.
What we see is that UAH6.0’s anomalies are at the lower end of the tropospheric measurements in the Arctic: even RSS3.3 which, for the Globe, shows compliance with UAH, has a trend far above for the Arctic region (0.35 C / decade instead of 0.25 for UAH). RSS4.0 has 0.42 C / decade.
GISS LOTI shows 0.53 C / decade, and JMA 0.58.
Thus the reality isn’t black or white. And anyway: what the hell is this invention that surface temperatures must behave exactly like those measured at 5 km altitude ???
*
But what we also see here (by accident) is the extreme discrepancy in the Arctic (at the surface as well as in the troposphere) between the ENSO events 1997/98 and 2015/16.
Interesting, isn’t it?
JMA:
The land part of the combined data for the period before 2000 consists of GHCN (Global Historical Climatology Network) information provided by NOAA (The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration), while that for the period after 2001 consists of CLIMAT messages archived at JMA. The oceanic part of the combined data consists of JMA’s own long-term sea surface temperature analysis data, known as COBE-SST
http://ds.data.jma.go.jp/tcc/tcc/products/gwp/temp/explanation.html
barry
thanks, but I know that. I don’t mention it because most people anyway don’t trust in historic data.
But on the other hand it is good to do, as that way some people understand that there is a kind of continuity from GHCN over CLIMAT.
From way above if anyone wants to understand how little g*e*r*a*n understands of physics.
Here is a response he had in a long debate with MikeR and Nate.
g*e*r*a*n: “No, call it what its called in physics, the radiative heat transfer equation. That way no one will be confused. Of course, the peddlers of pseudoscience are always confused, so we cant help them.
The radiative heat transfer equation is NOT universal. That is, you do not get to just use it anywhere, anyway. One of the situations where if fails is here with the blue/green plates. And, the reason it fails is because only one plate is being heated.
To demonstrate the failure, consider both plates in perfect contact, heated by the 400 Watts/m^2 source. The two plates would have an equilibrium temp of 244K.
Now, move the plates slightly apart, say 1mm, without allowing any radiative losses. The temperature of the blue plate can NOT automatically rise to 262K just because the radiative heat transfer equation gives that result. There is no additional energy entering the system, so the blue plate remains at 244K.
Put the plates together again244K. Take them apart244K. No violation of Laws of Thermodynamics.”
He is unable to understand the flaws in his reasoning (which are enormous). He can’t see a huge difference when the plates are touching and when they are separate. The green plate has no power supply. When the plates are together the 400 watts of energy added are distributed uniformly between both plates. When you move the green plate away its only energy input is the 200 Watts it receives from the blue plate. It no longer is part of the 400 watts. He can’t understand it and will never see how wrong his physics is. If one is unable to see even such a simple flaw in reasoning, there is no hope to educate this one. Lost in cult delusion. At least Postma will throw him a treat now and then.
Norm tries to impress us with his scientific acumen by referring to another unscientific thought experiment that has no basis in reality.
Talk about delusional. So sad and pathetic.
SkepticGoneWild
Thought experiments based on VALID PHYSICS that has been tested and found to be truthful is not delusional. I really could care less about impressing the likes of you and your stupid cult of idiocy based upon made up physics that you also believe in (just believe). You people are just a joke but you come on this blog acting like you know what you are talking about. You might be the smartest of the skeptics but you are very misguided in your physics. You believe Postma as much as goofy g*e*r*a*n.
Also this experiment could be done. I have linked to a similar one in which the surroundings do affect the experiment. It is done in a vacuum with a powered object. I am not going to look for it, I have already posted it. You are unable to grasp the concept anyway. You have your cult and are happy with it. You are not very successful in overturning established physics. Just loud mouths and hot air spouting made up reality and hoping they can find enough uneducated people to add numbers to their tiny cult.
Norm,
It’s a “thought experiment”. It is based on someone’s interpretation of “valid physics”.
The moronic author of this lunatic thought experiment should know better. He suggested nothing more than a hypothesis, and predicted
its outcome. Now it’s up to him to experimentally try and confirm his proposition.
End of discussion.
Thought experiments require people to think. It’s not surprising that SkepticsGoneWild always protests.
SGW must have no idea about how science works. Idealized systems like this are a staple of physics. Classic thermodynamics is built from idealized systems.
SkepticGoneWild
Are you sure you have it right. You took physics at the higher level. I hope you are much smarter than the other cult member who is a real moron.
When you took physics did you not have to do problems in each chapter to learn how the physics works?
Such as these:
https://eclass.upatras.gr/modules/document/file.php/ENV173/heat-transfer-exercise-book.pdf
You could call all these problems “thought experiments” and consider them all invalid. They are not results of actual testing, but they are all based upon physics that was derived from actual testing, so much so that they become not just theories but actual Laws.
Would you accept g*e*r*a*n’s stupidity when he makes the declaration that the radiant heat transfer equation is not valid for powered systems? Say what? I hope you are much smarter than that one. Dust of your textbooks and read them again. Get out of the stupid PSI cult of made up physics. If you examine the claims at greater detail you will see the stupidity of this group. Never let emotional manipulation (PSI will save the world from evil) affect your scientific mind. Do not let their distortions of reality destroy the science you learned.
“Would you accept g*e*r*a*ns stupidity when he makes the declaration that the radiant heat transfer equation is not valid for powered systems? Say what?”
Indeed, thank you, Norman. Nicely demonstrated in the first several examples.
He’s quoting g*e*r*a*n speaking about the thought experiment. Does that make G delusional too?
The first part of the con-man’s long comment consisted of exact quotes from me. His last paragraph was his own.
The only part he got correct were my quotes.
He has to quote me directly to ever get anything right.
(I should charge copyright fees.)
SGW thinks people who remark on idealized set ups are delusional.
Although, I’m guessing his opinion changes depending on whether whoever his describing idealized scenarios is a member of the tribe or not.
It appears that he is objecting to such scenarios that violate the laws of physics. I object to those also.
Like the fantasy GHE.
Like the infamous Willis steel greenhouse thoughtless experiment, which has nothing to do with greenhouses, or physics for that matter.
So yes, like scenarios that violates the laws of physics. (Like Davies scenario of the earth heating the sun)
g*e*r*a*n
So what makes you think your crap is right? Like I said you seem to be the stupidest cult member on this blog. You cannot reason, use logic and you certainly are completely unable to comprehend real physics in any fashion.
You are one dumb dude you know. For a long time I had concluded that you were an annoying troll who got his jolly’s at annoying people. After reading your responses to MikeR and Nate I conclude you are just a simpleton that can’t process logical thoughts or understand what is being said.
You are annoying because you really are a dunce but think you have it figured out. Had you really gone to a University and taken an actual physics class you would have failed. A person with your reasoning abilities could not make it in science.
I think a university course would be stretch for g*e*r*a*n.
Perhaps he could start with a high school general science course and if he gets through that maybe he could proceed on.
I am not sure where g* domiciles but there could be adult education courses available.
MikeR
I think you are most kind to g*e*r*a*n. With the type of logical thinking he demonstrates, which is none, he might be lucky if he could pass grade school science. He has irrational thinking. Hard to get through any science course with his mental state. I think the poor man might have had a few too many.
If he was not such a jerk and offensive person you might feel sorry for his sad state of thinking. As it stands, he can keep posting. The more he posts the dumber he seems. After reading his brain dead responses to you and Nate I did not think a person could be so proud of being an idiot. Duh!
I’m glad to see the Norm and miker have restricted their comments to ad homs. That probably indicates they know their pseudoscience is failing.
And, of course, that’s hilarious.
g*e*r*a*n
Translation of your fake post:
YOU with correct translation: “I’m glad to see the Norm and miker have restricted their comments to ad homs. That probably indicates they know their “established science is working”.
Hahahahaha …. coming from the king of ad homs …. hilarious!
con-man, you must quote me exactly. Otherwise, you are guaranteed to be WRONG, as is the case here.
Try again tomorrow, after you finish the dishes.
g*e*r*a*n
I guess you will be back after a few. I guess if I drank a 5th I might get reality correct. I guess us sober people can’t understand the reality you grasp when you polish of a case. Your life is good, a happy man, a party every hour of every day. Sweet.
Oops – I meant the QUEEN of ad homs.
desperately desperate, des descends into even more depravity.
It’s fun to watch.
Kristian,
I think I know why you avoid the 2-plae set up we’ve been talking about recently.
Because your paradigmatic insistence on describing things in classic thermo, rather than statistical mechanics, requires that there be a reservoir of heat immediately adjacent to the warmer surface that slows its rate of heat loss. Your insistence on a unidirectional equation is based on some resistance to the cooling of the warm body.
There is no such reservoir in the vacuum, and so that interferes with your narrative. The only information received by the warmer body (the blue plate) from the cooler body (the green plate) is radiative. The only way the warmer object (blue plate) ‘knows’ that there is resistance to its heat loss is because of green plate radiation.
There is simply no other way in a vacuum for the blue plate to experience resistance to its rate of cooling (emission).
Green plate radiation is what changes blue plate emission rate. This reality is not changed by your unrelenting insistence on applying conventions of language or thermodynamics.
barry says, December 10, 2017 at 6:43 PM:
I “avoid” it because it’s completely irrelevant to the surface-atmosphere situation. You know, the “GHE”. Which is what I’m interested in, and is what I discuss. Period.
Are you really starting up this exercise in futility again …?
Kristian,
Irrelevant?
You are perfectly happy to take on – at length – the thought experiment of a sphere around a heated planet. But not this because it is “irrelevant”?
In discussing radiative effects these thought experiments occur in a vacuum to isolate the radiative aspect from others.
In the spirit of inquiry with which you embraced the giant sphere…
Here is the post with the 2-plate set up, just for a visual reference. I wonder what your answer would be to the point made in my post above (and not to anything written there).
With hard vacuum between the 2 plates, how can the blue plate possibly experience a resistance to its rate of cooling if not via radiation from the green plate?
There is no matter between them – no reservoir of heat to slow the rate of cooling of the blue plate. Space is the ultimate heat sink.
So how does the blue plate ‘know’ to change its rate of emission? I can’t see any other way that this can occur other than radiation from the green plate affecting the blue. There’s just no other mechanism available. What say you?
Kristian,
(fixed formatting)
Irrelevant?
You are perfectly happy to take on – at length – the thought experiment of a sphere around a heated planet. But not this because it is “irrelevant”?
In discussing radiative effects these thought experiments occur in a vacuum to isolate the radiative aspect from others.
In the spirit of inquiry with which you embraced the giant sphere…
Here is the post with the 2-plate set up, just for a visual reference. I wonder what your answer would be to the point made in my post above (and not to anything written there).
With hard vacuum between the 2 plates, how can the blue plate possibly experience a resistance to its rate of cooling if not via radiation from the green plate?
There is no matter between them – no reservoir of heat to slow the rate of cooling of the blue plate. Space is the ultimate heat sink.
So how does the blue plate ‘know’ to change its rate of emission? I can’t see any other way that this can occur other than radiation from the green plate affecting the blue. There’s just no other mechanism available. What say you?
The issue is about GHG and not green plates in the sky. The green plates in the sky was an attempt by Eli Wabbit to show up the lowly skeptics and their denial. Pity he did not focus on GHG’s and the response by Gerlich et al.
He didn’t because he can’t. I did suggest he put his green plate experiment to Gerlich. Somehow I don’t see him doing that!
As it stands his attempt at denigrating skeptics and pretending that green plates simulate GHGs only backfires as I pointed out ages ago that as the back radiation from the green plate reduces (e.g. emissivity reduction) this results in a higher blue plate T. It’s Eli Wabbit presenting a Looney Tunes fiasco.
Not unexpected for CO2 omnipotent under all conditions.
Go to the Gerlich et al original paper and their Reply to the Halpern et al Comment doc. The issues are clearly spelled out.
It will take more than green plates and Martians in the sky to turn it into science. After over 150 years we still don’t have a clear testable hypothesis. We do have failed models and failed predictions.
TonyM
“…….the back radiation from the green plate reduces (e.g. emissivity reduction) this results in a higher blue plate T.”
You think an object emits LESS radiation when it’s temperature has increased???
Snape,
Please don’t half quote and leave out a key word. You have left out “..AS” which conveys the relationship. Barry would understand clearly as I described it to him here:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/10/uah-global-temperature-update-for-september-2017-0-54-deg-c/#comment-267682
I don’t intend repeating it so follow that thread or simply vary the emissivity of the green plates in the sky, calculate and see the anomalous relationship I have described.
But you are missing the point: it is not about green plates or green Martians in the sky for no one has ever seen any. Stick to the issues around CO2. Go to Gerlich et al who deal with this specifically from a Physics viewpoint.
TonyM
” as the back radiation from the green plate reduces (e.g. emissivity reduction) this results in a higher blue plate T.”
How is it that an object (the blue plate) emits less radiation AS it’s temperature increases?
tonyM
I looked at your linked thread and agree with most of it except this one:
YOU: “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.”
The change in emissivity of the green plate will not affect the energy incident to the blue plate. That is why they do not need to include it in the radiant heat transfer equation. They only need the emissivity of the blue plate.
The reason is that no IR is going through the green plate even with lower emissivity. It is not transparent to IR. If you would use an IR transparent green plate you could not use the heat transfer equation in the form of emissivity of only the blue plate. In this application and nearly all others the emissivity of the green plate in not important because the energy it would lose in emitting (with a lower emissivity) is made up by reflecting the energy of the blue plate back to it so it would always have the same energy return to the blue plate as the blue plate’s emissivity. Not sure that makes sense. If you reply in confusing I will try to clarify. I understand it but may not be communicating the concept very well.
“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”
Good thing that is not what it is intended to show! It is intended to show that LESS heat passes from hot (blue plate) to COOL (green plate) than passes from hot to COLD (outer space). With a smaller heat loss (and constant heat input) the blue plate gets warmer with the green plate than without.
“Equally, Wabbit could surely tell us that a freezer compartment is heating the room “
No, he surely would not! The facty you suggest this suggest you don’t understand the though experiment nor the physics behind it.
“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 your skeptical argument is ‘meaningless’ with no source of input power (ie no sun), then any such argument is not germane.
“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.”
This is correct as far as it goes — but rather misleading. The back-radiation emitted from the green plate will indeed progressively decrease. However, at the same time, the REFLECTED radiation originating from the blue plate and reflecting off the green plate will progressively INCREASE (and faster than the green plate radiation drops). In the limit of a perfectly reflective green plate (emissivity = 0) then you get maximum total backradiation and the highest possible temperature for the blue plate. This is not particularly surprising (nor is your result for putting the two in contact or putting perfect insulation between the two). This is all simple physics — exactly the sort you need to understand to work out the greenhouse effect.
Hi Norman,
Your description is perfectly clear.
I define and use the term “back radiation” as is used in the climatology field for radiation from atmosphere CO2 back towards the surface. This involves receiving radiation, absorbing it or part as heat and then re-radiating energy (clearly not the same photons that are absorbed as these are extinguished). At equilibrium this would be instantaneous.
In this context reflection is not the back radiation from the Green plate as this radiation provenance was not from the Green plate but from the Blue plate itself.
The Green plate is meant to represent CO2 GHG effects which is nowhere defined by reflection, to the best of my knowledge. My purpose is to show that this “green plate” experimental setup cannot be a model for this CO2 GHG effect given that an increase in its “back radiation” should result in higher T of the earth surface (blue plate). Yet we can find whatever answer we choose in the Wabbit experiment (within range limits) including that reduced back radiation from Green results in a higher Blue plate T.
It’s not my problem if Wabbit defines an experiment which does not model CO2 in the way that it is represented in this field. If it was simply a case of illustrating radiation redirection by reflection then this could be done simply with mirrors and is trivial.
Wabbit seems to want to to teach the proverbial grandma (physicists) how to suck eggs (radiation transfer). It does not address the physics issues raised by G&T. I did suggest he could put this plate experiment to them (as some sort of rebuttal). What is the chance that he will do that? We have a saying:Buckley’s and none! More simply, Buckley’s! and means no chance
Snape:
You ask:
“How is it that an object (the blue plate) emits less radiation AS its temperature increases? ”
If you can show me where I have said that then I would address it. Otherwise, why are you asking me that question? It indicates you have not done any calculations or gone to the post I gave you.
TonyM
You: “as I pointed out ages ago that as the back radiation from the green plate reduces (e.g. emissivity reduction) this results in a higher blue plate T. ”
Aren’t you saying back radiation from the green plate is reducing the emissivity of the blue plate? If not, please clarify.
Snape,
No. Briefly in analysis if we choose to reduce the emissivity of the GREEN plate then this will increase the T of the Blue plate (Blue Plate emissivity is held constant).
Follow it at that post with my exchange with Barry. Right now I am pressed for time so can’t give you a clearer illustration. But if what I posted still causes some confusion I will elaborate at a later time.
TonyM
I looked at your October comment. No idea why you think lowering the emissivity of the green plate will make the blue plate warmer.
Tim Folkerts :
You would not be aware but we were referred to Eli’s site earlier. My comments are flavoured by remarks made there where the opening lines from Wabbit are:
An evergreen of denial is that a colder object can never make a warmer object hotter. That’s the Second Law of Thermodynamics, …etc
http://rabett.blogspot.com.au/2017/10/an-evergreen-of-denial-is-that-colder.html
Note these are absolute statements about ‘evergreen denial.’ No caveats. What exactly is he trying to prove to these lowly deniers? The 2LOT was covered by G&T ages ago so Wabbit is intimately aware that his straw-man is garbage. So yeah of course I’m comfortable being cynical.with my opening comments. If you miss the sarcasm so be it.
Your third objection makes little sense to me. I did not define any universal skeptical argument. I do not say there is no heat source (sun). I am specific about this thought experiment and argument. I show his experiment is meaningless as it can be altered to show pretty much anything wrt to back radiation (within range limits). Finally it does not address any real argument from skeptics of which Wabbit is fully cognizant given his interaction with G&T.
Face it, it is a thought experiment and hardly a substitute for GHG effect testing. The scientific method is all about hypothesis testing. So state the clear testable hypothesis and then go about testing it. If it can’t be done then it is not science!
Your fourth objection about reflection is covered in my response to Norman see just above and is the next comment after your comment.
Snape:
I am not sure if you are pulling my leg when you say:
I looked at your October comment. No idea why you think lowering the emissivity of the green plate will make the blue plate warmer.
Simply put both plates start off with an emissivity of 1.0 (i.e. blackbody). If we reduce the emissivity of Green this means less radiation from the Green plate. In particular it means less radiation out of the system by Green (less radiation to the right i.e. space) compared to a plate with emissivity of 1.0.
At equilibrium, Conservation of Energy means the Blue plate must radiate more to space (i.e. the balance radiates to the left). This can only happen if the T of Blue has increased since it needs to radiate more now.
To really drill this home lets make the Green plate a perfect mirror effectively an emissivity of zero. Then Green absorbs no radiation and emits no radiation to Blue or to space (right). Hence all the radiation must be done by Blue to space (left). This can only happen at the highest T possible to emit input of 400 watts m-2 or close to 290K.
If you wish to play around with it a radiation calculator can be found here:
http://www.endmemo.com/physics/radenergy.php
TonyM
My bad. You are quite right.
barry says, December 10, 2017 at 6:43 PM:
Say what!!!??
I have been very specific about describing things statistically from the very beginning! This has been my angle all along! What distinguishes the QUANTUM realm from the THERMO realm. Are you seriously telling me this is something that has passed you by!?
First of all, there is no such thing as a “reservoir of heat”. Heat is not something that can be stored up anywhere.
Secondly, no. It simply requires an opposing system which 1) is somehow in direct thermal (thermodynamic) contact with the first one, and which 2) itself has a temperature above absolute zero.
Er, yes. “Resistance to cooling” in our situation is specifically equal to “slowing the rate of heat loss”. Such resistance is ALWAYS thermally based. Because the spontaneous flow of heat is always thermally based. This is how reality works, barry. The universe in which we live. There are no thermal effects in the quantum world. Temperature as a physical concept doesn’t exist there. And neither do radiative FLUXES. A radiative flux is exactly equivalent to temperature. It is the macroscopic manifestation of a mindbogglingly huge number of microscopic phenomena all merging into one. Just like the velocity of a gas molecule isn’t directly relatable to the temperature of the bulk gas containing it, the direction and frequency of a discrete EM wave packet isn’t directly relatable to the flow of radiative energy through a radiation field. The two observational (explanatory) levels simply do not combine.
No, it doesn’t. You still don’t seem to understand what my “narrative” is.
As always you presuppose two distinct processes taking place that the warmer body is somehow able to discern. As far as the warmer body is concerned, it DOESN’T receive ANY information from the cooler body. Because it ALWAYS experiences the instantaneous EXCHANGE of electromagnetic (‘photonic’) energy ONLY. We’re back to the dime analogy once again … Did you ever have three dimes in your hand during the exchange? No. First you had two, then you had one. You LOST one and EXCHANGED another. All happening at the same instant.
No, it doesn’t feel any radiation whatsoever from the cooler plate. It STILL only feels a loss, though a smaller one than before.
Kristian,
You haven’t answered the question. Don’t throw it back on to me.
There’s no thermal reservoir that gets warmer adjacent to the blue plate, only vacuum. So what physical property experienced by the blue plate changes its rate of emission? It can’t be nothing!
barry
I am not sure what you are trying to say with this statement: “Green plate radiation is what changes blue plate emission rate. This reality is not changed by your unrelenting insistence on applying conventions of language or thermodynamics.”
I don’t agree with Kristian and his instantaneous exchange of energy. He provides zero support for his thesis, I have asked him to provide evidence, he has linked to a photon gas but he has not linked to any source yet that describes radiant heat transfer as movement of a photon gas as a whole or a radiation field. All valid sources are comfortable with a two-way energy exchange at a surface. All valid sources believe the processes are separate and distinct and have no bearing on each other.
Kristian: “As far as the warmer body is concerned, it DOESNT receive ANY information from the cooler body. Because it ALWAYS experiences the instantaneous EXCHANGE of electromagnetic (photonic) energy ONLY. Were back to the dime analogy once again Did you ever have three dimes in your hand during the exchange? No. First you had two, then you had one. You LOST one and EXCHANGED another. All happening at the same instant.”
The process by which energy is absorbed by a surface is NOT the same as the process by which it is being emitted. Quite opposite processes actually.
The green plate does not change the emission of photons by the blue plate at all. The emission of photons by the blue plate is only temperature based as Kristian correctly points out. The green plate, as it warms, sends more and more photons to the blue plate (which are absorbed and thermalized just as the incoming solar energy on one side of the blue plate is). Now the blue plate is absorbing more photons then it was with only the Sun on one side, it has two sources of energy it absorbs. It will start to warm up to get rid of this excess energy and emit more photons in the process of being warmer. Nothing is slowing down or resisting the emission rate of the blue plate in a vacuum, the green plate does not reduce the number of photons emitted by the blue plate and cause the plate to warm. The green plate emits photons toward the blue plate which are absorbed and thermalized and then start to increase the temperature of the blue plate.
Every time you mention ‘warming’ you lose Kristian to the strict language of thermodynamics. The green plate cannot warm the blue – not in the epistemology of classic thermodynamics.
Kristian himself agrees that radiation from cooler bodies is absorbed by warmer bodies, and indeed it seems obvious to me that this action has an effect on the warmer bodies. But Kristian seems to think it doesn’t – or perhaps more precisely that you are not ALLOWED to say that it does. It’s this point that has been the nub of most disagreement, and it hasn’t yet been adequately unpacked, to my mind. One of the blockages is the epistemology of thermodynamics. That paradigm does not allow biderictional radiation emission and a.b.s.o.r.p.t.i.o.n to be described, but it does not refute that such action is occurring.
Kristian,
I just read your essay on the shell-sphere. I like it very much (mostly). I think the slayers should be referred to it, and asked to find the flaws in it (they wont find).
But I do agree with Barry that I dont understand your issue with the 2-way flows.
You say: “the problem is”…. “with that fundamental idea of a bidirectional flow in a radiative heat transfer, the model concept of a two-way radiative flux exchange making up a net sum called the heat.
It is a problematic concept to say the least. Any physical explanation ending up violating the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics is”
I don’t see any 2LOT violation here. 2LOT refers to Net Flow of heat. Here the net flow is always from warmer sphere to cooler shell.
You discuss the shell warming and thereby delivering heat to the sphere. I dont see it that way. I see it as the shell warming and beginning to radiate toward the sphere, thereby the NET outward flow of heat from sphere is REDUCED. The sphere thereby warms. No 2LOT violation. If I am missing something, pls let me know.
To me, 2LOT is ultimately built on statistical mechanics–which means macro flows are built from many small random events, involving atoms, molecules, or photons. To me, those small events and reverse flows, are quite real. They can be observed.
So when river freshwater encounters seawater, there is a net flow of salt ions into fresh. But I fully believe there are salt ions going in both directions. In fact, experiments show this.
You keep making the same mistake over and over, Nate. You IMAGINE that the IR from the shell is all being absorbed by the sphere. And you IMAGINE that is not a violation of the 2 LoT. But then, you realize that your IMAGINATION has the shell warming the sphere!
And you can’t see that your IMAGINATION has tricked you again.
G*,
Read his essay w open mind. It is well written. Find the flaws. All I have to say to you.
https://okulaer.wordpress.com/2015/01/25/to-heat-a-planetary-surface-for-dummies-part-3/
G* Or else, see if you can work the first 4 examples here:
https://eclass.upatras.gr/modules/document/file.php/ENV173/heat-transfer-exercise-book.pdf
without the radiation heat transfer eqn that you imagine is invalid.
Nate, I don’t think Willis meant for the shell to be an insulator. Somehow Kristian seemed to get the wrong idea.
If your first comment was all you had to say to me, then why the second comment?
And, I never stated the radiative heat transfer equation was invalid. I only stated it was invalid the way you tried to use it. So, you get another “FALSE”.
Do you ever get anything right?
barry says, December 12, 2017 at 5:54 AM:
*Facepalm*
barry, that’s because ‘warming’ and ‘cooling’ are … THERMODYNAMIC processes! Not quantum mechanical ones.
Thermodynamics is the specific field of physics dealing with changes in temperature – thermal effects. Not quantum mechanics.
True. A cooler body itself cannot be described as “warming” a warmer body. Because such wording points directly to CAUSATION. It essentially allows the cooler body to assume the role of a separate ‘causative agent’ in the raising of the temperature of the already warmer body. And such a situation would violate the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics.
So you’re STILL not reading what I write, barry.
Again, MACROscopically THERE IS NO RADIATION FROM COOL ABSORBED BY WARM. Because macroscopically, “radiation” is equal to a “radiative flux”. MICROscopically, however, radiation from cool is indeed absorbed by warm. Because MICROscopically, “radiation” is equal to “photons”. But photons do not cause any thermal effects. Only fluxes do.
You have a bad habit of mixing up these two descriptional levels of reality. You cannot for the life of you escape the idea that the one simply somehow has to be the continuation of the other, that the two are just the ends of one and the same spectrum. Well, they’re connected, that’s for sure. But only via … statistics. The things actually happening, the things we “observe” or “conceptualise” at each end are not at all directly relatable as physical phenomena. Like “gas molecule velocity” at the one end and “air temperature” at the other.
Ever heard the instructions “integrate over all frequencies” and then “integrate over all solid angles”? That’s how you turn photons into a flux
Nate says, December 12, 2017 at 12:22 PM:
I don’t have an issue with the idea of “2-way flows”. I have an issue with the USE of this idea in climate science and specifically in the way the “GHE” is explained radiatively (the extra warming by “back radiation” part).
If you have questions, just ask, don’t assume. That’s how straw men come about …
G*,
“I never stated the radiative heat transfer equation was invalid. I only stated it was invalid the way you tried to use it. So, you get another FALSE”
Here is what you said among several other variations:
Nate, you are hilariously ignorant. The equation you have used is for radiative heat transfer between two objects, with NO additional energy entering the system. It does not apply in this situation.
FALSE
Unfortunately G* this is exactly how it IS USED to solve the examples 2, 3 and 4. It is of course VALID for these situations.
You further embarrass yourself.
You are making sh*t up. Fake physics. You do not know what you are talking about. Enough!
Should be quotes “Nate….situation”
Nate, the best I can make out of your tangled mess is that you are confirming that you were indeed wrong.
Thanks. (I guess.)
G*:your confusion knows no bounds.
G* translation to your level. Your assertions about the validity of the eqn was false. You were wrong, The eqn applies to precisely to the situations you claimed it doesn’t. As can be seen in the example problems.
This also means it applies to the blue green plate problem. If you want 200 W/m2 to flow from blue to green, it REQUIRES a large temp difference between them.
Creepy.
Nate clams: “Your assertions about the validity of the eqn was false. You were wrong, The eqn applies to precisely to the situations you claimed it doesnt.”
Funny–but creepy.
Kristian
Your comment below is bizarre.
*Facepalm*
barry, thats because warming and cooling are THERMODYNAMIC processes! Not quantum mechanical ones.
Thermodynamics is the specific field of physics dealing with changes in temperature thermal effects. Not quantum mechanics.”
I don’t know why I was tormented by the subject some 40 years ago in grad school. I wish then, that Kristian was right and it did not exist.
see –
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_thermodynamics
Guys…I know this is a shock. Take a few days…just dont worry about it. Talk to you in a few.
Halp,
“T1 = T2 is the end-point” Glad you brought that up.
This illustrates nicely that he doesnt understand what insulation does.
Do you agreee that the MLI is intended to act as insulation for spacecraft? I also know that it is used in cryogenics to insulate.
Insulation is intended to KEEP a temperature difference LARGE whilst minimizing the flow of heat. For example my house is warm inside and it is cold outside. There is a temp difference. The insulation in the walls is minimizing the flow of heat.
What Postma has shown is that with NO temperature difference there is no heat flow. True but IRRELEVANT to what an insulator does. He has found a solution to eqns, but it is the trivial one.
So Postma is being an idiot here.
Yep I posted that comment in the wrong place, sorry.
Halp is no longer interested in what nature is actually doing, what the science actually demands.
He has no answers for the quite specific problems that have been raised, other than to quote the Dark Lord Postma as if he is quoting scripture.
The problem is that these quotes contain glaring errors, the ones that we have been discussing. Hence repeating the quotes has no persuasive value.
Halp needs to find OTHER authoritative sources that confirm his beliefs on equilibrium, 1LOT, heat thats NOT heat, but he won’t.
I am arguing, in essence, that that the science shows that the Earth is billions of years old. He just quotes bible verses that say the Earth is 6000 years old. I say how do you know its true? He says: the Lords words are infallible.
Thus Halp has moved into the realm of a religious argument. So we are at an impasse.
The PLs and PBCCs can often make strange statements; out of context, disembodied, rambling nonsense is how it can appear. And, it often is exactly that.
barry says, December 11, 2017 at 5:31 PM:
I have answered the question. Several times, even. Over and over again, as a matter of fact. It’s in the dime analogy. And in understanding how the micro and the macro realms are fundamentally different levels of observation and description of reality. You don’t like this answer. That’s a different thing …
So now it’s your turn. Before we can go any further. Before we can move at all on this topic. Time for you to step up and stop evading the central aspect of this discussion, in fact, the only important one.
You state:
“Green plate radiation is what changes blue plate emission rate.”
And I say/ask:
You try SO HARD to have it both ways, barry. By refusing to admit that the warmer plate MUST WARM before it can emit more photons. That THAT’S the reason – the ONLY reason – why it would emit more photons. According to you, however, it seems it just does. Put out more of them. To somehow “compensate”. For the extra absorbed ones. Nothing “thermal” about it. Ok, then? So, quantum mechanically …? How?
* * *
You have your feet thoroughly planted in the quantum realm, barry, and that is apparently where you prefer to see the world from. Not a good starting point, I fear. Can easily mess with your mind. Because the quantum realm is a strange place, very much unlike our world, the macro realm. Where temperature is a thing. Where gravity is a thing. And where the Laws of Thermodynamics govern all processes.
Your perspective, however, seems to be inherently microscopic both in origin and in scope. What’s more, you seem unable to free yourself from this particular perspective even when what you want to explain doesn’t even exist or have any meaning within its scope, its descriptional framework. Thermal effects do not exist in a world seen from a microscopic perspective, within a microscopic framework. Still here you are, standing in just that position, hell-bent on using it to explain an effect that isn’t and couldn’t be a microscopic one, which is instead – by its very nature – a BULK result, an AVERAGE result, a NET result, a STATISTICAL result, a PROBABILISTIC result, of a mind-numbingly huge number of random individual microscopic events; an entity, a physical quantity that ONLY exists as an AVERAGE. It isn’t made up of parts. It IS the average. The average is IT.
This is the THERMAL effect. The temperature. The change in internal energy. The thermal transfer of energy.
A change in temperature, barry. It gets warmer, and as a result it naturally emits more thermal photons. Inwards and outwards. Up and down. To the right and to the left. Its thermal photon cloud grows denser and more energetic.
“So what physical property experienced by the blue plate changes its rate of emission?”
A change in temperature, barry. It gets warmer
Ok. How does it get warmer?
Your perspective, however, seems to be inherently microscopic both in origin and in scope
It only seems that way because your view seems fixed on the macroscopic. I’m perfectly comfortable with the macroscopic explanation, but your view seems to be that that is all there is, the only possible way of describing reality. But thermodynamics only describes bulk activity, and can’t for example tell you how long a process takes and is blind to bidirectionality. Thermodynamics has limitations. You seem to be utterly bound by them, when I know you’re more intelligent than that.
barry says, December 12, 2017 at 3:31 PM:
No. Stop right there. You first. How does this warming of hot – according to your explanation, caused directly by a separate radiative transfer of energy from cold to hot – NOT violate the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics?
Kristian, what part of this do you not understand?
Referring back to my comment to Gordon of December 6, 10:11 PM.
“NET transfer of heat- see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_law_of_thermodynamics .
This requirement is not inconsistent with, despite the protestations of Gordon and g* , with the blue plate warming in the presence of the green plate , see again
https://s20.postimg.org/in6frkozh/Consistency_Tests.jpg .
Read the bottom few lines at left (cells b51 to b60).”
If you need it be stated explicitly, the NET transfer is the result of the transfer of 267 W from the blue plate to the green plate, minus 133 W from the green to the blue plate via back radiation.
The above is a straightforward description and calculation with no need for photon clouds and other tactics to confuse with your “fog of war” rhetoric.
You’re still ducking the question. But I’ll play.
The reason the 2nd Law isn’t violated by the bidirectional exchange of energy is that the 2nd Law describes a bulk process. Even with a bidirectional exchange of energy, the NET exchange is from hot to cold.
You’ve even covered this in your coin-swap analogy. The exchange is bidirectional, and the bulk, or NET result is unidirectional. You’ve already agreed with the bidirectional exchange by analogy, and already agreed that thermodynamics can only describe the NET result.
Your constant appeal to the formality of classic thermodynamics is how you keep avoiding answering my questions. You throw them back at me in order to catch some semantics which you can then triumphantly claim is actually thermodynamics in disguise.
What happens is that the blue radiates to the green plate, which warms and radiates (in all directions and) back to the blue plate.
The blue plate absorbs this extra radiation, which increases its energy state and SIMULTANEOUSLY radiates more.
Warming of the blue and green plate occurs SIMULTANEOUSLY. The change in rate of emission of blue plate is immediate (and gradual), not delayed, and the NET flow of heat is always – ALWAYS – from hot to cold.
In your answers, you have said that the blue plate experiences no influence from the green plate. That, you have to realize, is madness.
The only way you can say this is to wrap the exercise up in the epistemology of formal thermodynamics, which is intrinsically blind to such operations.
Thermodynamics only deals with bulk states and momentary states, classically only with equilibrium. It is unable, for example, to discern the time it takes for a process to happen. I mention this because these are well-known limitations of thermodynamics, when you seem to think thermodynamics is the only paradigm within which reality can be viewed. Consequently, no matter how careful one is in the use of language, you try to argue that every semantical option is ultimately thermodynamic. In short – for you there is only thermodynamics and nothing else.
You refuse to consider that there is any other way to describe the activity occurring, which is purely a dogmatic notion. Radiative bidirectionality is a part of physics that classic thermodynamics doesn’t – is unable to – cover. It’s not that it doesn’t exist, it’s that the paradigm you keep directing us to is blind to it. This is how you try to avoid or wave away the microscopic realm of statistical mechanics.
Classic thermo and statistical mechanics are complementary. You seem to be arguing that they are incompatible.
Now:
Please answer my question….
In a vacuum the blackbody blue plate radiates according to its temperature determined by a sun.
A green plate is introduced on the other side of the blue plate that insulates the the emission of the blue plate to space.
There is no matter between the plates, so no thermal reservoir between them.
What physically (not mathematically) occurs to make the blue plate get warmer?
How does it ‘know’ the green plate is there and have its energy state increased when there is no matter between?
I haven’t seen you answer this question, only reject it by inferring that thermodynamics is the only possible way to view the operations.
(barry and Kristian, I know I’m butting in, so kindly just ignore this comment if you consider it disruptive.)
Addressing barry’s statements/questions:
“A green plate is introduced on the other side of the blue plate that insulates the the emission of the blue plate to space.”
barry, the green plate should not be considered an insulator. Maybe that is causing you your confusion. It has no difficulty absorbing the IR from the blue plate.
“What physically (not mathematically) occurs to make the blue plate get warmer?”
The blue plate does not warm above its original equilibrium temperature.
“How does it ‘know’ the green plate is there and have its energy state increased when there is no matter between?”
It doesn’t “know”, because its energy state is not increasing.
Kristian, yes my question why you raised the issue of 2LOT violation, when discussing the sph shell soln. Since NET flows are always hot to cold, i dont see it.
G,
Kristian sees it differently to you. He would describe the green plate as an insulating effect between the blue plate and deep space. He also agrees, I believe, that at equilibrium there is a negative temperature gradient from sun -> blue plate -> green plate, whereas you believe the blue and green plates would have the same temp after equilibrium was reached.
You and I will probably never agree. But Kristian and I may yet come to an understanding, or so I believe. Perhaps too optimistically.
barry worries: “You and I will probably never agree.”
Fret not barry, at least you understand my solution. That puts you WAY ahead of many others.
You appear to be able to think logically, so it’s just a matter of time.
“whereas you (G*) believe the blue and green plates would have the same temp after equilibrium was reached”
G* can continue to believe what he wants, but nature is the decider, and it has decided against G*s beliefs.
At this point he has seen numerous facts that disagree with his beliefs.
The interesting question now is how he will deal with this ‘cognitive dissonance’. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_dissonance
From wiki:
“In practice, people reduce the magnitude of their cognitive dissonance in four ways:
1. Change the behavior or the cognition
2.Justify the behavior or the cognition, by changing the conflicting cognition
3. Justify the behavior or the cognition by adding new cognitions
4. Ignore or deny information that conflicts with existing beliefs ”
At the moment he seems to be going with #4, after trying a bit of 2,3. It will interesting to see what happens.
mikeR says, December 12, 2017 at 6:12 PM:
Of course the blue (warmer) plate will warm IN THE PRESENCE OF the green (cooler) plate.
And this thermal effect naturally isn’t in violation of the 2nd Law. It happens. Insulation works.
It is barry’s EXPLANATION of how that effect comes about that’s in violation of the 2nd Law. Because he absolutely insists on describing the thermodynamic process of insulation rather as the opposite thermodynamic process of heating. And he does so by describing an inherently QUANTUM MECHANICAL process (one which by definition isn’t subject to any Laws of Thermodynamics) as if it – by extension – were in fact a THERMODYNAMIC (thermal) process (one which by definition IS subject to the Laws of Thermodynamics). He uses the strictly quantum mechanical aspect of it – photons are allowed to, and do, move also from cold to hot – to bend or circumvent the rules, in order for him to have the cake and eat it at the same time:
He insists on explaining a THERMAL effect from a QUANTUM MECHANICAL viewpoint, and thereby expects me to simply ignore the fact that his explanation is in blatant contradiction to the 2nd Law, effectively describing what happens like this: A separate thermal transfer of energy from a cooler place is the sole and direct CAUSE of an increase in U and T of a warmer place.
You don’t say! Gee, I didn’t know! Thanks for telling me, mike!
Pay attention: I also use the S-B radiative heat transfer equation.
I have no problem with it. As long as you know how to use it, and – more importantly – how NOT to use it.
LOL! The “photon cloud” concept is not a “tactic”, mike. It’s a standard physical (statistical) description of macroscopic reality. The two-way transfer idea is a mathematical (and completely valid if used correctly) concept, but is really just a simplifying model of this reality.
I describe the mechanics correctly, Kristian, as well as the NET result. They are compatible. Bidirectional energy exchange is the mechanics. The 2nd law is not violated because it ONLY applies to the NET result, which is satisfied by my description.
Kristian,
Your stated above that
And he does so by describing an inherently QUANTUM MECHANICAL process (one which by definition isnt subject to any Laws of Thermodynamics)
This is particularly puzzling.
Q.M . derivations of the of the laws of thermodynamics are contained in the wiki which I recommended to you previously see again –
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_thermodynamics.
You should have bothered to read it, even if you clearly are unable to understand the material.
Unfortunately there is no Dummies guide for Quantum Thermodynamics. Maybe just start with the classical thermodynamics
https://www.amazon.com/Thermodynamics-Dummies-Mike-Pauken/dp/111800291
and work your way up.
Sorry to be so scathing but your attempts to confuse with your miasma of photon gas is simply obfuscation at its worst.
By the way have you patched up your bromance with Joe Postma? Calling him an idiot was probably not good for the relationship. I see you still have a gushing paean to Joes scientific competence on the front page of your web site. Maybe that will do the trick.
Kristian
I should add that I am indeed gratified that you are in agreement with the consensus that the two plates of the Eli Rabbett’s thought experiment are not at the same temperature.
Please pass this information to any deranged individuals that you may encounter.
Nate,
Not only cognitive dissonance is behind g*’s behaviour.
I also I think the seven stages of grief are also in play. G*s cherished belief system is being challenged and he seems stuck at somewhere between the second stage of denial and the fifth stage of anger.
Unfortunately I doubt if he his mature enough, both emotionally and intellectually, to get to the final stage of acceptance without a huge struggle.
However we should encourage him and help him to get there. Maybe he will eventually see the light.
MikeR,
This plate stupidity is an unverified, untested thought experiment, you ret***d.
You are truly delusional, accepting fantasy for fact.
I see SkepticGoneWild, as the resident deranged individual, has popped up.
I have some unfortunate news for Skeptic . His application , despite it being so strong ,missed out on the job of village idiot to a stronger candidate.
G* demonstrated an impressive commitment to stupidity over a long time. He has a much longer C.V. and could provide strong supporting evidence with is 815 comments over the past 3 months. He is also innumerate with pretensions that he is scientifically literate, despite all the evidence to the contrary. All qualifications that suit the job. Finally he displayed a blissful ignorance and found everything to be hilarious.
Nothing better than having a happy village idiot.
So Skeptic your application could have been stronger if you were to temper your aggression and anger and maybe consider a change of your name to something more appropriate such as SkepticGoneBlissfullyContent .
I must mention that Gordon was also a strong candidate but withdrew his application to take up a job in the security industry as a full time bollard.
I encourage Skeptic to apply again in the future or find another village where he can display his undoubted talents.
“unverified, untested thought experiment”
SGW Thats the beauty of physics. Once we find the general laws, test them over and over in many experimental setups, then we know they can be applied in any setup.
The “thought experiment” is relatively simple parallel plate setup that has been tested numerous times, even simpler than the homework problems assigned in heat transfer or physics courses, like the ones Norman posted:
https://eclass.upatras.gr/modules/document/file.php/ENV173/heat-transfer-exercise-book.pdf
The point is they are solved by using equations that have been REPEATEDLY TESTED.
I didnt realize that Kristian thought so highly of Postma.
Kristian have you looked at his analysis of the sphere-shell?
https://climateofsophistry.com/2017/10/19/the-steel-greenhouse-in-an-ambient-temperature-environment/
It is extremely illogical, and altogether wrong. I would have thought you disagreed with it!
Not only that but he treats dissenters from his flawed reasoning like garbage, then bans them.
More bluster from Mike the Re^^^d. All you said was blah blah blah. Nothing scientific at all.
Eli the bunny violates both the first and second laws of thermodynamics in his blue plate nonsense. This is the clown that said thermodynamics is not a dynamic process OMG! Hello? McFly! Mr. bunny uses the same idiotic logic that David Appell espouses when Appell equivocally states the earth heats the sun!
Substitute the blue plate with the earth, and the earth causes the sun to rise in temperature. ROTFLMAO.
SGW, you can believe what you like, we have freedom of religion! However, unlike what happens after we die, the blue-green plate thing is easily tested, and it has been! Many times.
It, or problems like it, have been solved for homework by thousands of students, including myself. Look at the problems at the link. They use the same principles.
And Eli, the professor, has of course done it right. Nature has decided, whether you believe it or not.
Nate,
I didnt realize that Kristian thought so highly of Postma.
Kristian have you looked at his analysis of the sphere-shell?
Haven’t you already seen Kristian’s take-down of Postma’s ideas on the sphere?
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/12/uah-global-temperature-update-for-november-20170-36-deg-c/#comment-276135
ok, then I wonder why he praises Postma’s postings so highly on his website? Perhaps he has changed his opinion.
Skepticgonewild, once you stop foaming at the mouth you could try a different approach to life, thinking may be a good option.
If you don’t believe that the earth could not heat the sun by an infinitesimally small amount then you need to provide an explanation why this could not be true other than to repeat the mantra “cold object cannot heat a warmer object”. This latter statement should read “the NET exchange of heat is from the warmer to the cooler object”. If you cannot understand the difference between the two statements then I suggest you also read the book I suggested for Kristian “A dummies Guide to Thermodynamics”
If you want experimental proof, one way or the other, then you need to put foot on the surface of the sun to check for yourself. I suggest you get the necessary funds for this venture via crowd sourcing (I would be happy to contribute to getting you on a trajectory to the centre of the sun). You could also apply to the Heartland Society for support for the trip. The costs may not be prohibitive if a reusable rocket is used as a launch vehicle. Think about Elon Musk’s SpaceX as, an option. But remember to take plenty of sun screen (UV15 or better).
I think another ootion, rather than taking your chances with a trip to the sun, is to actually estimate how much energy the sun receives from back radiation from the earth and compare it to the energy output of the sun using the pdf downloadable from
https://tinyurl.com/ybvmts2c
This should be combined with a calculation of amount of energy from the earth that is intercepted by the sun.
To do this calculate the solid angle of the sun as seen from the earth and divide by it by 4pi (assuming the earth is an isotropic emitter).
As this is a “back of an envelope” calculation , you may neglect energy reflected directly back which will require you to include the albedo in your calculations. Let’s not overcomplicate things.
ok, then I wonder why he praises Postmas postings so highly on his website? Perhaps he has changed his opinion.
I would guess that he disagreed with Postma on the sphere, and agrees with different (more recent) comments Postma made.
Kristian, you still haven’t answered this question:
“So what physical property experienced by the blue plate changes its rate of emission?”
A change in temperature, barry. It gets warmer
How does it get warmer? What physical property causes it to get warmer, and where does this physical property come from?
The debate over whether or not the plates come to the same temperature (244 K), or whether the blue plate comes to a higher temperature at the expense of the green plate temperature being lower, is purely academic. Its a moot point, since both results refute the rGHE. As Postma pointed out immediately:
https://climateofsophistry.com/2017/10/06/slayers-vindicated-by-additional-independent-researchers/#comment-31009
A number of people (with an understandable disdain for Eli) have since made it an issue to refute his solution as Postma goes on to do later in that same discussion, to show that the solution with the plates at the same temperature is indeed the correct one; however, strictly speaking that is not necessary. I think you might find, if/when Kristian responds, that whilst he may (unlike Postma) be of the opinion that Elis solution is correct, he would agree with Postma that even if so, the result still shows the impossibility of the rGHE on Earth.
No, he doesn’t deny the ‘greenhouse’ effect, only disagrees with how it is described.
It seems, though, that Kristian’s views provide some succour for people who deny the GHE. Mostly he ignores that, but sometimes takes skydragon slayers to task for it.
Im not sure why you keep using the term deny. There is only one group showing any signs of being in denial recently, their upset and anguish is becoming increasingly apparent. Cognitive dissonance in action. At this point I should imagine it could be almost physically painful.
I invite once more a few somewhat arrogant and/or ignorant people here to read for example at least the introduction of the following books:
1. A heat transfer text book
Third edition
John H. Lienhard IV
John H. Lienhard V
*
2. Fundamentals of Heat and Mass Transfer
Sixth edition
FRANK P. INCROPERA, DAVID P. DEWITT, THEODORE L. BERGMAN, ADRIENNE S. LAVINE
*
Maybe they begin to think a bit instead of endless repeating the same useless litany.
“A number of people (with an understandable disdain for Eli) have since made it an issue to refute his solution as Postma goes on to do later in that same discussion, to show that the solution with the plates at the same temperature is indeed the correct one”
Halpless, you appear to think Postma is someone to respect and believe.
Why is it that any educated people who have attempted to point out the flaws in his analysis get abused and banned? Why is he afraid of dissenting opinion? That doesnt concern you?
Nature has already decided, and Postma is quite wrong about plates and sphere problems. See here for example:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/12/uah-global-temperature-update-for-november-20170-36-deg-c/#comment-276333
From what hes explained in the past, it seems he only bans people who, on receiving an answer to a question, ignore that answer, show no ability to take on new knowledge from that answer and incorporate it into their reasoning, and instead simply repeat their original line of questioning. Since this would indicate either learning disabilities or deliberate sophistry, it seems like a reasonable course of action. I can see from innumerable threads at Roy Spencers blog that such action would be fruitful here too. Unfortunately, those with the intention to mislead, or simply an inability to learn, are allowed to continue to post here, endlessly.
barry says, December 12, 2017 at 6:18 PM:
Funny. Considering how I spent most of last month’s comment section discussing just this ‘question’ of yours. With you. Like this one, which you never even responded to:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/11/uah-global-temperature-update-for-october-2017-0-63-deg-c/#comment-273699
It’s quite astounding to me how you still manage to ignore what I actually have to say about this. You’re just like Norman. I provide him with links to textbook passages in support of what I write. He simply ignores it and claims I haven’t provided anything. Not my kind of exchange.
But you’re not playing, barry. You’re ducking. Misdirecting.
1) I’m not saying that a bidirectional model of radiative transfer violates the 2nd Law. I’m saying that YOUR EXPLANATION of why the warmer body warms even further violates the 2nd Law. Two different things.
2) Yes, it describes a bulk process. Which I have pointed out from the very beginning. And this is exactly WHY you cannot talk about the action of individual photons when discussing bulk processes. Thermodynamics describes bulk processes inside and between bulk systems and bulk properties of bulk systems. Radiative fluxes are BULK movements of radiative energy. Internal energy is a BULK function of a system. Temperature is a BULK property of a system.
The central problem here is that YOU describe a distinctly QUANTUM MECHANICAL phenomenon AS IF IT WERE just such a bulk phenomenon.
You have an insurmountably hard time accepting that once you move from the world of quantum phenomena to the world of bulk phenomena, there is no longer “radiation” from cold absorbed by hot. Because “bulk” radiation is a photon CLOUD (‘gas’) and a radiative FLUX, not individual (or even bundles of) photons.
Photons moving from cold to hot is NOT a bulk process. No matter how many photons you add up, as long as you insist on following distinct photons on their way, it will never be a bulk process. Because you’re still stuck on the photons, not on their average. The bulk is the average.
Duh! That’s not the bone of contention, barry. You SHOULD know by now. The point is that you don’t treat this as “a single exchange” to begin with. You treat it rather as “two distinct (heat) transfers”. As if the one were “sun-earth” and the other “earth-atm/space”.
You clearly don’t see the difference.
The microscopic exchange happens to be between two bodies, so at each surface, photons naturally either move in or out – two opposite “directions”. Of course. The result, the MACROscopic exchange, is unidirectional, yes.
The problem is still only this:
You’re incapable of keeping these two aspects of reality apart! If you could only manage, we wouldn’t need to have this stupid argument …
Yes, so why do you keep treating the “radiation” from cold to hot as a bulk phenomenon, a NET result!? It makes sure your description stays firmly THERMODYNAMIC, barry.
No. I have to stick to thermodynamics and its “formality”, because you are basically asking a thermodynamic question. Still unbeknownst to you, it appears.
No, I’m just pointing out that they ARE thermodynamic questions ‘in disguise’. You want to have the cake and eat it. You want me to agree that your mechanism is not thermal, and AT THE SAME TIME agree that a non-thermal mechanism causes a thermal effect.
No. Not MACROscopically. Only MICROscopically. The thermal radiative transfer of energy moves from hot to cold only.
And THIS is where your explanation directly violates the 2nd Law, barry.
No, it doesn’t ‘simultaneously’ radiate more. It only radiates more when it has warmed from an increase in internal kinetic energy. There’s a lag.
Nope. Whatever gave you this strange idea? A cause and its effect never happens simultaneously, barry. There’s a lag.
Why are you so intensely afraid of stating in plain words that the warmer body has WARMED, its temperature has gone UP, as a direct consequence of absorbing a transfer of energy from a cooler place? It is almost comical.
The warmer body doesn’t just magically emit more, it doesn’t just magically have its “energy state” increased. It WARMS! Its U and T rise! You ask me above: “How does it warm?” Yes, indeed, barry. How exactly does it warm? Do explain. In your own words.
I have said no such thing! I’ll have to use your own language when it comes to these things: You’re a LIAR.
What am I actually saying? What have I been telling you, barry? Read through the link at the top of this comment.
No, barry. I HAVE answered your question. Fifty times over.
You answer MY question. How does your explanation NOT violate the 2nd Law?
Kristian,
“In your answers, you have said that the blue plate experiences no influence from the green plate.”
I have said no such thing! Ill have to use your own language when it comes to these things: Youre a LIAR.
I get your opinion from this:
No, it doesnt feel any radiation whatsoever from the cooler plate.
And
As far as the warmer body is concerned, it DOESNT receive ANY information from the cooler body.
Looks like contradiction to me.
Suppose there are 3 levels at which to discuss this.
1) A single photon
2) Two sets of photons – those emitted by object A and those emitted by object B
3) NET transfer
I’m trying to get you to look at 2), but you seem to be arguing that I’m talking about 1).
Why won’t you discuss the physical mechanics of 2)?
Either green plate has an influence on blue plate or it doesn’t. You’ve said both are true.
Seems obvious to me that when green plate is introduced, it is in thermal (radiative) contact with the blue plate, and that it does have an influence.
If it didn’t have an influence, it would make no difference if it was there or not.
The space between green plate and blue is vacuum. No matter to provide a thermal bath, just empty space. The information passed between them both is purely radiative.
The only information is radiation. The only way blue plate ‘knows’ green plate is there is through radiation from the green plate.
So how does this green plate radiation affect the blue plate?
Will you now answer that it doesn’t? Or will you describe what that influence is in purely physical terms?
Barry, not only does Kristian duck but he is adept at weaving also.
Kristian, – No, it doesnt simultaneously radiate more. It only radiates more when it has warmed from an increase in internal kinetic energy. Theres a lag.
Barry – Warming of the blue and green plate occurs SIMULTANEOUSLY.
Kristian – Nope. Whatever gave you this strange idea? A cause and its effect never happens simultaneously. Theres a lag.
Barry – The change in rate of emission of blue plate is immediate (and gradual), not delayed, and the NET flow of heat is always ALWAYS from hot to cold. ”
Kristian thinks the lag is of some importance.
Kristian, how long a lag are we referring to? Is it of the order of femto, pico ,. Nano, Micro seconds…. Hour,s days,, months, years etc.?
Recall the situation described regarding Eli Rabbetts plates involves a steady state solution so explain how, whatever lag you think is occurring, how this affects the steady state solution.
To emphasize (probably unnecessarily but I am dealing with Kristian ) a steady state is not a transient solution so delays are irrelevant , you just wait long enough for the for however long for the initial re-emission to occur and then it is a steady state situation.
So does the lag affect the outcome in some other way?
If it doesn’t then what is the point, other than to muddy the waters? If Kristian still thinks it does then, rather than hand waving, he could perhaps provide some. mathematical underpinnings.
Otherwise it is just business as usual for confused Kristian with his photon cloud miasma.
Halp:
“refuse to take on new knowledge from that answer and incorporate it into their reasoning”
You seem to figure that his ‘new knowledge’ is accurate and full of facts? How do you know, when reasoned debate is censored?
What if I am knowledgeable and can see that he his ‘new knowledge’ contradicts known physics?
I see no reason to ‘take it on’ and incorporate it into my reasoning.
Kristian Nope. Whatever gave you this strange idea? A cause and its effect never happens simultaneously. Theres a lag.
I let that one go, but Mike picked it up. I was going to ask much the same thing. Are you talking picoseconds?
Because in the frame of thermodynamics – this is immaterial.
Thermodynamics does NOT consider time.
It describes bulk states and transitions.
It is not me who is confusing thermo with micro – it is you.
The 2nd Law only circumscribes the NET flow, and it is not time constrained. It does not deal with gradual process, only bulk states at the beginning and end of transition.
In macroscopic, bulk systems, everything appears to be constant the density, temperature, pressure, heat capacity, etc. At the molecular level, however, there is a constant molecular dance and things fluctuate. We dont notice these fluctuations at the macroscopic level because they are so small….
U is a state function. Thermodynamics defines state functions as quantities that depend only on the current state of a system (e.g., T and P), and not the path by which they got there.
Therefore, UΔ does not depend on the path the process takes (e.g., the rate at which it happens), but only on the states at the beginning and end of the process.
On the other hand, Q and W are not state functions and do depend on the path Interestingly, the sum of Q and W is a state function. That means that any path-dependence of these quantities exactly cancels out. There can be many processes that take a system between two states 1 and 2 with very different Q and W, but their sum must be the same.
https://engineering.ucsb.edu/~shell/che170/Thermodynamics-notes.pdf
This next question should prove very interesting, and I should have asked you long ago.
How would you describe the physical reality of what happens in the green plate experiment, where the temperature of the blue plate increases when the green plate is introduced strictly in the language of statistical mechanics that considers two-way energy exchange.
I’ve failed with every effort, according to you.
I would very much appreciate you showing how it’s done.
Reasoned debate isnt censored. Thats the whole point.
Thats not the radiative greenhouse effect. Repeat: THATS NOT the radiative greenhouse effect.
Whats happening there is that the back-side of the 1st surface is being radiatively insulated if more green plates were added the math shown there works out that the 1st plate would asymptote to emit 400 W/m^2, i.e. the energy input to it. Emitting 400 W/m^2 and having the temperature required to do that is the most that the 1st plate could achieve with a very large number of green plates. Thats what *their math* shows.
That result **REFUTES** the radiative greenhouse effect. The consensus derivation of the RGHE shows/requires that a *higher* flux must be emitted by the first surface than it receives from the Sun. That is: the Earths surface receives 240 W/m^2 but emits some 390 W/m^2.
They just refuted the RGHE. By showing that the latter case does not occur.
They have no damned idea of what conditions they are actually even looking for and what results would even support what conditions.
Whats happening there is that the back-side of the 1st surface is being radiatively insulated if more green plates were added the math shown there works out that the 1st plate would asymptote to emit 400 W/m^2
“Asymptote?” A curve that approaches but never quite reaches the zero line?
Kristian does not agree with you and neither do I. The point of insulation is to change the temperature of a body by modifying its rate of heat loss. If green plates insulate radiative heat loss by the blue plate, then its temperature changes. If its temperature changes, it no longer radiates at 400 W/m2. If its rate of heat loss is reduced, then ergo it becomes warmer.
But I’m happy to disagree with you. I’m more interested in what Kristian has to say.
Barry, my last comment was simply a full quote of the comment by Postma that I linked to earlier. You demonstrate only that you do not pay attention to what others post.
For the blue plate to emit at 400 W/m2 would mean its temperature must be 290 K. This is the maximum temperature the blue plate could get to, with many, many green plates. With one green plate, the blue plate would reach a temperature of 262 K, emitting about 267 W/m2, according to Elis math.
Now read through the Postma quote again.
You said:
The point of insulation is to change the temperature of a body by modifying its rate of heat loss. If green plates insulate radiative heat loss by the blue plate, then its temperature changes. If its temperature changes, it no longer radiates at 400 W/m2. If its rate of heat loss is reduced, then ergo it becomes warmer.
If it helps with your confusion, the blue plate is emitting 200 W/m2, before the green plate is added. Not 400 W/m2.
Barry, my last comment was simply a full quote of the comment by Postma that I linked to earlier.
Standard procedure is to provide quotes to make that clear.
You demonstrate only that you do not pay attention to what others post.
Simpler than that – I didn’t read your earlier post. Quotes and ref help out.
If it helps with your confusion, the blue plate is emitting 200 W/m2, before the green plate is added. Not 400 W/m2.
Ah, I see.
Views here have various iterations. g*e*r*a*m sees no temp gradient, Kristian and I do. Don’t know how you or Postma see it. I stopped reading Postma when I tried to engage him at his site and he banned me after several transactions. I was polite, but that didn’t help.
You did read it, Barry. You responded to it, anyway. Here it is (or alternatively just scroll up a bit).
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/12/uah-global-temperature-update-for-november-20170-36-deg-c/#comment-276403
Im not sure how you are still missing the point.
Lets see if this will make it click:
Barry, according to Eli, the blue plate emits 200 W/m2, before the green plate is added. Not 400 W/m2, as you just said.
Yep, I read your post and responded to the bit that stuck out. I didn’t bother following the link to Postma being well put off giving him my time. Pleas use quotation marks when quoting someone else.
Lets see if this will make it click:
Already responded with “Ah, I see.”
There are now a few iterations of the problem out there. You’ve clarified. I understand. Let’s move on.
So you dont pay enough attention to what others post, then, exactly like I said.
But, moving on, whether the addition of the green plate raises the temperature of the blue plate from 244 K (emitting 200 W/m2) to 262 K (emitting 267 W/m2), or whether the addition of the green plate leaves the temperature of the blue plate unchanged, is essentially a moot point. So, your discussion with Kristian over the actual specifics of how the addition of the green plate might hypothetically raise the temperature of the blue plate to 262 K, is even more of a moot point. Though dont let that stop you. By all means, continue. Im just trying to put things into perspective for you.
Postma’s mistake (I call it a twist) is to posit that the 2-plate construct is an analogy for the GHE. It isn’t. It has one function, which is to show that a warmer object can become warmer when a cooler object is introduced to a system. That’s all it is designed to do.
So you dont pay enough attention to what others post
I didn’t read the link. Let me make the clearer.
I didn’t read the link.
I’m not going to read Postma’s crap. I’ll talk to you. As long as you stop taking pissy pot-shots. It’s annoying.
Barry, I have not seen an iteration of the problem in which the blue plate emits 400 W/m2 before the green plate is introduced, from the people you mentioned; g*e*r*a*n and Kristian. I have only seen you say it, just now. Could it be that you cannot admit to a mistake, that you should have said 200 W/m2 (as do those others, and Eli)? I can understand that you want to move on, but your continued reference to iterations etc is leading me to conclude that you are still not getting what Im saying to you.
whether the addition of the green plate raises the temperature of the blue plate from 244 K (emitting 200 W/m2) to 262 K (emitting 267 W/m2), or whether the addition of the green plate leaves the temperature of the blue plate unchanged, is essentially a moot point.
I don’t see how. Blue plate initial temp and emission is set by the energy from the sun. So is Earth’s initial surface temp and emission. As far as analogies go, there is an insulating body (green plate/atmosphere) that slows the rate of heat loss from blue plate/Earth. Result – blue plate and Earth surface get warmer because their rate of heat loss is reduced.
The Earth/atmosphere is system is more complicated, of course, but we are only interested in the radiative effects here.
Ill make that clearer: I have only seen you say that, out of you, Kristian and g*e*r*a*n. The people you listed in your comment at 9:09 am, earlier today, as having views with different iterations of the problem.
“Reasoned debate isnt censored. Thats the whole point.”
People in in North Korea or in Scientology will make the same claim, because of course, people who are silenced are never heard from again.
Just one example, I pointed out to him a space insulation technology that works on the same principle as Eli’s solution to the Green-Blue plate.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multi-layer_insulation
He analyzed it and managed to conclude that this well-know technology does not do its intended job of insulating!
After pointing out this contradiction (politely), I was banned.
Barry, you state that you dont see how its a moot point. My answer is that its a moot point because for Elis green plate effect analogy to demonstrate what is required by the actual GHE, you would need to see the blue plate come to a temperature above 290 K.
Nate, what happened to you is amusing, but your only intent here is to distract.
Barry, you state that you dont see how its a moot point. My answer is that its a moot point because for Elis green plate effect analogy to demonstrate what is required by the actual GHE, you would need to see the blue plate come to a temperature above 290 K.
No. The blue plate only has to come to a temperature higher than 244K – the temperature achieved only from solar energy.
We need to parse some grammar here:
Elis green plate effect analogy
“Effect analogy?”
No, it’s not an analogy for the GHE. The function, as I said, is “to show that a warmer object can become warmer when a cooler object is introduced to a system. Thats all it is designed to do.”
No, Barry.
First, Elis thought experiment is called The Green Plate Effect. I then referred to it as an analogy. The Green Plate Effect analogy, then, makes sense in the context I used it.
Secondly, the temperature of the blue plate would have to get above 290 K. So that the blue plate is emitting more than 400 W/m2. The blue plate starts at 244 K, emitting 200 W/m2. With one green plate, according to Elis (disputed) logic, it will raise in temperature to 262 K, emitting 267 W/m2. With more and more green plates added, according to Elis logic, its temperature will continue to rise, converging on, but never quite fully reaching, 290 K. Emitting (nearly) 400 W/m2, the same energy as received from the sun.
‘With more and more green plates added, according to Elis logic, its temperature will continue to rise, converging on, but never quite fully reaching, 290 K. Emitting (nearly) 400 W/m2, the same energy as received from the sun.’
Halp,
This logic, is exactly how the MLI technology I mmentioned above works! It is a reality.
The point is, with many green plates added, you achieve a very effective insulator.
A good insulator should maintain a temperature difference while minimized heat transfer. Agree?
In this instance, with many plates, the BLUE will emit 400 to the left and to the right NET heat transfer will be near 0. Perfect!
The BLUE will be, as you say, at 290K, while the last green plate will have temp ~ temp of space (3K).
This is what Postma could not grasp.
Nate, Ill quote Postma again:
Whats happening there is that the back-side of the 1st surface is being radiatively insulated if more green plates were added the math shown there works out that the 1st plate would asymptote to emit 400 W/m^2, i.e. the energy input to it. Emitting 400 W/m^2 and having the temperature required to do that is the most that the 1st plate could achieve with a very large number of green plates. Thats what *their math* shows.
That result **REFUTES** the radiative greenhouse effect. The consensus derivation of the RGHE shows/requires that a *higher* flux must be emitted by the first surface than it receives from the Sun. That is: the Earths surface receives 240 W/m^2 but emits some 390 W/m^2.
J Halp: his point is that for the GPE to correctly represent what is required by the GHE, that blue plate needs to emit *more* than 400 W/m2, so its temperature would need to be *above* 290 K.
Presumably, this is the discussion you are referring to:
https://climateofsophistry.com/2017/10/19/the-steel-greenhouse-in-an-ambient-temperature-environment/#comment-31996
Nasty Nate! Who would have thought it?
barry says, December 15, 2017 at 3:19 PM:
I’m sorry, but this is just you being a weasel, barry.
The FIRST time you brought up this issue, the question about whether the RADIATION from the cooler body would somehow “impact” the warmer body, I very clearly specified that it wouldn’t be the thermal radiation per se, but rather the TEMPERATURE causing the thermal radiation of the cooler body that would have an impact on the warmer body. Simply in order to move the misplaced perception of direct causation associated with the term “impact” from the thermal radiation, being a mere byproduct of the actual cause, to that cause itself – the temperature of the cooler body.
Blackbody (thermal) radiation is but a conveyor of a temperature signal – the temperature of the blackbody emitting it.
And I have repeated this point ever since. I even expounded on it in that comment I linked to just above. I asked you to read it. You apparently didn’t.
If you insist on not reading what I write, barry, how can we expect to keep a meaningful discussion going …?
Also, barry, you know full well that I have ALWAYS agreed that the warmer body, being already heated by a separate heat source, will warm even more from the ‘less cool’ introduction of the cooler body. The nub of disagreement between the two of us has always been about the WHY and HOW only.
So how come you still manage to make a blatantly false accusation like this!?
“In your answers, you have said that the blue plate experiences no influence from the green plate.”
Again, where and when have I said this? Direct quote and citation, please.
I SAID vs. YOU GET MY OPINION FROM. Not your interpretation or perception of something I said. No, where did I say it?
You KNOW (because I’ve always been careful to point it out) that the two statements you quote above (of which you, BTW, do not provide a source, thus preventing me from readily getting the context!) are made within a MACROscopic framework, seen from a MACROscopic perspective, and discussing RADIATION specifically. So why do you pretend they aren’t?
MICRO vs. MACRO, barry. As always. You still refuse to implement the distinction in your argumentation.
I know that. And I’m telling you this is purely a mathematical model. It’s the two-way model. Which is fine conceptually and mathematically. But only 3) is a true macroscopic rendition of observed reality.
If you want to discuss thermal effects, then 3) it is. If you want to discuss quantum effects, then 1) is it.
2) is neither microscopic nor macroscopic reality. It’s a mathematically construed model of macroscopic reality. A conceptually ‘split’ version of macroscopic reality. Actual macroscopic reality is only 3).
The S-B radiative heat transfer equation: 3) = 3)/2 – 3)/2 = 2)
3) is reality, what we actually observe. 2) is how to MATHEMATICALLY DERIVE that reality. Clever indeed, but still nothing more than a method of calculation.
There aren’t two sets of photons, barry. Only in your head. YOU define those two general spatial directions in which to look – you choose to average all individual photon directions within the one radiation field into two general ones, two hemispheres, because that is specifically how you want to solve the problem. In the real macroscopic world of thermal effects, however, there is just ONE set of photons – ALL of them. There is just one thermal radiation field. There is just one thermal photon cloud. There is just one thermal movement of radiative energy. From hot to cold.
MICRO vs. MACRO. Photon vs. radiative flux.
No, I’m telling you that you want to have the cake and eat it. You want to have it both ways. You want to use 1) to explain 3) by using 2) as some sort of bridge, a kind of MICRO-MACRO entity that I’m supposed to accept as somehow MICRO when it comes to mechanism (thus avoiding violation of any Thermodynamic Laws), but still as MACRO when it comes to (thermal) effect, and as soon as I point out that such an effect would violate the 2nd Law, then you expect to be allowed to retreat back to the MICRO aspect of the model, the mechanism, being thus immune to all thermodynamic criticisms.
Because it’s neither MICRO nor MACRO, and so it isn’t really about any “physical mechanics”. It’s a mathematical model, a simplifying method of deriving what is being observed. Trying to utilise it to explain thermal (macroscopic) effects reveals a deep misunderstanding of how our physical reality works.
You can only apply 2) if including 3). And then 3) is reality. 2) is only used mathematically to DERIVE this reality.
IOW, ignoring 3) and only looking at 2), as though there were in fact two 3)s, two separate MACROscopic transfers (flows) of energy, that is, two radiative FLUXES, working in diametrically opposite directions, within ONE radiation field, is a profound misunderstanding of what is actually going on, and you end up (falsely) thinking that the one can directly CAUSE the other, and vice versa.
The two-way model ONLY works as long as you’re completely aware that the two opposite “hemifluxes” always average out to ONE instantaneous exchange – they are integrated into ONE, they cannot be split and treated as separate entities, they will ONLY EVER be able to cause a thermal effect when seen as ONE.
And this is how it’s INVARIABLY (!!!) done in regular physics. Go check out ANY textbook on the subject.
MATHEMATICALLY, you’re free to split the two. PHYSICALLY, you’re not.
Modern mainstream “Climate Science”, though, thinks that it can somehow leapfrog this fundamental principle by seeing the world as just some kind of mathematical model – as long as something can be done mathematically, it can also be done physically; any valid mathematical operation must necessarily also represent a real physical description of some aspect of the world.
Richard Feynman:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MZZPF9rXzes
So it chooses to portray “atmospheric back radiation” [σT_c^4] as a separate flux of energy (W/m^2) to the surface, distinctly split from its counterpart, the “surface radiant emittance” [σT_h^4], with an independent and direct thermodynamic “impact” on it, on a par with the SOLAR heat flux. It basically ADDS to the surface budget and thus CAUSES the “upward flux” from the surface [σT_h^4] to grow. Two separate fluxes, one impacts the other directly.
This is precisely the paradigm that YOU’RE helping to promote and preserve, barry.
It does have an influence. g*e*r*a*n is the one who claims it doesn’t, not me.
No, I haven’t. Liar.
Yes.
Indeed. But who/what is the ORIGINATOR of that information? The radiation is only a messenger. Why is there “information” to begin with? And what is the information about? What is it telling us?
Thermally emitted photons, yes. A radiative (thermal) flux, no.
It doesn’t. The green plate’s TEMPERATURE does. Its thermal radiation is merely the conveyor of its temperature signal.
Look, I already explained this in the comment section of last month’s update. You know, the link I specifically provided above for you to read. You obviously haven’t bothered to.
Go read it, barry.
Go read the comment I linked to.
Halp,
J Halp: his point is that for the GPE to correctly represent what is required by the GHE, that blue plate needs to emit *more* than 400 W/m2, so its temperature would need to be *above* 290 K.”
Well, no problem, then. It is emitting 400 W/m^2 to the left and NONE to the right, where it is insulated. No NET emission. Just like the sun hitting wall of a well insulated house.
This is the kind of illogic that Postma does.
By accident I read this comment below, where a blogger answered to a commentator:
https://climateofsophistry.com/2017/10/19/the-steel-greenhouse-in-an-ambient-temperature-environment/#comment-31975
This Jo Postma well is the most disgusting person I have ever read online. He really seems to be eating his own chair, and then to spit it out again. Pfui Deibel!
In comparison to him, some commentators here rather make me think of choir kids.
Halp,
“for the GPE to correctly represent what is required by the GHE, that blue plate needs to emit *more* than 400 W/m2, so its temperature would need to be *above* 290 K.”
Oh ok, I misunderstood the point.
As Barry pointed out, the GPE is not meant to be an exact analog of GHE, it is meant to illustrate back-radiation.
A big difference is the plate has two surface, one exposed to the sun, with the cool object on the other side. The Earth has one surface with cool atmosphere above.
Secondly, the temperature of the blue plate would have to get above 290 K. So that the blue plate is emitting more than 400 W/m2. The blue plate starts at 244 K, emitting 200 W/m2. With one green plate, according to Elis (disputed) logic, it will raise in temperature to 262 K, emitting 267 W/m2. With more and more green plates added, according to Elis logic, its temperature will continue to rise, converging on, but never quite fully reaching, 290 K. Emitting (nearly) 400 W/m2, the same energy as received from the sun.
The incoming energy at the TOA is 1261 W/m2. That is the limit, not the emission at the surface.
This is why describing the plate system as “analogy” for the GHE overstretches its utility. The atmosphere is not analogised by the green plate, because the green plate is shielded from the sun, while the atmosphere is exposed to it.
GuysI know this is a shock. Take a few daysjust dont worry about it. Talk to you in a few.
The FIRST time you brought up this issue, the question about whether the RADIATION from the cooler body would somehow “impact” the warmer body, I very clearly specified that it wouldnt be the thermal radiation per se, but rather the TEMPERATURE causing the thermal radiation of the cooler body that would have an impact on the warmer body.
And we both agree that the conveyor of temperature is radiation in this construct.
I think we also agree that if the temperature of the green plate changes, the ‘resistance’ to blue plate heat loss increases and blue plate gets warmer.
This rebuttal that the two-way description is mathematical – is that meant to invalidate it somehow? Because the thermo description is also mathematical. It’s an abstract, describing only the beginning and end state, and completely blind to the process over time.
Thermo is blind to fluctuation. It is an abstraction of reality that works powerfully well with bulk transitions, but in no way describes ‘reality’ more powerfully because it ignores time and micrscopic processes.
So it’s strange indeed to see you criticise statistical mechanics for being an abstract, too. And summing emission from various objects at different temperatures is definitely part and parcel of that method, so I also don’t know why it can’t be applied to the 2 late set-up.
Behind all your arguing is the need to demonstrate that it is wrong to see the atmosphere as a separate/extra source of heat. I don’t see it that way, and no amount of semantical argument is going to demonstrate to me that I do.
If you want to discuss thermal effects, then 3) it is. If you want to discuss quantum effects, then 1) is it.
2) is neither microscopic nor macroscopic reality. Its a mathematically construed model of macroscopic reality. A conceptually split version of macroscopic reality. Actual macroscopic reality is only 3).
The S-B radiative heat transfer equation: 3) = 3)/2 3)/2 = 2)
3) is reality, what we actually observe.
In reality I watch a pot of water boil and see bubbles appear and become more active.
Thermo doesn’t circumscribe what I observe in reality. Thermo puts the pot of water on the stove and shuts its eyes until thermal equilibrium is established. What I observed is mathematically abstracted by thermo as the NET result from one state to the other.
Thermo is not reality (as Bohr might say), it’s just a description of it, and it is a limited one. It is as much an abstraction of reality as statistical mechanics.
2) is the province of statistical mechanics. It deals with time, with the microscopic (also as statistical properties of different emission rates of objects at different temperature in one system), and is complementary to the macroscopic view.
What I gather, rightly or wrongly from you argument, is that MACRO is reality and MICRO isn’t.
This looks like nothing more than dogma to me. An overweening adherence to classic thermodynamics at the expense of or as a way of rejecting other methods of describing reality.
BTW, I quoted you in this thread in the post you answered. I will try to remember to link to your posts if I believe they are too difficult to recover with an easy scroll.
I scrolled up to look for the link you mentioned. I believe I responded to it elsewhere on the points I was interested in. For instance, I responded to the photon/gas cloud by reminding you of the 2-plate exercise in a vacuum, where there is no cloud. The radiative action is essentially 2-way in that set-up – of course, radiation is emitted at all angles in that set-up, but the exchange is essentially 2-way.
barry: “Thermo is blind to fluctuation. It is an abstraction of reality that works powerfully well with bulk transitions, but in no way describes reality more powerfully because it ignores time and micrscopic processes.”
It is thermodynamics not thermostatics. As you imply, all thermodynamic processes take time.
There is a great book explianing how the masters succeeded in experimentally connecting the micro to the macro over time (~1900 to ~1925). How atoms and molecules were
Like Kristian, Robert Millikan was so infuriated about micro vs. macro he spent 10 years after Einstein’s 1905 photoelectric paper trying to prove it unreasonable. In 1949 Modern Physics article Millikan: “I spent 10 years of my life testing that 1905 equation of Einstein’s and contrary to all my expectations I was compelled in 1915 to assert its unambiguous verification in spite of its unreasonableness.”
cf. “Einstein’s Masterwork” by John Gribbin 2016 p. 91.
What Einstein wrote back then was as far as thermodynamic properties such as entropy are concerned, a gas behaves as if it is made up of very many tiny particles (atoms and molecules) and EMR also behaves as if it is made up of very many tiny particles (photons). That took a long while to really sink in and why it took so long to be awarded a Nobel. (p. 86)
How atoms and molecules were proven to exist and their sizes and numbers. Einstein found two experimental eqn.s and the two unknowns were those.
Kristian Im addressing a particular confused world view, barry. One that seems incapable of separating between the MICRO and the MACRO realms. Thats all.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/11/uah-global-temperature-update-for-october-2017-0-63-deg-c/#comment-273699
But I do separate them as you’ve seen: 1) quantum, 2) radiative exchange, and 3) thermo NET. And also point out that 2) and 3) are complementary.
You’re arguing that it is wrong to describe atmospheric radiation as an independent source of heat. I already know that. It all ultimately comes from the sun, and interactions are in all directions – unless you confine yourself to the language of classic thermodynamics. Which is what you are trying urge to eradicate the notion that the atmosphere is an independent/extra source of energy.
I don’t think anyone here thinks that it is, and that the argument has been locked around semantics, with classic thermodynamics being your foil for that.
This is the simplest of algebra. It is the most basic of thermodynamics taught in first and second year undergraduate physics. T1 = T2 is the end-point, but with layers it takes longer to get there than with no layers. Welcome to insulation. You wear a coat in winter and it takes longer to get cold. You wear a coat under the sun and it takes longer to feel the heat from the Sun. It works for satellites because they are typically in Sun for 45 minutes, and out of Sun for 45 minutes, and so the insulation modulates the temperature extremes (+121C on blackbody to -100 ambient local to Earth on dark-side) so that the internal instrument temperatures dont change so fast. T1 = T2 is the equilibrium end point, always. What you change is how long it takes to get there.
Thats another quote from Nasty Nates discussion. Doesnt seem like it ended quite the way Nate described earlier. Barry, 240 W/m2 is the limit, not 1261 W/m2. For obvious reasons. Then again you would only be worrying about that if you thought the GPE was an analog for the GHE, but youve specifically said you dont think it is. So theres no need for you to argue with me about what the limit is. And since it has nothing to do with the GHE, theres no reason for anyone to be talking about it to the extent that they are, either. So, thats a relief.
Thus, the green plate effect is refuted, by textbook physics.
https://climateofsophistry.com/2017/10/19/the-steel-greenhouse-in-an-ambient-temperature-environment/#comment-31996
That was another quote, from the same comment I linked to earlier – from Nates discussion with Postma. Ive posted the link again, because I know people will be wanting to take a look, and not just ignore it.
barry says, December 16, 2017 at 12:10 AM:
Stupidest thing I’ve ever heard. The lag question is QUALITATIVE, not quantitative. A cause always precedes its effect. Simple as that. A body aborbing energy transferred to it as heat can’t emit more right away. It first has to WARM from the energy absorbed. IOW, the energy absorbed has to be converted into internal kinetic energy. And only THEN will it emit more energy. It has to WARM first, barry.
How hard is this to understand? And how hard is it to admit?
Hahahahaha!
So how do you want it explained? From what perspective? It seems you simply can’t decide. MICROscopically, there is a continuous “two-way” exchange of photonic energy at each surface, but no thermal effects. And MACROscopically, there are thermal effects, but no two-way exchange of energy.
Strangely, I get the feeling here that you for some reason think that the macroscopic view of a one-way thermal flow of radiative energy is an antiquated concept of “classical thermodynamics” alone, and that the two-way concept is somehow a newer and updated one, arising from the development of the more precise (deep-delving) world-view of “statistical mechanics”.
It isn’t. The two-way idea came first, thermodynamics second. They are really unrelated concepts. Statistical mechanics is just a way to connect the MICROscopic world with the MACROscopic one, across “the thermodynamic limit”, to explain microscopically the macroscopic phenomena observed and described by classical thermodynamics using STATISTICS.
http://materias.df.uba.ar/ft3a2014c2/files/2014/10/Styer-What-good-is-the-thermodynamic-limit-2004.pdf
http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/sm1/statmech.pdf
(pp.4-6)
The main TAKEAWAY: “(…) the quantities which we are interested in do not depend on the motions of individual particles, or some (…) small subset of particles, but, instead, depend on the average motions of all the particles in the system. In other words, these quantities depend on the statistical properties of the atomic or molecular motion.”
A “radiative flux” is also such a macroscopic quantity, barry.
https://www.science.mcmaster.ca/radgrad/images/775CourseResources/775_ch3.pdf
(p.2)
http://www.astro.wisc.edu/~townsend/resource/teaching/astro-310-F08/09-radiation-field.pdf
http://www.astro.sunysb.edu/fwalter/AST341/idef.html
http://www.ifa.hawaii.edu/users/kud/teaching_12/3_Radiative_transfer.pdf
Notice how the bidirectional approach here is strictly a mathematical formalism, optionally employed ‘after the fact’ as a simplifying method of calculation. It is NOT in any way a necessary (naturally emergent) “statistical” result …!
Kristian
Are we meant to br impressed with your abilities to cut and paste swathes of material from different sites? Large parts of the material are not particularly relevant to the point I think you are trying to make. Is it necessary to show basic spherical geometry and trivial derivatios such as Total solid angle = 4πr^2/r^2 = 4π. Really? Who would have known?
I believe your cut and pastes of reams of equations is,
1. meant tknimpress the masses and suggest to the lay person you really know what you are talking about, but
2. unfortunately indicates you don’t actually know what you are talking about.
I do however agree that the bidirectional approach is almost universally applied because it simply describes both before, during and after the fact, what is actually occurring..
Unfortunately I am going to have to restate what others have already done but there is a very small but finite chance that Kristian will finally see the errors of his ways.
Here I go.
There is an interchange of energy between a warm and cold body. The amount of energy emitted by the warmer body, that is absorbed by the colder body, is greater than the energy emitted by the cooler body tbat is absorbed by the warmer body. The NET result is a transfer of energy from the warm to the cold body.
Essentially this means using the bidirectional approach the only relevant equation is,
Delta E = E1 – E2 >= 0 where Delta E is the NET radiation transferred and E1 is the energy emitted by the warmer body and E2 is the energy emitted by the cooler body.
I know this is simple high school stuff and it emphasises that your attempted “snow job” via cut and paste is just an attempt at mathematical bliovating ( a word that is most pertinent in this year of the Trump).
WMikeR says, December 17, 2017 at 7:40 AM:
Hahaha! What is a boy to do?
Whenever I don’t provide any links to and quotes from “real sources” as support for what I write in my comments, I get all sorts of denouncements thrown at me. People specifically and consistently complain that I do what I did just now way too rarely. And here you come along and disparage me for doing just what other people have made a habit out of asking for, in fact, demanding …!
Background, mike. Background. I’m trying to explain something fundamental to someone who has shown a profound inability to understand the distinction between the physical actions of a single photon and the physical actions of a radiative flux.
Nate says, December 14, 2017 at 12:45 PM:
I don’t think highly of Postma:
https://okulaer.wordpress.com/2015/01/19/postmas-confusion/
Even if he doesn’t understand the concept of “insulation”, he does get a few other things right. And THAT is what I applaud in the post you’re referring to. Not him as a person. Not the way in which he treats his commenters. And not his flawed thinking when it comes to the effects of insulation.
A nuanced look at a fellow human being. That should be allowed, shouldn’t it? No one is ALL evil or ALL wrong in every respect all of the time, are they, Nate?
I do. However, as you’ll notice, it isn’t the topic of my blog post in question:
https://okulaer.wordpress.com/2017/09/02/the-heat-issue-once-again/
Feel free to read it in its entirety.
Halp,
T1 = T2 is the end-point Glad you brought that up.
This illustrates nicely that Postmaa doesnt understand what insulation does.
Do you agreee that the MLI is intended to act as insulation for spacecraft? I also know that it is used in cryogenics to insulate.
Insulation is intended to KEEP a temperature difference LARGE whilst minimizing the flow of heat. For example my house is warm inside and it is cold outside. There is a temp difference. The insulation in the walls is minimizing the flow of heat.
What Postma has shown is that with NO temperature difference there is no heat flow. True but IRRELEVANT to what an insulator does. He has found a solution to eqns, but it is the trivial one.
So Postma is being an idiot here.
Halp,
Thanks for the reminder of the discussion,
“Set Qdot equal to zero to find the end-state of the system, i.e. the thermal equilibrium state, and what do you know, the plate on the other side of the MLI becomes equal to the source-place temperature. Therefore you are a liar, you are misrepresenting the Wiki link, and you are an idiot just like ol Eli.”
Here he illustrates clearly that he fails to understand insulation! He is saying the inside and outside of the spacecraft are at the same temperature!
Now as to his math:
“Q12_noshield = A*s*(T1^4 T2^4)
Q12_nshields = (1 / (N + 1)) * Q12_noshield
End state of the system is when Q = 0, and so
0 = Q12_nshields = Q12_noshield”
This last line is his MISTAKE. He neglects to let N go to infinity as he originally intended.
If he had let N go to infinity, then 1/(N+1) would go to 0.
Then Q12_noshield NEED NOT go to 0.
So his conclusion T1=T2 is QUITE FALSE.
Again, he did allow me to make these points.
Feel free to find the flaws in my logic, Halp.
“Again, he did allow me to make these points.” should have said:
Again he did NOT allow me to make these points.
Halp,
Postma also says:
“End state of the system is when Q = 0, and so”
This is another CONFUSION of his. Q = 0 is NOT what happens for insulation, nor for the Blue-Green plate problem. Even in his solution Q = 200 W/m^2 !
Q is smaller, yes, when you have insulation, but NOT 0. That makes no sense.
It only gets to 0, when the insulation becomes infinitely thick, or number of plates, N, goes to infinity.
I thought he made it perfectly clear in the comment I quoted here:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/12/uah-global-temperature-update-for-november-20170-36-deg-c/#comment-276613
He is not saying that insulation doesnt work.
This other comment he made to you (although its in relation to the steel greenhouse, the principle is the same) should help, too:
JP: Qsp-sh going to zero does not mean that energy is not being transferred the heat equation contains the Stefan-Boltzmann terms which shows that the objects are indeed always emitting. It is just that the energy no longer acts as heat, i.e. no longer does any work. The energy is then emitted to the outside of the shell, to space, conserving energy. Thermal equilibrium is when Q = 0, just like mechanical equilibrium when opposing forces balance out at F = 0. We know from experience and thermodynamics that all systems reach thermal equilibrium, and so your statement implies that Q = 0 is not possible and hence thermal equilibrium is not possible, and so, your statement is wrong.
J Halp: Im not sure why you would think Postma is saying that with T1=T2, the temperature of space would be the same as the temperature inside the spacecraft. With the GPE, for instance, if T1=T2 (blue and green plate at the same temperature), space remains at 3 K.
I think that covers everything.
Oh wait, no, there was one more thing. You said in Postmas solution Q = 200. No, it is zero, see:
https://climateofsophistry.com/2017/10/06/slayers-vindicated-by-additional-independent-researchers/#comment-31395
Halp:
“T1 = T2 is the equilibrium end point, always.”
As I said to him, but it never made it through, when you have input power from the sun, equilibrium is NEVER achieved.
He doesnt appear to understand what equilibrium means.
Obviously not true in the case of an insulated house heated from the inside. T1 =warm T2 =cold.
Nor in the GPE or in multiplate GPE:
T1 = temp of blue plate, T2 = space = 3K.
T1-T2 > 0. And Q > 0
Do you agree that if he shows mathematically that when Q=0 then T1-T2 =0, That is of course true but meaningless?
Postma says this:
“We now introduce the green plate, which can be approximated as infinite plane parallel with the blue plate, and for this geometry the heat flow equation between the blue and green plate is simply
Q = sigma * (Tb^4 Tg^4)
The green plate stops rising in temperature when Q = 0, i.e. when the heat flow to it goes to zero which is thermal equilibrium. Therefore when Q = 0 the green plate has a constant temperature of”
“Oh wait, no, there was one more thing. You said in Postmas solution Q = 200. No, it is zero, see:”
Again he doesnt understand the meaning of equilibrium.
From wikepedia:
“Thermal equilibrium of a body in itself refers to the body when it is isolated. The background is that no heat enters or leaves it, and that it is allowed unlimited time to settle under its own intrinsic characteristics.”
GPE has 400W/m2 input. Clearly NOT equilibrium.
Clearly he intends that 200W/m^2 is flowing through the system and is emitted by the green plate to the right to space. Agree?
And unless the heat-flow somehow skips over the green plate, 200 W/m2 MUST BE flowing from BLUE to GREEN.
I have another small bone to pick Halp,
“It works for satellites because they are typically in Sun for 45 minutes, and out of Sun for 45 minutes, and so the insulation modulates the temperature extremes (+121C on blackbody to -100 ambient local to Earth on dark-side) so that the internal instrument temperatures dont change so fast. T1 = T2 is the equilibrium end point, always.”
Do you really think the inside of an MLI insulated spacecraft will reach the temp of its surface facing the sun? Even after a long time. There are spacecraft constantly facing the sun to detect flares and such.
Heres the problem. Its other side is facing space @ 3K. So you have a hot wall and a cold wall. The inside will reach an intermediate temperature after a long time. There will always be T1-T2 > 0.
Halp,
My argument about the thermodynamic limit being set at the TOA was wrong – forgot to account for the sphere of the Earth. Incoming at TOA is 340 W/m2 (average), not 1631 (perpendicular plane in direct sunlight). Thus, the emission at Earth’s surface is higher than the outbound emission at TOA.
Postma may never have visited a real greenhouse. He must not know that it can be much warmer inside than the ambient air, or at a temperature above that which incoming solar radiation at the surface would determine.
The action here is convective suppression, but the principle is the same. Balance occurs at TOA, but the insulative effect of the atmosphere delays the escape of heat from the surface to space. A magnifying glass can do a similar trick locally by concentrating solar energy.
You see, I think this is why you got banned. You are now just repeating through the same line of reasoning, based on what I have already explained is a false representation of what Postma is saying. For example, T1=T2 means blue plate and green plate. Not one of the plates and space. With that already explained to you, you simply repeat the same thing. What is the point in continuing such a conversation?
Barry, neglecting to account for albedo is not going to help your case.
But more importantly, if your argument is that the GPE is not an analog for the GHE, then that is your argument. You do not get to then try to argue as though the GPE *were* an analog for the GHE.
Im guessing you, like Nate, will continue anyway…and yes, this may explain also why *you* were banned. I am polite, Postma most certainly isnt…but Im also not going to indefinitely tolerate it. I will simply stop responding. You, being you, may well take this as a sign I am unable to respond. It will be more likely the case that what you are arguing has already been addressed, here or elsewhere.
Also this from Postma:
“Qsp-sh going to zero does not mean that energy is not being transferred the heat equation contains the Stefan-Boltzmann terms which shows that the objects are indeed always emitting. It is just that the energy no longer acts as heat, i.e. no longer does any work. The energy is then emitted to the outside of the shell, to space, conserving energy.”
“It is just that the energy no longer acts as heat, i.e. no longer does any work.”
Poppycock! No physicist would agree with that.
Whatever he calls it, energy is being transferred via radiation between two objects. That transfer is governed by this equation:
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/thermo/stefan.html#c2
The equation says, if there is net flow of energy (or heat) a temperature difference is REQUIRED. 0th law and 2nd law!
He admits there is a flow of energy between sph and shell.
Therefore the sphere and shell cannot be at the same temperature. He is just making up nonsense.
Halp:
‘This is why you got banned”
I asked you several points “do you agree”, and you give no answer.
On the issue of equilibrium and its misuse by Postma, do you refute what I have said or not?
On the issue of his math mistakes can you refute this or not?
My last comment on q=0, can you refute this or not?
“For example, T1=T2 means blue plate and green plate.”
Well no, but we can disagree about that, and discuss more or not.
Nate 4:42pm: “Postma says this:”
I will try add back the minus sign apparently dropped by the site in your comment so is that what was actually written or did the 2 somehow also get dropped in the cut/paste? If not, missing the 2 is a common mistake.
“for this geometry the heat flow equation between the blue and green plate is simply
Q = sigma * (Tb^4 – Tg^4)”
The correct 1LOT equilibrium balance for the green plate object emitting from both surfaces is (sign convention away from plate negative or loss, toward plate positive or gain):
sum Q for green = 0 = sigma * (1*Tb^4 – 2*Tg^4)
Nate, your previous comment contained part of a quote from Postma, and your response to that quote. The quote refutes your response to it. Given that, I did not consider it worth responding to, but I can see that you are now trying to bait for further responses in your latest comment. You have made your arguments, that you felt Postma had not allowed you to say. I have shown that most of this was either already addressed in other responses to you, or could have been answered by reading through other comments, or was simply based on your misrepresentation of his arguments in the first place.
You were not even definitively banned. You were welcome to continue commenting, if you made your identity known. This is not unreasonable, given that you were claiming to be a scientist. If you want to make such claims, in order to bolster credibility, or so you can make statements about what according to you no physicist would say, then you should let it be known who you are. By all means, go back there and do just that. I will not respond to you further.
Halp,
You think what I am saying is repetitive.
When you respond to my comments with yet another thing Postma said, all I can so is tell you why he is wrong, again.
You see he is also repetitive.
You seem to defer to Postma as if he is infallible. He is not.
Do me a favor, at least look at his misuse of the term ‘equilibrium’. Much follows from that error.
What do YOU think? Is he right or wrong on that? And why?
Halp
“Nate, your previous comment contained part of a quote from Postma, and your response to that quote. The quote refutes your response to it.”
I dont really know what you are talking about. Pls explain.
‘banned’ well my comments stopped getting through, so…He manipulates the comment stream in such a way to maximally humiliate people. He seems to get off on that.
As to my identity, that is up to me, not Postma. Other blogs do not get off on outing peoples personal identity and absuing them as he does. He seems to want to make it a cult of personality.
As i told him, but it did not get posted, I do not want to bludgeon people with my credentials. I prefer to let the facts speak for themselves.
Ball4, see page 25, here:
https://climateofsophistry.files.wordpress.com/2015/01/heat_4e_chap13-radiation_ht_lecture-pdf.pdf
Thats the physics text linked to in one of the comments referred to earlier. There is no justification for your x2, as explained on that page.
Ball4 yes I think I agree with you. What are you getting at?
Halp “I will not respond to you further.
I thought you were open to looking critically at Postmas logic. i guess not. You didnt really intend to do that at all. Too bad.
“By all means, go back there and do just that.”
Cant do that, its a cult, only sycophants allowed in, whether you believe that or not.
BTW,
“This is not unreasonable, given that you were claiming to be a scientist”
That was intended only for him. As I said, he did not let my comments through, then he let that one through for his own use. He knows my identity in any case.
Nate: “What are you getting at?”
Wanted to find out if what you posted could be made equal to the original given this site’s problems with characters. If the 2 was left out indeed there was a 1LOT mistake which is common. And since you agree, then the mistake is obvious.
—-
Halp-less: “see page 25”
Sure, that page would be for the 1LOT control volume enclosure drawn around the entire two masses for one surface i (or b), one surface j (or g) as shown. For that 1LOT equilibrium (sign convention away from plate negative or loss, toward plate positive or gain):
sum Q for both = 0 = 400 – sigma * (1*Tb^4 + 1*Tg^4)
See page 22 for the 1LOT control volume enclosure around just the green plate with 2 surfaces as I did, here N=2, as it says the net radiation heat transfer from any surface i of an N surface enclosure is if you work through the N =2 or two surface summation j=1 to 2 where for one of the surfaces does not radiate to blue (radiates to space presumably) and find for N=2 surfaces your cite eqn. agrees with what I wrote:
sum Q for green = 0 = sigma * (1*Tb^4 2*Tg^4)
Try again with minus signs:
Nate: “What are you getting at?”
Wanted to find out if what you posted could be made equal to the original given this site’s problems with characters. If the 2 was left out indeed there was a 1LOT mistake which is common. And since you agree, then the mistake is obvious.
—-
Halp-less: “see page 25”
Sure, that page would be for the 1LOT control volume enclosure drawn around the entire two masses for one surface i (or b), one surface j (or g) as shown. For that 1LOT equilibrium (sign convention away from plate negative or loss, toward plate positive or gain):
sum Q for both = 0 = 400 – sigma * (1*Tb^4 + 1*Tg^4)
See page 22 for the 1LOT control volume enclosure around just the green plate with 2 surfaces as I did, here N=2, as it says the net radiation heat transfer from any surface i of an N surface enclosure is if you work it through the N = 2 or two surface summation j=1 to 2 where for one of the surfaces does not radiate to blue (radiates to space presumably) and find for N=2 surfaces your cite eqn. agrees with what I wrote:
sum Q for green = 0 = sigma * (1*Tb^4 – 2*Tg^4)
The relevant page is number 25. Number 22 does not contain what you are talking about. Perhaps you meant 24.
Yeah, page 25 for control volume enclosure around both plates.
Page 21 (not 22) for the control volume enclosure around the green plate with N=2 surfaces in the summation.
Page 21 also refers to surfaces facing toward each other. Not surfaces of the same object facing away from each other.
To apply the general illustration to the green plate you have to rotate each illustration arbitrary position such that it will comply with the formula as shown which states “the net radiation heat transfer from any surface i of an N surface enclosure”. The green plate has surface 1 and 2 only one of which radiates to blue plate. This is where the 2 comes from (N=2) on Tg but not Tb.
It is way simpler to just add up the vectors radiating to and away from green plate:
sum Q for green = 0 = sigma * (1*Tb^4 – 2*Tg^4)
btw yes you could also use p. 24 one side at a time for the green plate enclosure and that still shows where the 2 on Tg comes from:
sum Q for green = 0 = sigma * (1*Tb^4 – 2*Tg^4)
Ball4 says:
The green plate has surface 1 and 2 only one of which radiates to blue plate
J Halp: Yes, and the blue plate has surface 1 and 2, only one of which radiates to the green plate. Which is precisely why you *dont* multiply the term for the green plate by 2. You cant just change the radiative heat transfer equation to suit your needs. Its bad enough that you guys are trying to change the definition of the word equilibrium.
Ball4,
Indeed the 2 is required by conservation of energy, simply the sum of inputs and outputs to green plate = 0.
Maybe p24 has it
“Which is precisely why you *don’t* multiply the term for the green plate by 2.”
Well your own cite does come up with the 2 from N=2 summation. Find a new text book cite then if you now disagree with the original one.
“bad enough that you guys are trying to change the definition of the word equilibrium.”
Ha! Not us changing it. Look it up.
I dont disagree with the text, Ball4. I disagree with your manipulation of what it says.
Nate, yes, and Halp-less’ cite does not make the mistake of missing the 2 in the balance from either p. 21 or 24:
sum Q for green plate enclosure = 0 = sigma * (1*Tb^4 – 2*Tg^4)
Perhaps Ball4 is simply hoping that nobody will click on the link to the text. That might explain his tactics.
There is not any interpretation Halp-less the formulas are explicit and I quoted them directly: “The net radiation heat transfer from any surface i of an N surface enclosure is” (as shown p. 21). With N=2 for the green plate enclosure find from the summation:
sum Q for green = 0 = sigma * (1*Tb^4 – 2*Tg^4)
This is also found from a simple 1LOT energy balance on the green plate enclosure as Nate correctly points out.
“Perhaps Ball4 is simply hoping that nobody will click on the link to the text.”
On the contrary, please do or google string: heat_4e_chap13
http://131.156.224.164/352/_352-posted/Heat_4e_Chap13-Radiation_HT_lecture-PDF.pdf
Ball4: With N=2 for the green plate enclosure find from the summation…
J Halp: But thats the problem, isnt it? We are not looking at the green plate in isolation. We are looking at heat transfer between the blue and green plates. As per page 25.
No problem Halp-less, p. 25 is for the two mass system enclosure, p. 21 or p. 24 is for the one mass (green plate) enclosure.
“The correct 1LOT equilibrium balance for the green plate object emitting ” is what ball4 stated at the outset. So Halp must have missed this.
Im glad you agree.
Cool. P. 25 for both plates enclosure, p. 21,24 for green enclosure only which is the same as 1LOT energy balance:
p. 25: sum Q for both = 0 = 400 – sigma * (1*Tb^4 + 1*Tg^4)
p. 21, 24: sum Q for green = 0 = sigma * (1*Tb^4 – 2*Tg^4)
Note these are two independent eqn.s that can be solved for 2 unknowns Tb, Tg. I will leave that to Halp-less.
No, solution as here:
https://climateofsophistry.com/2017/10/06/slayers-vindicated-by-additional-independent-researchers/#comment-31395
For the reasons already explained.
Halp-less, Nate pointed out above in a quote that site makes a simple mistake and doesn’t agree with the text you cited.
Once upon a time someone said something about a site and that proves Im right. No, I wont give you any more specifics.
Sorry, Im just trying to keep up with whatever game you are now playing.
Im going to sleep. Perhaps barry and Kristian can resume their conversation. After all, barry said he was only really interested in what Kristian had to say. But as it has been left, Kristian wrote several lengthy comments, and barry chose to respond to me instead.
Halp seems content with Q (blue to green) =0, but Q (green to space) = 200 Wm^-2. All is well.
Ball4,
In his last comment, Halp, referred us to this ‘solution’ which says:
“The green plate stops rising in temperature when Q = 0, i.e. when the heat flow to it goes to zero which is thermal equilibrium. Therefore when Q = 0 the green plate has a constant temperature of
0 = Tb^4 Tg^4
Tb = Tg”
Can you ask Halp if he is aware that the OUTWARD flow of heat from the Green plate to the right is not mentioned here, and appears to be simply neglected.
Can you ask him if he thinks this makes sense? If so how?
Kristian quoted:
”
Often, split flux for axisymmetric field into up ( > 0) and down ( < 0) components:
F_v = F_v,+ F_v,-
"
"F_v,-" would be the back radiation, right?
“Halp, referred us to this ‘solution'”
Nate, given the difficulty of this site with mapping characters, I take you to mean Halp-less referred to the incorrect solution:
sum Q for green = 0 = sigma * (1*Tb^4 – Tg^4)
This is not Halp-less’ solution, this solution is from a comment made by someone else you quoted made on another site and Halp-less has presented a link to a text book solution which shows leaving out the 2* factor on Tg is clearly a mistake (for N=2 radiating surfaces) made by that other commenter on that other site. Halp-less text book Chapt. 13 cited solution is correct for N=2 as it is consistent with 1LOT for green plate enclosure in equilibrium:
p. 21, 24: sum Q for green = 0 = sigma * (1*Tb^4 – 2*Tg^4)
Any solution other than this clearly makes no sense according to Halp-less text cite for N=2.
Ball4 reveals that he is completely incapable of following a discussion. Nate continues to ask questions that he already has the answer to, in full knowledge that I am not going to respond to him, only further proving the point of why he was banned from Postmas site. What a clown show.
Halp,
The emperor has no clothes. You have to open your eyes and use your own reasoning to see it.
Your last quote:
“The green plate stops rising in temperature when Q = 0, i.e. when the heat flow to it goes to zero which is thermal equilibrium. Therefore when Q = 0 the green plate has a constant temperature of
0 = Tb^4 Tg^4
Tb = Tg”
But then he says this:
“The green plate thus achieves the same temperature of the blue plate, and emits 200 W/m^2 on its outside”
First he says green plate has Q=0. Then he says it emits 200W/m^2.
Which is it? These two statements are contradictory.
No hand-waving can avoid a 1LOT violation here.
Make sense to you?
Just throwing this out there, in the unlikely event that anyone reading is still interested:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/12/uah-global-temperature-update-for-november-20170-36-deg-c/#comment-276664
Halp,
As my most recent post was on the GHE alone, I don’t know what you mean by me analogizing with the GPE.
Barry, neglecting to account for albedo is not going to help your case.
What do you mean? Albedo affects the amount of solar radiation hitting the surface – less than TOA. As I was retracting my argument about TOA (see, I can admit when I’m wrong), I don’t know why you are talking about albedo.
But more importantly, if your argument is that the GPE is not an analog for the GHE, then that is your argument.
In the GPE, the green plate is shielded by the sun. It’s not a good analogue for the atmosphere, because the atmosphere is not shielded from the sun – and in fact shields the surface from some sunlight.
The GPE’s sole function is to demonstrate that a warm object can become even warmer when a cooler one is introduced to a system. That is the limit of its connection to the GHE.
It’s utility lies in its simplicity. A proper analogue using plates would be to insert a green plate between the sun and the blue plate that is transparent to sunlight but opaque to long wave radiation. But imagine the side-arguments that would set off. Simplicity is better – for the purpose described.
It is no longer possible for me to believe you are genuine, barry. And I *really* tried. Oh well.
But as it has been left, Kristian wrote several lengthy comments, and barry chose to respond to me instead.
Barry has a day job and will get to Kristian’s longer posts in time.
Whatever you say, barry.
Halp,
A repost of Postma. One that has already been rebutted? Talk about repetitive!
Do you not have your own arguments?
We have a very clear 1LOT violation, raised by me and Ball4. Then there are the contradictions.
His reposted post, As already discussed, is nonsensical. He misuses ‘equilibrium’ and he thinks relabeling heat flow as ‘not heat flow’ gets him out of his 1LOT and 0LOT violations.
FYI 0LOT requires a temperature difference to have heat flow (thus the need to relabel it!).
You need a new guru.
Just throwing this out there, if theres anyone (honest) out there, still bothering to read through at this stage:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/12/uah-global-temperature-update-for-november-20170-36-deg-c/#comment-276689
OK, well I will leave it now, for a while. Once a day, I will check in. Until then the professional liars can have their fun, doing their whole misrepresenting, lying, repeating, braying thing. Each time, I will come back and post a few links to comments already made, here and elsewhere, which refute the (already refuted) points that will be endlessly remade. This will continue until 31st December, when the discussion closes for comments. Of course, I wont bother over Christmas.
Nate, I don’t understand why Halp-less comments as if the error is in Halp-less comments when you quoted another commenter at another site making the mistake of missing the 2*Tg for N=2. Although Halp-less seems to agree with the other commenter (thereby missing the simple mistake), Halp-less does cite material that is agreed with & where the 1LOT balance for the green enclosure is shown correct after all with N=2 in their formula.
Not worth pursuing further imo, the correct solution is available in Halp-less text citation who cares if another commenter elsewhere made a mistake.
Oh OK, one last comment for today. Ball4 must not have noticed the text on Page 21 e.g. radiation leaving the entire surface 1 that strikes surface 2, and radiation leaving the entire surface 2 that strikes surface 1. I already called him on this, of course, mentioning earlier that the two sides of the green plate are facing away from each other. So there will obviously be no radiation leaving surface 1 of the green plate striking surface 2 of the green plate. And no radiation leaving surface 2 of the green plate striking surface 1 of the green plate. His solution was to simply state that the two surfaces of the green plate could just be pulled apart and turned to face each other. Then he can get his N=2. Of course, that in no way reflects any physical reality, but it enables Ball4 to make a (still nonsensical) claim. Still nonsensical, because we are attempting to solve for the surfaces *between the blue and green plates*, anyway. Page 25.
Ill come back tomorrow to check on the next delightful outpouring of paid nonsense from the Ball-er that this comment will likely bring.
“So there will obviously be no radiation leaving surface 1 of the green plate striking surface 2 of the green plate.”
Correct Halp-less you are making progress, that’s why those subscript cross terms do not show up in the formula, they are zero as you imply, the green plate does not radiate to itself:
p. 21, 24: sum Q for green = 0 = sigma * (1*Tb^4 – 2*Tg^4)
“And no radiation leaving surface 2 of the green plate striking surface 1 of the green plate.”
Yep, right again, that cross term is zero also way to go Halp-less. Good work!
“His solution was to simply state that the two surfaces of the green plate could just be pulled apart and turned to face each other.”
Nope, you backslide there Halp-less. One green plate surface say call it N=1 radiates to deep space presumably, the other N=2 surface to blue plate. Two surfaces! Just what your citation formula needs for input.
“we are attempting to solve for the surfaces *between the blue and green plates*, anyway. Page 25.”
Yes, that’s the independent eqn. for the enclosure with BOTH plates, good job:
p. 25: sum Q for both = 0 = 400 – sigma * (1*Tb^4 + 1*Tg^4)
—–
p.21,24 is for the enclosure with just the green plate. Halp-less is slow at making progress at times and retaining stuff but with a little work and guidance Halp-less’ own citation can be thoroughly understood:
p. 21, 24: sum Q for green = 0 = sigma * (1*Tb^4 – 2*Tg^4)
Professional point-misser Ball4 says:
Nope, you backslide there Halp-less. One green plate surface say call it N=1 radiates to deep space presumably, the other N=2 surface to blue plate. Two surfaces! Just what your citation formula needs for input.
J Halp: Great. Except the blue plate is obviously not within the green plate enclosure. Nor is this object you like to refer to as space. But if you want to continue with this contorted logic, you could just as easily say:
One blue plate surface, say call it N=1 radiates to deep space, in the hemisphere of available directions that wont strike the sun (other than directly perpendicular to the plate, basically). The other N=2 surface to green plate. Two surfaces! Just what your citation formula needs for input. Lets multiply both terms by two. Or why not 102?
And Ive made a similar point to that to you, as well, already. Lets just repeat ourselves until the discussion closes for comment.
You guys are focussed on the formal egns which are easily misinterpreted, it seems to me.
It is simpler, imo, to look at the green plate and see 2 flux arrows coming out, and one coming in. They must sum to 0. Straightforward logic.
The arguments opposed to this are neither simple or logical.
“One blue plate surface, say call it N=1 radiates to deep space, in the hemisphere of available directions that won’t strike the sun (other than directly perpendicular to the plate, basically). The other N=2 surface to green plate. Two surfaces!”
YES, of course, Halp-less this is keen insight on your part.
You could very well write a 2nd eqn. for just the blue plate enclosure p.21,p24 in addition to p. 25 eqn. and get two eqn.s two unknowns solvable problem instead of having used the green plate enclosure formula. Why don’t you use p.21,24 of your own cite to write out the eqn. for the blue plate enclosure for practice.
“Let’s multiply both terms by two. Or why not 102?”
Simply because that’s not the formula given in your own cite.
You multiply the green plate term by 2, and not the blue, because?
Simply because that is what the formula in your own cite indicates p. 21.
If you want to look at it from the equivalent 1LOT balance, the green plate enclosure has 1 radiating surface of the blue plate toward the green plate (gain so +) and 2 surfaces radiating away from the green plate (loss so -), two ways to get there, viz:
sum Q for green = 0 = sigma * (1*Tb^4 2*Tg^4)
Dang site rules, better:
Simply because that is what the formula in your own cite indicates p. 21.
If you want to look at it from the equivalent 1LOT balance, the green plate enclosure has 1 radiating surface of the blue plate toward the green plate (gain so +) and 2 surfaces radiating away from the green plate (loss so -), two ways to get there, viz:
sum Q for green = 0 = sigma * (1*Tb^4 – 2*Tg^4)
The blue plate isnt in the green plate enclosure.
And the relevant formula is on page 25.
I know you want to change the radiative heat flow equation. But you cant.
Halp-less goes 2for2 quite an improvement. No minus signs, the site rules can’t get me either:
“The blue plate isn’t in the green plate enclosure.”
True. Just the blue plate radiation.
“And the relevant formula is on page 25.”
True.
p. 25: sum Q for both = 0 = 400 sigma * (1*Tb^4 + 1*Tg^4)
B: Just blue plate radiation
J: No indication of external radiation input on p. 21. Just 2 surfaces and radiation flowing between them.
B: [misrepresents solution derived from p. 25]
J: Correct solution already linked to.
“No indication of external radiation input on p. 21. Just 2 surfaces and radiation flowing between them.”
Yes, Halp-Less, as the formula shown results in:
p. 21: sum Q for green = 0 = sigma * (1*Tb^4 – 2*Tg^4)
“[misrepresents solution derived from p. 25]”
No misrepresentation, Halp-Less goes 1for2 this time, the formula shows:
p. 25: sum Q for both = 0 = 400 – sigma * (1*Tb^4 + 1*Tg^4)
which is consistent with 1LOT.
You are now just going for the repeatedly assert you are correct, game, I see.
OK. I am correct. You can now respond that you are correct. Then I will respond that I am. We will do this, constantly (no break for rest, food, drink etc) until 31st December, right up until it closes for comments, whoever just happens to randomly have the last word, wins it all. Why not? Makes as much sense as this discussion.
“You are now just going for the repeatedly assert you are correct, game.”
No game, I only assert your own cite is correct on p. 25 and p. 21 as is the 1LOT equilibrium balance so they naturally agree with each other. Whether Halp-less agrees is immaterial. Both cited text and 1LOT agree as both approaches give the same answers:
p. 21: sum Q for green = 0 = sigma * (1*Tb^4 – 2*Tg^4)
p. 25: sum Q for both = 0 = 400 – sigma * (1*Tb^4 + 1*Tg^4)
I am correct. Whether Ball4 agrees is immaterial. As per page 25 of the linked cite, and the correct solution as already linked to.
OK, now you go again. Next time I might just link back to this comment, so its even quicker.
halp,
The how do you account for this?
It is simpler, imo, to look at the green plate and see 2 flux arrows coming out, and one coming in. They must sum to 0. Straightforward logic.
Theres no more reason for Ball4 to refer to page 21, than there is page 26. And whats that on page 29? Infinitely large parallel plates? Oh, that sounds familiar. Were back to here again:
https://climateofsophistry.com/2017/10/06/slayers-vindicated-by-additional-independent-researchers/#comment-31395
Because at the relevant part in that explanation we are looking at the radiative heat transfer *between the blue and green plates* (i.e, at that point, the transfer between the sun and the blue plate is already discussed). We are *not* looking at the green plate in isolation as that is not even necessary. That the other side of the green plate (facing space) will radiate based on the temperature the green plate has come to, of course goes without saying (as per the S-B Law). You see, the radiative heat transfer equation already contains that, i.e already takes that into account, in any case.
So, with todays repeat of already-explained refutations of already-raised objections done, that will be it until tomorrow. This will continue until 31st December, with a break for Christmas of course.
“I am correct.”
Immaterial. Halp-less own cite is materially correct.
“Whether Ball4 agrees is immaterial.”
True.
What is material being both your cited text with N=2 for green plate enclosure and 1LOT balance agree as both approaches result in the same answers:
p. 21: sum Q for green = 0 = sigma * (1*Tb^4 – 2*Tg^4)
p. 25: sum Q for both = 0 = 400 – sigma * (1*Tb^4 + 1*Tg^4)
Halp, another repost of Postma. Thats your go to for all.
You realize you are doing this:
“receiving an answer to a question, ignore that answer, show no ability to take on new knowledge from that answer and incorporate it into their reasoning, and instead simply repeat their original” posting
‘Since this would indicate either learning disabilities or deliberate sophistry’
Maybe would be best to self-ban.
“We are *not* looking at the green plate in isolation as that is not even necessary. ”
This is the KEY CCONFUSION Halp.
1LOT requires that it be satisfied for EACH object, even the Green plate.
Each object is receiving or emitting energy, and if its temp is fixed, then the sum of inputs and outputs must = 0.
This is the law.
Kristian,
Nice description of Climate of Sophistry blog. You have drilled down to the essence.
https://okulaer.wordpress.com/2015/01/19/postmas-confusion/
OK, so what are the comments to link to for today. Well, theres this one again, obviously:
https://climateofsophistry.com/2017/10/06/slayers-vindicated-by-additional-independent-researchers/#comment-31395
And I will quote a specific part of the comment this time, due to the fact that liars who strangely seem to like revealing to anyone reading that they are dishonest, often choose to pretend that the words they have already been directed to countless times do not exist, unless you actually spell them out:
J.P: In the above correct solution, I utilize the laws of heat flow and hence the 2nd Law. You ignore the 2nd Law and claim that your solution is correct because you believe youve used the 1st Law. Your solution is therefore insufficiently based in reality, and hence wrong. Please read the above solution and the next post until you understand.
J.H: Ah, the next post. Yes, thats a good idea (read both until they are understood):
https://climateofsophistry.com/2017/10/19/the-steel-greenhouse-in-an-ambient-temperature-environment/
Once again, lets make sure some specific words are quoted, lest the liars pretend they dont exist:
J.P: The steel greenhouse is one of the best models for demonstrating the impossibility and hence non-existence of the radiative greenhouse effect of climate alarmism. The steel greenhouse has every foundation necessary for it to demonstrate a radiative greenhouse effect, yet, when the model is solved utilizing the law of conservation of energy *and* the definition of heat and thermal equilibrium, no alarming greenhouse effect manifests. Resting upon this basis, climate politics and a large part of climate science itself is rendered defunct.
The standard derivation of the radiative greenhouse effect, by the climate alarmists, arrives at a different solution because it doesnt utilize the definition and equation for heat flow and thermal equilibrium; it *does* utilize conservation of energy, and by this it seeks to claim a sufficient foundation for legitimacy, but without utilizing the definition of heat flow and thermal equilibrium the laws of thermodynamics are incomplete and thus a solution ignoring them is likewise incorrect. Their error seems to rest solely upon the problem as stated in the thermodynamics text by Schroeder, of confusing energy with heat.
J.H: I guess it should be added (though it ought to be self-evident) that arbitrarily altering the radiative heat transfer equation to fit your narrative, and redefining the concept of thermal equilibrium for the same purpose, are *not* honest actions, to be taken seriously by anyone.
Well, thats it for another day. Those Paid Liars that wish to take advantage of the lack of response over that time period, can now prove their dishonesty by doing so, if they wish. Good PL tactics in this situation would be to continue to ask questions or raise points that have already been answered/refuted, in the hope it comes across like the lack of a repeated answer is conceding the point (even though the PLs know it will be only temporary, they settle for at least having 24 hours where it might come across that way, to their all-important audience).
I must give Halp credit for engaging with us non-believers.
A forensic analysis shows, imo, the exact moment when the confusion arises in JP analysis, if Halp would care to know.
Halp was correct when he said this about JP discussion:
“Because at the relevant part in that explanation we are looking at the radiative heat transfer *between the blue and green plates* (i.e, at that point, the transfer between the sun and the blue plate is already discussed).”
JP says:
“for this geometry the heat flow equation between the blue and green plate is simply
Q = sigma * (Tb^4 Tg^4)”
Halp: “We are *not* looking at the green plate in isolation as that is not even necessary.”
But here is what JP says next:
“The green plate stops rising in temperature when Q = 0, i.e. when the HEAT FLOW TO IT goes to zero which is thermal equilibrium. ”
Here he has made a subtle shift from the B-G flow to JUST considering the GREEN PLATE and HEAT FLOW to it. This is the MISTAKE. (plus ‘equilibrium’ but nevermind)
Its temperature will indeed stop rising when NET heat flow to it = 0. NET heat flow to Green plate must include heat emitted by it to space! This flux is MISSING from the equation. Q as he shows it is not NET.
He goes on:
“Therefore when Q = 0 the green plate has a constant temperature of
0 = Tb^4 Tg^4
Tb = Tg
The green plate thus achieves the same temperature of the blue plate, and emits 200 W/m^2 on its outside, this conserving the input energy from the sun source.”
Only now does he admit there is another flow of heat from the GREEN plate, “200W/m^2 on its outside”
Do you see that this is a problem, Halp?
Halp the issue is now quite specific and basic. You have no response?
What comments to link to today…hmmm. So, lets go back to this persons comment, where they themselves quote J.P:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/12/uah-global-temperature-update-for-november-20170-36-deg-c/#comment-276685
J.P: Qsp-sh going to zero does not mean that energy is not being transferred; the heat equation contains the Stefan-Boltzmann terms which shows that the objects are indeed always emitting. It is just that the energy no longer acts as heat, i.e. no longer does any work. The energy is then emitted to the outside of the shell, to space, conserving energy.
J.H: Lets zoom in on something important:
J.P: the heat equation contains the Stefan-Boltzmann terms
J.H: OK, now lets repeat a quote from one of my own comments, here:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/12/uah-global-temperature-update-for-november-20170-36-deg-c/#comment-276870
J.H: We are *not* looking at the green plate in isolation as that is not even necessary. That the other side of the green plate (facing space) will radiate based on the temperature the green plate has come to, of course goes without saying (as per the S-B Law). You see, the radiative heat transfer equation already contains that, i.e already takes that into account, in any case.
J.H (additional): Can you see how much it is necessary to spell out the exact words!? I mean…they were right there, all along. Lets zoom in again:
J.H: (as per the S-B Law). You see, the radiative heat transfer equation already contains that, i.e already takes that into account, in any case.
J.P (zoomed in): the heat equation contains the Stefan-Boltzmann terms
J.H (zoomed in): (as per the S-B Law). You see, the radiative heat transfer equation already contains that, i.e already takes that into account, in any case.
J.H (additional): Why should it be necessary to direct people to something, again and again, which has been staring them in the face this whole time? So peculiar. Unless, of course, you have been dealing with a P.L.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/12/uah-global-temperature-update-for-november-20170-36-deg-c/#comment-276940
That last ones only there for reference; hopefully the links in that comment might be helpful for understanding, especially in the difference between heat and energy, but for the whole GPE problem generally. It is *not* there to be partially quoted back, with bits deliberately taken out of context, whilst ignoring the relevant parts, or anything like that. No P.L tactics. Again, repeating already answered questions, or bringing up already refuted points, is just clear P.L territory. Its all already been dealt with, somewhere, you just have to look it up, and put all the pieces together. Those that actually *want* to understand, of course.
Future daily updates may just be links, with a little bit of explanation, from now on. The zooming in *should* be done by the reader, after all.
Halp,
This again:
“Qsp-sh going to zero does not mean that energy is not being transferred; the heat equation contains the Stefan-Boltzmann terms which shows that the objects are indeed always emitting. It is just that the energy no longer acts as heat, i.e. no longer does any work. ”
A reminder of 1st law dU = dQ-dW. It applies to isolated objects (eg Green plate). A change, dU, of objects corresponds to change in temperature, dT, in GREEN plate case. I believe we all agree on this? dQ is generally understood to be Net heat: all inputs-outputs.
Notice Heat and Work are only means of transferring energy in 1st law. There are no other terms!
JPs mysterious energy transfers, ‘the energy no longer acts as heat’, are NOT present in the first law.
So, as discussed above, your client JP, is violating the first law of thermodynamics.
His verbiage
His verbiage is just words strung together. They cannot explain away an incorrect equation.
Again when he says “The green plate stops rising in temperature when Q = 0”
He is clearly talking about the green plate’s internal energy being constant, dU =0.
Therefore 1st-law for this object states 0 = dQ – dW. Since no work is involved we have dQ = 0. Fine.
But dQ is universally understood to be NET heat to object. Nothing else would make sense.
Trying to be specific here. If you disgree, pls tell me what specifically I have said that you disagree with.
Halp,
Reply to the other points you raised, in hopes of finally putting them to bed.
“J.H: (as per the S-B Law). You see, the radiative heat transfer equation already contains that, i.e already takes that into account, in any case.
J.P (zoomed in): the heat equation contains the Stefan-Boltzmann terms”
The SB/heat transfer law and 1LOT are separate laws. BOTH must be satisfied. Heat transfer equation applied to B-G plate-pair gives one contribution to the NET heat going to green plate, the other contribution comes from heat transfer from GREEN plate to space.
This is just simple bean counting.
“J.H: We are *not* looking at the green plate in isolation as that is not even necessary. ”
JP is proving this wrong when he says The green plate stops rising in temperature when Q = 0, i.e. when the heat flow to it goes to zero”
1LOT must be satisfied for all objects.
If not, 1LOT gives us constraints we need to find a correct solution. We need at least 2 eqn to find the two temps. (see Ball-4 comments)
In looking through some discussions further upthread, I was able to find one particularly pertinent comment:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/12/uah-global-temperature-update-for-november-20170-36-deg-c/#comment-275729
Other than that…its funny, the more some people focus on specifics, the more they miss the big picture. Hard to know even what to link to any more, since everything has been covered already, and repeated multiple times now. I guess it can just go without saying that every prior link and comment can be considered repeated within each new update (if there are indeed going to be any more), without actually wasting time going through the motions of repeating all those links. I think the point about P.Ls liking to repeat already-answered questions, and raise already-refuted points, has been made (then proven) so many times now, theres little point repeating that either.
Another trick P.Ls like to pull, is to ask a question in such a way that a lack of response from their victim is supposed to indicate a particular answer, one way or another. They also like to repeat their already refuted points in any number of different permutations, or to put them across from a different frame of reference, to make it seem as though they are actually asking something new. This, they hope, will make it seem like evasion if their victim chooses not to once again answer what has already been asked. Hopefully all these tricks are self-evident, to any interested party.
So, if theres anyone honest out there, willing and able to learn…just read through it all until you understand, I guess. You know where to look. Heres another couple of links, just for fun:
https://climateofsophistry.com/2017/10/22/incomplete-thermodynamics/
https://climateofsophistry.com/2017/11/03/the-alarmist-radiative-greenhouse-effects-final-end/
Halp is apparently no longer interested in what nature is actually doing, what the science actually demands.
He has no answers for the quite specific problems that have been raised, other than to quote the Dark Lord Postma as if he is quoting scripture.
The problem is that these quotes contain glaring errors, the ones that we have been discussing. Hence repeating the quotes has no persuasive value.
Halp needs to find OTHER authoritative sources that confirm his beliefs on equilibrium, 1LOT, heat thats NOT heat, but he wont.
I am arguing, in essence, that that the science shows that the Earth is billions of years old. He just quotes bible verses that say the Earth is 6000 years old. I say how do you know its true? He says: the Lords words are infallible.
Thus Halp has moved into the realm of a religious argument. So we are at an impasse.
Heck, lets have two updates in one day. Why not?
PLs need to be aware of when they are taking part in a discussion, and when they are being made an example of.
PLs (or PBCCs: Pro Bono Climate Clowns) also need to be aware, that when they (either act like, or actually) dont understand the answers they have been given, pretending that they havent been given an answer at all does *NOT* come across well.
“that when they (either act like, or actually) dont understand the answers they have been given, pretending that they havent been given an answer at all does *NOT* come across well.”
Halp fails to ‘take in new information and incorporate into his thinking”
Such as: “The problem is that these quotes contain glaring errors, the ones that we have been discussing. Hence repeating the quotes has no persuasive value.
Halp needs to find OTHER authoritative sources that confirm his beliefs on equilibrium, 1LOT, heat thats NOT heat, but he wont.”
Halp believes repeated assertions from a blogger, that are demonstrably false are ‘answers’.
Halp is comfortable with an object emitting energy, yet remaining at a stable temperature. A clear 1LOT violation.
Halp thinks 1LOT need not apply to every object.
When Halp is shown that mysterious energy transfers do not appear in 1LOT, nor ANY equation, he has no answer.
Halp prefers a fantasy world to reality.
” of when they are taking part in a discussion, and when they are being made an example of.”
Halp needs to be aware that his incessant quoting of ‘scripture’ is exemplifying zealotry.
Halp has been given MANY specific answers as to why JPs arguments and answers are flawed, and he:
(either act like, or actually) dont understand the answers they have been given, pretending that they havent been given an answer at all does *NOT* come across well.
Once again, he does exactly the thing he accuses others of doing.
Its always a bit odd when PLs or PBCCs, after spending an inordinate amount of time in the position of the student, repeatedly questioning and challenging their victim in an apparent search for knowledge, try to spin the situation round completely to pretend their victim was the one looking to understand!
“after spending an inordinate amount of time in the position of the student, repeatedly questioning and challenging their victim”
Never heard of the Socratic method, Halp?
If you are a victim of anyone it is Postma, who many have argued is running a cult. I agree with this view.
“pretend their victim was the one looking to understand!”
Simply trying to expose you to facts and reality, no more no less. You seem to be quite satisfied with your beliefs, even though they don’t agree with ordinary thoroughly tested physics.
We have freedom of religion, so you can believe what you want. But nature does not agree with your beliefs.
Sometimes the PLs, or PBCCs, just get stuck on repeat. They can also seem to get a little obsessed with you. It can be unsettling, but try not to be alarmed. Its just their cognitive dissonance in action.
Halp I will not respond to you further.”
37 responses later:
Poster is “obsessed with me”.
Halp is conflicted. He’s definitely not here to discuss, debate or learn. What is his his purpose?
He had an opportunity to self-ban but couldn’t follow through. Maybe he should reconsider.
Also, having a PL/PBCC stuck on repeat can be very useful, when you are making an example out of them. So, its creepy, but its not all bad.
ocean tid bits has overall sea surface temperatures at
+.193 c lowest I have seen in sometime.
What is your prediction for next months UAH anomaly?
below +.30c
Back to the trend line, that’s a good guess.
Yes, that La Nina is really kicking in isn’t it.
But it is the overall sea surface temperatures that are falling all over the globe. That is what I am looking at.
It is funny isn’t it that it coincides with very low solar activity.
Now will albedo increase due to clouds/snow coverage and
major volcanic activity ? Will it kick in?
Do the overall sea surface temperatures continue to fall?
Latest was +.188c from ocean tid bits, and I think this
will translate to a decrease in global temperatures.
AO/NAO running negative as expected thus far due to neg qbo/low solar combination.
There is not much to say but wait and see.
Salvatore
Are we facing another Maunder Minimum?
I have found this site. It doesn’t give the source of the data. And it doesn’t seen to show any data before three months ago.
What is the source?
What kind of values were we getting during the 2011-12 La Nina? Your values mean nothing without an historical context. Where is ALL the data?
I wrote it down from the summer from that site.
So the only comparisons you have are from the past 6 months.
Meaning you (and the rest of us) have no idea how low this goes in La Nina conditions.
Yet somehow when it goes negative (and it will) you will try to claim that this is unprecedented and must be the result of reduced solar activity.
Unless I’m mistaking what “negative” refers to here, it’s by no means certain that the UAH monthly anomalies will go negative, even with a la Nina.
Sal’s prediction is that global anomalies through the NH summer of 2018 will, on average, be at or below the UAH baseline.
Formula for colder – higher albedo /lower overall sea surface temperatures.
Both caused by extreme low solar activity in my opinion.
Ren seems to have vanished again. I guess that means his little 3 day WEATHER event in the US has also disappeared.
Everyone needs a few days holiday at some point!
Indeed. I have been enjoying the sun 300 km from home for the past three days. But I suspect ren’s absence is more to do with having nothing to write about.
Proof that at low altitude the energy in the terrestrial EMR absorbed by CO2 is rerouted to water vapor has been hiding in plain sight. If you are up on the first law of thermodynamics, the meaning of thermal capacitance and a typical graph showing the notch in TOA radiation (i.e. http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/schmidt_05/curve_s.gif shown as Fig 1 in my blog/analysis) it is obvious. The notch demonstrates the wavelengths of EMR absorbed by CO2. The first law requires absorbed energy cannot just disappear. Thermal capacitance requires that it cannot accumulate. The only thing left is for the energy to be rerouted to water vapor.
As WV condenses out, mostly below about 10 km, CO2 comes back into play.
“As WV condenses out, mostly below about 10 km, CO2 comes back into play.”
That’s right, the significance of CO2 is above the VW.
Dang, atmospheric Volkswagens!
What will they think of next?
Well spotted, you give me a good laugh again!
Dan Pangburn
The way I have read this linked graph described is not how you see it.
The notch is not the wavelengths of EMR absorbed by CO2. All the EMR from the surface is absorbed by CO2 very quickly. The notch you see is not the surface EMR absorbed by CO2 and not making it to the satellite sensor, rather it is the energy emitted by much cooler CO2 at the higher levels of the atmosphere that are much colder. The energy absorbed by the CO2 does not disappear, it is thermalized as you correctly state. What I see as your error is that you do not accept that warmed CO2 in the lower atmosphere is a radiator of IR at the 15 micron range. At a given atmospheric temperature the CO2 in the atmosphere will radiate a certain amount of energy back to the surface to be absorbed by the surface.
From this link:
http://www.patarnott.com/atms411/pdf/StaleyJuricaEffectiveEmissivity.pdf
CO2 has an emissivity of around 0.19 at surface concentrations. There is an overlap with H2O. In wet areas CO2 may contribute 10% and in drier areas maybe around 20%
If you use this figure and take the average global downwelling IR at 340 W/m^2 you get a value of somewhere at 34 W/m^2 to 68 W/m^2.
This: “…error is that you do not accept that warmed CO2 in the lower atmosphere is a radiator of IR at the 15 micron range” is not an error. Thermalization prevents the ‘warmed CO2’ from significantly radiating. 0.0002 microsecs to start conducting, about 6 microsecs average to start radiating. Relaxation time is shorter at higher temperature.
The paper at the link is faulty. Thermalization prevents CO2 from significantly radiating at low altitude, i.e. surface level.
Norm,, that comment was to you, not sure why the indent did not work
Apparently I was not clear before. The notch is not the warm CO2 radiating, the notch is caused by the warm CO2 absorbing the radiation from the surface and not radiating anything because of thermalization. The issue is what happened to the energy that is ‘missing’ as demonstrated by the existance of the ‘notch’ but can not be destroyed or stored forever. The only rational answer is that, at low altitude, it got ‘redirected’ to wavelengths emitted by water vapor.
Dan Pangburn
I am not sure what logic you are using to conclude that thermalization prevents CO2 from significantly radiating at low altitude. You are stating that the IR the CO2 absorbs from the surface will become part of the overall K.E. of the atmosphere and its temperature. I would agree. But the K.E. of the surrounding air molecules will bump some CO2 molecules to higher vibrational states which will allow them to emit IR. It is both processes going on.
Here is an empirical view of the process. During the day the surface warms much faster than air above and will emit much more radiant energy so the NET IR gets more negative, surface is losing IR at a faster rate. At night the air and ground cool at similar rates and the grounds net loss is reduced. This graph really shows the process that the warm atmosphere both emits and absorbs like any other object. What it can absorb it will also emit.
https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/webdata/tmp/surfrad_5a2f56c5b9c3a.png
Think about it a bit. A hot surface has even shorter time before molecules bang into each other so by your logic a solid object could only absorb and not emit since the energy would be thermalized faster than it could be emitted. The molecules of a surface can do both, they can absorb incoming energy and some surface molecules absorb energy from other molecules around them and are bumped up to higher vibrational states and from there emit IR.
Norm,, The logic is pretty basic: Relaxation time is about 30,000 times longer on average than time between collisions. Collisions are usually glancing blows with the result that neither molecules ends up with enough energy to emit and there will be thousands more collisions before emission.
Radiation in gases is entirely different from liquids and solids. Radiation in gases depends on the Maxwell-Boltzmann distribution of molecule energy with radiation possible at only specific frequencies. Conceptually, there is empty space between bouncing molecules. What you call my logic is applicable. Solids and liquids radiate according to Stephan-Boltzmann law (T^4). No empty space between molecules, they just vibrate in place.
Attempt to fix format:
This is of course utterly wrong. Collisions not only continuously de-excite non radiatively a vibration-rotation excited CO2 molecule but they also continuously do excite molecules in ground state to one of their vibration-rotation excited states. Thats the mere essence of statistical mechanics !
At thermodynamic equilibrium both processes compensate and there always exists a fraction of the molecules in any given excited state with energy E given by a Boltzmann factor exp ( -E/kT) that increases very rapidly with temperature. This fraction is definitely important and non negligible at all near room temperature for vibration-rotationnal states of CO2 or H2O.
And now a small but sizable fraction of these excited molecules always manages to emit IR even if most of them do indeed de-exciteagain non radiatively in collisions ! Probability of radiative de-excitation is not zero and there are still a huge number of those excited molecules in any macroscopic sample. This is nothing else than the physical origin of thermal radiation of the gas (or any matter) at finite temperature T and is described by Plancks distribution.
Topic already addressed above.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/12/uah-global-temperature-update-for-november-20170-36-deg-c/#comment-274998
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/12/uah-global-temperature-update-for-november-20170-36-deg-c/#comment-275001
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/12/uah-global-temperature-update-for-november-20170-36-deg-c/#comment-275010
gammacrux
Best of luck to you teaching some actual physics on this blog. Your posts are exactly what I have been reading on the topic.
I do not think you will be successful. I am wondering if you will be able to teach Kristian. He seems by far the smartest of the skeptics of GHE but he is convinced his view is the true one and all others (including yourself that teach at the graduate student level and have actual published science) are idiots.
Most just make up a version of physics they got from one of their internet heroes and they will not look at textbook material that contradicts or points out flaws in the hero. Most of the hard core skeptics seem to be political and not scientific. They believe the evil NWO has poisoned the mind’s of science with pseudoscience (even though it works in real world applications of heat transfer) and they are just a group of super heroes that are out to save the world from this vast and malicious Conspiracy that is out to kill off most humainatiy by stating that the GHE is a real phenomena.
I like good Conspiracy theories but I will not let emotionalism destroy the scientific method and opt for made up physics.
Con-man, find a link that shows the spectrum of DWIR. Then, try to understand what that means.
That’s called “Mission Impossible”.
g*e*r*a*n
It does not mean much. The surface can absorb the same amount of DWIR it would be able to emit at the temperature of the atmosphere (Kirchhoff’s Law). It is not the spectrum that matters (which is nearly a complete blackbody spectrum save the atmospheric window which I believe is about 40 W/m^2 that go straight to space from the surface. The rest would be similar to a blackbody surface at the temperature of the atmosphere (which is 340 W/m^2 total).
Not sure where you are going with your post and it is highly likely you will not inform me on the endpoint. It is just what you do. I think if might have something to do with Claes Johnson paper that directly violates Kirchhoff’s law with its own made up version of physics that is unsupported by experiment and empirical evidence.
You might ask yourself why you dismiss the spectrum of DWIR. It almost appears as if you are running from the truth.
Claiming that ALL IR is absorbed ALWAYS if pure pseudoscience. You can mention Kirchhoff’s Law over and over again, but it does not mean that ALL IR is absorbed ALWAYS. It just means that you do not understand Kirchhoff’s Law. Just as you do not understand much physics.
But, keep pounding that keyboard and claiming to be an expert.
That’s hilarious.
g*e*r*a*n
One thing that is obvious with you is that any form of rational communication with you is not possible. That goes under you heading “Mission Impossible”.
Where do you ever see me stating “Claiming that ALL IR is absorbed ALWAYS if pure pseudoscience”?
I would not just say this statement is pseudoscience but just flat out wrong. Only a hypothetical surface of a Black-Body would absorb all incoming radiant energy. Real surfaces are grey. However if you have a surface (like Earth) that has an emissivity of around 0.95 overall, it will absorb 95% of the energy hitting its surface. If your DWIR averages 340 W/m^2 it means the Earth’s surface will absorb 323 W/m^2 that will be thermalized. If you read gammacrux posts the chance for a surface molecule to absorb and reemit before exchanging this added energy with surrounding molecules is very low.
I would not put myself in the same league as gammacrux but I am able to read and process scientific material. I would not consider myself an “expert” but I will consider your ideas to be crackpot made up physics with no basis in reality. Fantasy physics. So compared to you I am a high level expert. I don’t need to make up the physics I post, it comes straight from the textbooks. Open one of these once in a while and read up. You will see your physics is the only pseudoscience peddled here. It is made up crap by a couple of fanatics not interested in the Truth but obsessed with proving GHE wrong that any idea is valid as long as it proves GHE wrong. You fell into this trap and are a sucker. You make yourself look like an idiot when you post that crap here. Too many real scientists for you to fool.
Some that have the material you claim I do not, David Appell, gammacrux, Tim Folkers, Roy Spencer. Probably others as well. Maybe you should open your mind and read what they are posting, you would learn something.
Well con-man, that’s a long ramble, with nothing to show for the DWIR spectrum. But, that was somewhat predictable, wasn’t it?
Like someone stated “Mission Impossible”.
Hilarious.
g*e*r*a*n
Not only does your physics stink up this blog you also are unable to read and process information. I did clearly let you know that the DWIR spectrum would be the blackbody spectrum of a surface at the temperature of the atmosphere minus the portion that is the atmosphere window.
Here is a blog that has numerous measured spectra of DWIR.
I doubt it will mean much to you. So far you present yourself to be the least knowledgeable and least rational of the Hard Core Skeptics that do not believe the GHE is a real phenomena. Roy Spencer is skeptical of the extremes of AGW but he accepts GHE as valid and correct physics. You can’t understand it at all an make up your own physics to demonstrate your ignorance.
https://scienceofdoom.com/2010/07/24/the-amazing-case-of-back-radiation-part-two/
Well those spectra are supposed to be DWIR, but they are poor quality and poorly defined. But, considering you can’t do any better, what do the spectra indicate?
(This should be good.)
g*e*r*a*n
I do believe you have difficulty in communicating what you are seeking. You are asking for spectra of DWIR. You don’t like those given in the link above, how about this one.
http://patarnott.com/atms749/images/MeasuredRadianceReno.jpg
This is an empirical measured spectrum of DWIR at Reno.
It shows that the atmosphere is emitting like a warmed blackbody surface at the region water vapor and carbon dioxide emit (left side of graph). Then it shows the atmospheric window which emits very little IR then some more emission at the right side similar to a black body at the same temperature (I believe most of this is from water vapor).
You have asked for information. I have provided it. You really have not explained at all what your point to the request is. So what are you wanting to state or claim? The surface is able to absorb most of this DWIR given in the spectrum in the link.
The graphical representation is poorly done, but that’s not your fault, con-man. We don’t know if the spectrum is an average, or a one-time observation. We don’t know the ground/air temperatures during the data acquisition.
But, let’s try to continue.
The spectrum attempts to represent “back-radiation”. A BB curve for 288K has been overlaid on the spectrum. Notice that the energy represented by the spectrum is much less than 288K. Notice also that the peak-poser wavelength has shifted from the 288K curve. (If you can’t figure it out, the shifting represents a “cooling”.)
Even with this poor data, you should be able to discern that back-radiation has much less energy than surface radiation. And, noting the shift in peak-power, you should be concerned about your belief that the back-radiation will be absorbed by the surface.
g*e*r*a*n
Your concluding statement is not based upon any physics. Just a comment you made up.
HERE YOU STATE: “Even with this poor data, you should be able to discern that back-radiation has much less energy than surface radiation. And, noting the shift in peak-power, you should be concerned about your belief that the back-radiation will be absorbed by the surface.”
Yes backradiation would have less energy than the surface upwelling IR. That is well established and a known fact. Even if the two are the same temperature the atmosphere has a window where no energy is emitted so the DWIR has only small contributions in that band of wavelengths.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/bb/The-NASA-Earth%27s-Energy-Budget-Poster-Radiant-Energy-System-satellite-infrared-radiation-fluxes.jpg/1024px-The-NASA-Earth%27s-Energy-Budget-Poster-Radiant-Energy-System-satellite-infrared-radiation-fluxes.jpg
The DWIR is around 58 W/m^2 less than the upwelling IR. 398 for UPIR an 340 for DWIR.
First it is NOT my belief that the DWIR would be absorbed. It is established physics. Kirchhoff’s Law. You present absolutely nothing to show that the current physics is wrong. Stating that DWIR will not be observed by the surface is your own made up belief. It is not supported by any real physics and is like a fantasy you came up with. Give valid support or reasons for your thought process. You have never done so, you just continue to state this fantasy with zero evidence, no experiment, no links to valid science. I guess you believe that if you repeat falsehood enough and believe in them strongly, they suddenly and magically become true.
con-man believes: “First it is NOT my belief that the DWIR would be absorbed. It is established physics. Kirchhoffs Law.”
Con-man, you apparently are obsessed with Kirchhoff’s Law. And, as with most physics, you obviously don’t understand it. Kirchhoff’s Law is basically a subset of the 1 LoT. There is nothing mystical about it. It does NOT state that DWIR will be absorbed.
You just don’t have the technical background to understand.
But, keep pounding on that keyboard. I love the comedy.
g*e*r*a*n
Since you are pretending to be a master of the physical science of heat transfer than I would request you state Kirchhoff’s Law and what it is claiming in respect to radiant heat transfer.
You have yet to provide evidence that DWIR is not absorbed by the Earth’s surface. You have provided none. You give bluster and pretend you know something. That is not the same as providing evidence. You really don’t know do you. That is why you will not provide evidence of your completely false and made up declarations. Provide evidence not BS!
Con-man, since you are pretending to be a master of the physical science of heat transfer than I would request you state Kirchhoffs Law and what it is claiming in respect to radiant heat transfer.
You have yet to provide evidence that DWIR is absorbed by the Earths surface. You have provided none. You give bluster and pretend you know something. That is not the same as providing evidence. You really dont know do you. That is why you will not provide evidence of your completely false and made up declarations. Provide evidence not BS!
g*e*r*a*n
I ask for evidence of your position and you provide an echo chamber. Do you think you are clever for that response? Meaningless as are the vase majority of your posts. I guess you are reverting to your childhood in your drunken stupor. I do recall that parroting someone in grade school was a way students were able to upset someone. So I guess after chugging the 5th you revert to a grade school mentality. When grade school students advance to High School they try more advanced methods of annoying fellow students. The simplistic parroting method is too basic and only reflects the low IQ of those continuing to employ it.
There was a comic about you I used to read. Its title was Sad Sack. You are a a grade school mentality. I hope you put the booze away before it erodes your brain further.
https://www.comics.org/issue/223765/
Well con-man, it seems you have shifted away from the troublesome science, once again. As I stated upthread, “And, noting the shift in peak-power, you should be concerned about your belief that the back-radiation will be absorbed by the surface.”
Obviously you are concerned. That’s why the long, rambling attempts at ad-homs. You know you are physics-poor, and facts-deficent. All you have are your endless rants.
It’s fun to watch.
Norman
We agree of course, I am quite aware of it. And you obviously know what you talk about.
Just made an attempt with Dan Pangburn, I didn’t know him and his “kind” of GHE denying.
The other ones are so grotesque that they deserve no further comment.
gam,, Where did you get the false idea that I am a GHE denier? The GHE is what made the planet warm enough for life to evolve. The bogus idea is that CO2 has anything to do with it.
Dan, the GHE is pretty much defined as the radiative properties of gases like H2O, CO2 and CH4 causing warming of the surface by restricting the escape of thermal IR from the surface to space.
It is an oxymoron to accept that the greenhouse effect made the planet warm, but deny that greenhouse gases had anything to do with it!
–Tim Folkerts says:
December 12, 2017 at 7:21 PM
Dan, the GHE is pretty much defined as the radiative properties of gases like H2O, CO2 and CH4 causing warming of the surface by restricting the escape of thermal IR from the surface to space.
It is an oxymoron to accept that the greenhouse effect made the planet warm, but deny that greenhouse gases had anything to do with it!–
Water vapor is the main greenhouse gas.
There is no evidence that CO2 is needed to make water vapor, just as there is no evidence one needs CH4 to make water vapor.
There is CH4 and CO2 in comet, but water evaporates without them.
gbaikie, your post confuses me a bit. Everything you say is correct. But none of it addresses (let alone refutes) that CO2 is a greenhouse gas and as such helps keep the earth warm.
–Tim Folkerts says:
December 12, 2017 at 11:43 PM
gbaikie, your post confuses me a bit. Everything you say is correct. But none of it addresses (let alone refutes) that CO2 is a greenhouse gas and as such helps keep the earth warm.–
CO3 probably adds to insulative effect of atmosphere.
I tend think it’s less than 1 C per doubling, and it’s seems
to me Dan believes it’s less 1/2 C per doubling- which seems possible to me. If I had to guess I would say it’s somewhere around 1/2 C per doubling. And explains why it’s been difficult measure any temperature difference due rise of CO2 to it’s present level of about 400 ppm- because there more powerful factors affecting global average temperatures.
gbaikie
To make water vapor needs heat and high enough temperatures. If there were no CO2 at all in atmosphere, mean global temperature would be much lower and physics tells us that maximum possible water vapor in atmosphere drops rapidly with temperature by about 7 % / K. Hence water vapor content would drop too and so the associated greenhouse effect.
In other words the amount of water vapor greenhouse warming is by no means independent of CO2 and other non condensable GHG’s.
And the bare effect of a doubling of CO2 is known with good confidence since more than half a century. It’s about 1 (respectively 2) K assuming constant absolute (respectively relative) humidity.
What’s not seriously known with any confidence is the sensitivity in real climate system with all known, poorly known and unknown feedbacks taken into account. Climate is a complex system in a technical sense with a lot of emergent phenomena not predictable from first principles.
Tim continues his worn-out sales pitch: “But none of it addresses (let alone refutes) that CO2 is a greenhouse gas and as such helps keep the earth warm.”
Tim, you’re still trying to sell that old, busted-down, “used car”. Pound for pound, CO2 doesn’t “keep the earth warm” anymore than a bowl of fruit.
gammy states: “And the bare effect of a doubling of CO2 is known with good confidence since more than half a century.”
NOPE. There is no proof CO2 can raise Earth’s temperature. The only evidence is within the range of natural variability, and therefore inadmissible “in court”.
(But nice attempt at sounding authoritative there, gammy. You might even have fooled a 12-year-old, or two.)
Well, I sympathize with you, it’s true that the proof is actually beyond your grasp, grumpy.
Yet not at all a problem, it won’t prevent the earth from spinning.
More worrying is that there is no proof that grumpy is not a clown.
— gammacrux says:
December 13, 2017 at 2:57 AM
-gbaikie
There is no evidence that CO2 is needed to make water vapor-
To make water vapor needs heat and high enough temperatures.–
Earth distance is well within the solar system’s frost line. Mars is within it, and Mars has water vapor in it’s atmosphere, and Mars average global temperature is below -50 C [223 K].
Put lake on Mars and eventually it will evaporate- it might take thousand years [some people might think a lake would more quickly evaporate on Mars- and it depends upon size of lake. And large lake would increase the amount water vapor in the atmosphere of Mars.
Lots of lakes in Mars tropical region, will cause a higher amount water vapor in the tropical region, and should increase the air temperature in Mars tropics.
I think even fervent believers of Greenhouse effect theory,
would agree. They wouldn’t understand why it increases average air temperature. But in pseudo science of cargo cult, they understand that airplanes bring cargo.
“If there were no CO2 at all in atmosphere, mean global temperature would be much lower and physics tells us that maximum possible water vapor in atmosphere drops rapidly with temperature by about 7 % / K. Hence water vapor content would drop too and so the associated greenhouse effect.”
First the obvious, there is hardly any CO2 in Earth’s atmosphere. You can’t get rid of CO2. If you could reduce CO2 levels to below 150 ppm, you would kill plant life, then thereafter CO2 levels would increase. Or Earth lack of CO2 is evidence for space aliens, that Earth has plant life.
But in the sterile world without any CO2, water would evaporate. If water didn’t evaporate as much, one would have less rain clouds.
If you have more clouds in the tropics then we have currently,
most people would assume the tropics would have lower average temperature. Though one might think to have more clouds in the tropics requires the tropics to be warmer. But the simple fact is when there is more clouds in tropics- during the season of where there is more clouds- it tends to be a bit cooler.
And less clouds tend to have warmer days in the tropics- your highest daytime air temperatures will have clear skies.
So we state what would interesting or difficult to argue against: cloudiness in the tropics affects air temperature.
And I don’t have any evident the CO2 levels in tropics affects air temperature. Though what is actually more relevant is that CO2 doesn’t affect ocean surface temperatures- warmer water evaporates more than cooler water.
No one says a ground surface or water surface gets warmer due to CO2. The ground can get to 70 C due to sunlight and max water temperature is about 35 C- due to sunlight [and evaporation preventing a higher temperature [or water hose, or black plastic bag filled with water can reach 70 to 80 C- in sunlight because one is preventing the evaporation of the water.
gbaike,
A climate simulation does better job than hand-waving for determining what would happen if non-condensable gases go to 0. It shows Earth gets 50% covered with ice and temp dropping 30C.
http://science.sciencemag.org/content/330/6002/356.full
https://www.indy100.com/article/remote-religion-planes-sky-7382991
Excellent model:
https://meaningness.com/metablog/upgrade-your-cargo-cult
Gbaike,
Pretty pathetic…
Comparing religious beliefs of indigenous peoples to solid research that applies the laws of physics to the Earth, peer reviewed and published in a top journal, built on lots of previous work.
A bit of a leap. How bout working to find the flaws that you see in the paper?
g*e*r*a*n
If you will take the time to view this link you will see that your friends at PSI are the deluded ones.
Here is an empirical test done with detailed measurements. It is done in a vacuum to eliminate conduction and convection so the only energy transfer is from EMR.
https://www.avs.org/AVS/files/61/61088ed4-a189-469b-9393-fba7570c8e76.pdf
This testing demonstrates you are on the wrong side of reality when you believe (strongly but totally incorrect) that the energy from a cold surface will not be absorbed by a hotter one. The tests in the link demonstrate you are wrong and if you continue to peddle your false version of reality you are a lunatic or a drunk. Wrong either way.
This is your chance to learn real physics.
Con-man, you have conned yourself once again.
There is nothing wrong with the experiment. There is something wrong with YOUR interpretation of it. Nothing in the experiment demonstrates that I am wrong.
The experiment isn’t even about a cold surface warming a hotter one.
But, combined with all your put-downs, it is one of your more hilarious comments. Keep it up.
Norman, more nice data demonstrating that the temp of surroundings matter.
Regarding how G* will respond, see here:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/12/uah-global-temperature-update-for-november-20170-36-deg-c/#comment-276275
Tim’s description of the GHE has once again made me think of energy moving from surface to space as a current.
“GHE is pretty much defined as the radiative properties of gases like H2O, CO2 and CH4 causing warming of the surface by restricting the escape of thermal IR from the surface to space.”
The current’s speed would be based on the average time this takes. Distance from surface to space is about 60 miles. Slower means more energy would accumulate in the atmosphere.
Here’s a simple example of how the speed of a current affects accumulation:
let’s say cars are entering a 100 mile section of freeway at a rate of 1 car per second. If their average speed is 60 MPH, there will be 6000 cars within that 100 mile stretch. If their average speed is 120 MPH, there will only be 3000 cars.
Let’s say there’s road construction, and the cars slow down to an average of 30 MPH. Soon there will be 12,000 cars! ( assuming a constant rate of entry: 1 car/sec). This is the basic math of a traffic jam.
The same concept can be seen in all sorts of currents. For example, water might be moving at 10 MPH in a river. When it slows down, the river widens or forms a lake…..slower means more water accumulates.
Ive mentioned something similar before, but if the cars were moving at the speed of light, more often than not, there would be NO cars on that stretch of freeway.
I forgot to emphasize that whether there are 12,000 cars traveling at 30 MPH, or 3000 cars doing 120, the rate of cars entering and leaving the area (input/output) is exactly the same.
I like the traffic analysis, and analogy..
Thanks, Nate
Norman: in the experiment you are linking where do you seein the results that the cold is increasing the temperature of the warm?
esalil
The equilibrium temperature of the rod gets to a higher temperature because it is absorbing additional energy from the surroundings as well as energy supplied by electrical heater.
I will try this approach to see if it makes sense to.
Take the rod in the vacuum with just surroundings as the only source of energy to the rod. You will agree the rod is absorbing energy from the surroundings as it will reach an equilibrium temperature with its surroundings. If you put a rod with a temperature of 250 K into the surrounding tube with a temperature of 300 K the rod will absorb energy from the surroundings and warm up (increase temperature) until it reaches 300 K. It will not stop absorbing energy from the surroundings, all that happens is it is now emitting energy at the same rate it is absorbing it so it reaches an equilibrium temperature of 300 K.
Now if you add power to the rod it will increase in temperature above the surroundings until it is emitting at a rate that equals the input energy.
If you do the same thing but have the surroundings at 100 K instead of 300 the , the rod will reach only 100 K. Now adding the same power to this rod will not reach the same temperature of the rod with 300 K surroundings. It will be losing heat at a much faster rate surrounded by 100 K walls as compared to the 300 K walls.
Think of it like this. The temperature of the surroundings establishes a baseline temperature.
The different cold surroundings will each cause a different equilibrium temperature to be reached by a powered rod. That means one cold will lead to a warmer equilibrium temperature as compared to a coler one.
Con-man, you’ve done it again. You’ve demonstrated you have no technical background, and you have no understanding of thermodynamics.
1) The surroundings are NOT warming the rod. Study the temperature charts. The rod warms the tube.
2) Almost everything you pounded out above is WRONG! The equilibrium temperature of the rod is determine by the supply power, NOT the temperature of the tube.
Don’t ever learn any physics. You’re too funny as you are now.
g*e*r*a*n
2) YOU: “2) Almost everything you pounded out above is WRONG! The equilibrium temperature of the rod is determine by the supply power, NOT the temperature of the tube.”
No g*e*r*a*n. It is determined by both. You are clearly wrong and demonstrate your own lack of any physics or understanding at all of heat transfer. Your made up physics just does not work in reality. Sorry.
1) YOU: “1) The surroundings are NOT warming the rod. Study the temperature charts. The rod warms the tube.”
You are correct, the surroundings are not warming the rod. The surroundings result in a higher equilibrium temperature. Sorry you just don’t know any physics and there is no way for you to learn real physics. Nothing I can do about that. I can read your made up physics and false declarations. I can link you to several textbooks stating your view is wrong. It won’t matter. You will be the same tomorrow as today.
Hilarious!
“equilibrium temperature of the rod is determine by the supply power, NOT the temperature of the tube.”
Close G*, the equilibrium temperature of the rod is determine by the supply power AND the temperature of the tube.
Another opportunity to see your by now favorite equation in action:
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/thermo/stefan.html
Don’t squander it.
Nate, you’re keeping your comments to 10 lines or less! You’re learning. The more you pound on that keyboard, the dumber you look.
And, I’m glad you are still studying that link. You were having so much trouble learning the descriptive term for the equation. Once you learn how to refer to the equation, then you can learn how it is used.
The learning never stops.
The requirement that the intellectual g*n*a*t will only respond to comments that are 10 lines or fewer is truly remarkable for someone who claims to have expertise in physics. I wish he would keep to his word.
If his concentration span is that limited, then it is patently obvious that this gnat has not read a scientific publication beyond the first couple of lines, if at all. On occasions an abstract may be that short but that is as far as he would get.
The most prestigious shorter form publications in physics are found in the journal phys rev. letters but they are invariably longer than his attention span.
I am not aware of a physics journal that would meet g*nat’s requirements unless there are journals with names such as phys.rev. tweets or phys. rev. haikus in existence.
Phys. Rev. sonnets would obviously not be appropriate for the g*nat.
The only obvious exception would be in the popular press particularly the tabloid press where he might find articles that he could cope with. This must he where he obtains his scientific information.
Norman: The temperature of the polished stainless steel was 533,8 K and the wall 338.7 K while that of oxidized stainless steel was 528.8 K and the wall 378.6 K. The higher the wall temperature the lower the rod temperature just opposite to your claims. The reason for this result obviously is that oxidized steel has more surface area than polished steel thus radiating more and losing more heat leading to lower temperature.
esalil
The comparison you are attempting does not negate my claim.
The emissivities of the two rods are considerably different. The polished stainless steel is around 0.32 while the oxidized rod is around 1.o.
The results you are interpreting are based upon this.
The polished rod emits a third of the radiant energy as the oxidized rod at the same temperature. The lower emission is why the wall is cooler but the rod it hotter. The surface areas of both rods are stated to be the same size with the same surface area.
If you used the polished rod and cooled the wall in a series of experiments you would see the equilibrium temperature of the rod decrease or alternatively, if you increased the temperature of the wall (but still colder than the rod temperature) you would increase the equilibrium temperature of the rod.
If you have different emissivities you have to take that into consideration in your discussion because it is not an apples to apples situation.
Con-man, circular rambling won’t help your failed pseudoscience. Pounding on that keyboard endlessly will not make you smart.
For your next comedy routine, consider using the radiative heat transfer equation on the equilibrium values in figure 2 (I get about 275 K and 70 K). Your results should be hilarious.
” using the radiative heat transfer equation on the equilibrium values in figure 2 (I get about 275 K and 70 K)”
Figure 2 shows temperatures. You calculated temperatures using temperatures? Huh?
Show your work, G*. Maybe you’ll get partial credit.
(Poor Nate, he understands nothing about that equation.)
Nate, the values were my interpretations from the graph. You need those values to solve for the flux.
But, you will not be able to understand.
G* as usual, you make little sense.
‘Interpretations’ of temps in graph somehow give very different temps? Huh?
You get no partial credit unless you show what you calculated and how.
Did you notice eqn 4 in the paper? Are you using that one? Still invalid?
Okay Nate, you obviously want a chance in the spotlight. Here’s your big break.
You calculate the equilibrium flux from Figure 2. I’ll even help by taking out the trick I left for the con-man. The temps are in Celsius, not K. That is, 275 C and 70 C. What is the flux?
Best of luck.
g*e*r*a*n
With the values you supplied the heat transfer from the rod to the wall is around 29 Watts. I think the actual value they give is lower because they also use slightly lower equilibrium temperatures than you did.
Con-man, “power” is not “flux”. Why are you trying to avoid your favorite equation? Maybe, like several others, you do not know how to apply it.
Hilarious.
g*e*r*a*n
In my first attempt I did not take in the lower emissivity for figure 2 which they give as 0.323.
It is not my “favorite” equation. It is just the basic established equation for heat transfer from a surface. It will get more complex when you add view factors. They are not adding the view factor in the experiment.
Using the basic equation. You are seeking the heat transfer from the heated rod. How much heat energy q is it losing?
q?= (0.007m^2)(0.323 emissivity)(5.67×10^-8)(543^4-343^4)
q? = (0.007m^2)(0.323 emissivity)(5.67×10^-8)(73,094,645,600)
q? = (0.007m^2)(0.323 emissivity)(4,144.5)
q? = (0.007m^2)(1,338.7)
q = 9.37 Watts
If you want it in a flux you have to divide the total watts by the surface area.
flux = W/m^2 = 9.37/0.007 = 1338.6 W/m^2 would be the flux.
Norman: I took the temperatures as they are presented in the report. Nowhere is stated that the area of the rods are identical. Oxidized metals are rough polished are smooth, you must have seen by yourself. Rough has larger surface than the corresponding smooth.
1) If the rod is only emitting 9.37 Watts, where does the other 20.63 Watts go?
2) Does glass have the same emissivity as polished stainless steel?
3) Why does the temperature of the rod remain flat after reaching equilibrium, but the glass continues to warm?
Hilarious.
(Don’t forget to rant and rave this time. That makes it even funnier.)
g*e*r*a*n
1) I had already told you that I did not take in emissivity in the first run with 29 watts. The electric heater is only providing 9.37 watts to the polished rod.
2) No the emissivity given for the rod is 0.323, the emissivity of glass is around 0.9 to 0.95.
3) I am not sure what you are looking at with the graphs. The temperature of the glass wall seems to reach a flat line as well. A delay in reaching the equilibrium temperature could easily be explained by different heat capacities of the two materials. Both seem to reach equilibrium to me. What part of the blue graph keeps going up? From my vision it looks like the blue temperature line reaches flat-line at around 25 minutes.
What is the nature of your points? What are you attempting to ask of me?
esalil
In the Experimental Procedure part of the test they describe all the rods to be the same size. The difference in surface area between rough and smooth may be considered insignificant for the information needed for the experiment.
Con-man, your avoidance of the question is hilarious.
“1) I had already told you that I did not take in emissivity in the first run with 29 watts. The electric heater is only providing 9.37 watts to the polished rod.”
Norm, the experiment is working with close to 30 Watts. Read, understand, and get back to me.
Two more unanswered questions to go, before we get to the tough stuff.
Hilarious.
g*e*r*a*n
You may want to study the experiment in greater detail before you choose to make fun of someone. It makes you attack a little more credible. Here: “2.78*3.63” that is the power used in heating the polished steel rod which comes out around 10 Watts.
https://www.avs.org/AVS/files/61/61088ed4-a189-469b-9393-fba7570c8e76.pdf
Look at equation 8 under Table one and you will see the amount of energy added for this test.
This is the physics you do not understand. The experimenters are trying to get the rod temperature in the range of 240 C to 290 C.
If the rod has a very low emissivity it will lose energy at a very low rate so the same amount of power input would raise its temperature to much higher levels.
I know you can’t grasp this concept. It is well established physics. It works well in everyday applications of heat transfer. Sorry I can’t help you on this. I can explain it to you. Link you to valid sources. That is about all I can do. If you choose not to be able to understand there is not much I am able to do.
g*e*r*a*n
Your tough stuff is nothing at all. Made up physics is very easy. You can make up anything you want and it is true.
You make the claim that a powered blue plate and an unpowered green plate (the Eli arrangement) will reach the same temperature. You offer zero evidence for such a belief, you call real physics pseudoscience but what you post is the very definition of pseudoscience.
Again (I have already linked this for you since you don’t know how to use the word properly).
“Pseudoscience consists of statements, beliefs, or practices that are claimed to be scientific and factual, in the absence of evidence gathered and constrained by appropriate scientific methods.”
Okay you have not gathered the slightest bit of evidence. You have zero valid equations, you have zero experimental evidence. You make statements with zero backing of any kind and you don’t see this as real pseudoscience?
Cxn-man, you may want to review the experiment:
“In the course of the experiment, the experimental rod is heated to a maximum temperature of about 290 C and the wall of the experimental tube experiences a maximum temperature of only about 80 C. The power input for the nichrome wire reaches a maximum power of about 30 watts, with a current of approximately 5 A and a voltage of 6 V.”
Hilarious.
And con-man, I see you are already trying to obfuscate the 3 questions. Running for cover?
Hilarious.
g*e*r*a*n
Maybe you missed the post. I answered your questions.
What is your point?
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/12/uah-global-temperature-update-for-november-20170-36-deg-c/#comment-276561
Con-man, you must account for all the energy. In Figure2, for the equilibrium temperatures given, it is safe to assume there was close to 25 Watts going into the rod. You have not accounted for all that energy. As usual, you are lost in your pseudoscience.
G* ‘hilarious’ is your go to adjective, no matter what. Not hilarious, just an experiment, with all the non-idealities and uncertainties. heat loss through conduction, variations in emissivity, etc.
Nate, purposeless rambling is good, but you need to throw in some pseudoscience to be really funny.
Spend more time studying the con-man. He’s really good.
Gam,, I have a bone to pick with you. Up-thread you asserted that I was wrong. Fair enough. I have been wrong before. I often say I hope it is not the last time.
But then you go on to say of course. That is blatant ego polishing arrogance which has no place in a discussion ostensibly searching for truth.
The irony is you then go on to say essentially the same thing I did regarding thermalization but add a description about what I call reverse-thermalization in my blog/analysis. I am fully cognizant of the whole scenario of jostling gas molecules (Maxwell-Boltzmann distribution of velocity).
Something must be missing from that scenario. The evidence something is missing is the notch centered on CO2 at wavenumber 667 in TOA graphics such as Fig 1 in by blog/analysis (which was copied from http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/schmidt_05/curve_s.gif).
Areas on Fig 1 represent energy. Where did the energy go that is missing, resulting in the notch? The only thing that makes sense to me is it got redirected to the lower energy (longer wavelength) photons emitted by water vapor molecules. This appears to be corroborated by the graphics produced by Hitran2012 as shown at Figs 0.4 and 0.5 in my blog/analysis.
This is substantially my rationalization for not talking about reverse-thermalization here now.
Your link doesn’t work for me, but I guess you talk about this.
http://climatemodels.uchicago.edu/modtran/modtran.doc.html
A few remarks:
– The CO2 notch shape in radiance curve merely reflects closely the profile of CO2 absorp.tion versus wavenumber. The larger the absorp.tion , the shorter the mean free path of an IR photon and thus the higher the mean altitude of emission where such photons with this wavenumber indeed manage to escape to outer space. Emission from lower layers is systematically reabsorbed by layers on top. Since higher layers are colder layers they emit less according to Planck’s law and this readily explains the CO2 notch.
Instead around 900 cm-1 ( atmospheric window and very little absorp.tion) emission manages to escape from near ground and hence radiance is larger because emitting material is hotter.
– There are notches in radiance curve not only for CO2 but also CH4, O3 and H2O. They are less marked for the latter because absorp.tion bands are broader, not centered near maximum thermal emission and emission by water vapor originates at lower altitudes (air is dry at higher altitudes) and thus from hotter layers.
– I can’t see why you want to put H2O and CO2 on a different foot. When CO2 absorbs upwelling IR at 700 cm-1 in lower layers it is indeed thermalized and some energy ends up exciting N2, O2 and H2O vibrational states among other feats.Yet the converse is true as well !
When H2O absorbs upwelling IR at 400 cm-1 or 1500 cm-1 in lower layers it is of course also thermalized and some of that energy ends up exciting N2, O2 and CO2 vibrational states.
One may add this:
Suppose as a thought experiment one removes suddenly all CO2 from atmosphere. The relevant notch in radiance would disappear too and IR emission increase around 700 cm-1.
Yet since this increases the total area below curve total radiance or IR energy leaving the system is now larger the energy coming in from sunlight. Hence the temperatures in climate system must drop so that thermal IR emission drop until the balance energy in = energy out is re-established and thus total area below radiance curve without CO2 notch returns to its value before CO2 removal. This is nothing else than the GHE at work.
Oups, one should read::
Yet since this increases the total area below radiance curve, total radiance or IR energy leaving the system is now larger than the energy coming in from sunlight.
Gammacruz — a great description of the problems with Dan’s arguments. I made some of the same points over on his blog, since it seemed more direct.
gam,, Thanks for explaining your reasoning. I think I follow it but consider this: The energy entering the atmosphere from the surface matches very closely the Planck spectrum for the temperature of the surface and emissivity about 0.99. For the range wavenumbers ~ 600-750 cm^-1 the power (energy rate) is about 0.42 W / m^2 / cm^-1 * 150 cm^-1 = 60 W/m^2. The power leaving at the notch is about 0.2 W /m^2 / cm^-1 * 150 cm^-1 = 30 W/m^2. The 60 30 = 30 W/m^2 that is not emitted at the wavenumber range 600-750 has to be emitted at other wavenumbers. The power which is emitted in that range could be from both CO2 and water vapor as a result of what I have been calling reverse thermalization occurring at higher altitudes (above 10 km or so).
Interesting comparison of the two graphs, Sahara vs what I am guessing is over ocean. The link worked for me but try clicking my name. If that works, the graph I am using is Fig 1.
“… 30 W/m^2 that is not emitted at the wavenumber range 600-750 has to be emitted at other wavenumbers.”
Yes! Exactly!
And the only way that extra power gets emitted at other wavenumbers/frequencies/wavelengths is for the other emitting regions to get warmer! These ‘other regions’ include the surface, which clearly implies that the surface would get warmer to help emit the extra 30 W/m^2 through the atmospheric window.
The ‘notch’ leads directly to a warmer surface.
No Tim, “other regions” does not mean the surface. Nice try, but “cold” cannot warm “hot”.
Dan Pangburn
Indeed, as pointed out by Tim Folkerts, your reasoning is quite telling and implies a warming of the earth surface in presence of CO2 or GHE…
Now let’s consider this more closely:
– Actually the total IR energy emitted at surface does not have to be and is not the same as the total IR emitted at top of the atmosphere. It is systematically larger precisely because of the GHE !
Indeed when one considers fig.1 in your blog article, even reasoning on global average, the area below a Planck curve for mean surface temperature of 288 K would still be larger than the area below real TOA IR radiance distribution.
In other words all the IR energy emitted at the surface does not have to and in fact does not make its way to the top of the atmosphere. First, a very large part of it merely “comes back” in the form of IR back radiation from atmosphere and net IR energy transfer from surface to atmosphere and outer space is only about 55 W/m2. Second, convection and latent heat transfer about 105 W/m2 from surface into the atmosphere. This amounts to about 160 W/m2 that have to make their way from surface up to IR emission level. The remainder of the energy emitted on TOA namely 240-160= 80 W/m2 originates in the incoming sunlight directly absorbed in atmosphere. See fig 1 and earth energy budget in, for instance, following link:
https://www.ethz.ch/content/dam/ethz/special-interest/usys/iac/iac-dam/documents/people-iac/wild/Wild_et_al_ClimDyn_2013.pdf
– Hence it is apparent that in fact one may safely do the reasonings and comparisons of radiance distribution curves at TOA only. Integrated IR emission must then be about 240 W/m2 for all distributions. This corresponds to an effective emission temperature or Planck curve temperature of Te= 255 K.
In my former link:
http://climatemodels.uchicago.edu/modtran/modtran.doc.html
where Planck curves for various temperatures are shown, it can be seen tha in CO2 notch emission is from air at temperature as low as 220 K. As said by Tim this deficit in emission is readily balanced by enhanced emission elsewhere in particular in atmospheric IR window that corresponds to emitting material at temperatures much above effective temperature Te, in above modtran example around 310 K but on average rather 288 K .
And since in atmospheric window emission is essentially from surface, the mean surface temperature is higher than Te, i.e. there must be a GHE.
gc, you’re making the same mistake as many. You see the CO2 “notch”, and you ASSUME that heat energy is not leaving Earth. So, you then IMAGINE that if there were no CO2 in the atmosphere, more heat energy would be leaving Earth’s system, and the planet would cool.
Assumptions, imaginations, and beliefs are not science.
The heat energy that is not radiated in the “notch” gets radiated at other wavelengths. That’s why CO2 can NOT warm the surface.
Yes exactly !
And this implies that what has to radiates more at other wavelengths has to become warmer.
Otherwise it will stubbornly refuse to radiate more, ask Planck.
So CO2 => notch => more emission elsewhere => hotter emitting material =>.
..nasty GHE (vade retro satanas !)
gc, you’re still confused.
The “notch” energy does not increase the temperature of the atmosphere when transferred to other molecules. The net energy remains the same.
You just don’t understand thermodynamics.
gam,, You are right, the amount of energy leaving the top of the atmosphere can be less than the energy going into the bottom if it is a warming trend (if it is a cooling trend, the reverse is true), but it has nothing to do with the GHE.
The difference, IN at the bottom minus OUT at the top, must stay to heat the atmosphere so lets figure out how much that is per m^2. UAH says the atmosphere is warming about 0.013 K/yr. Thermal capacitance of a sq meter of the atmosphere is 10194 kJ/K. There are 3.155E7 seconds in a year so the rate of energy left behind to heat the atmosphere is: 10194 * 0.013 /3.155E7 = 4.2E-6 kW = 0.0042 W.
There appears to be an error in Fig 1 of the ethz link. The numbers 397-342+20+85+79 = 239 which is the amount shown to be outgoing at TOA. There is nothing left for the atmospheric window.
DP,
Yes, sure, but this was not the point.
We were talking about that energy at surface that flows into bottom of atmosphere in the form of IR radiation only namely the area under Planck’s curve for blackbody at mean surface temperature ) on average about 397 W/m^2.
This is definitely not at all the total net energy that flows into bottom of atmosphere. As I showed with earth energy budget diagram, the latter includes many forms of energy exchanges and amounts to 160 W only.
So even in steady state, that is with neither warming nor cooling trend the amount of energy emitted at and leaving the top of the atmosphere ( necessarily entirely in the form of IR only ) of about 240 W/m^2 on average is systematically much lower than the amount of energy emitted at the surface in the form of IR and entering the bottom of the atmosphere of about 397 W/m^2. Again the latter is quite a different thing than the total energy going into bottom of atmosphere.
Concomitantly as to the whole atmosphere system there is balance in steady state with total net energy in in various forms at bottom, 160 W/m^2 + total energy in at top in the form of SW sunlight, 80 W/m^2 = total energy out at top in the form of IR, 240 W/m^2
DP,
The mean energy emitted by the surface in the form of IR emission is 397 W/m^2. This figure includes the mean amount of IR (about 40 W/m^2) that escapes directly to space via atmospheric window.
It is depicted in the broad upwelling IR arrow in fig 1 as that narrow part crossing directly the whole atmosphere and labeled atmospheric window.
Here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth%27s_energy_budget#/media/File:The-NASA-Earth%27s-Energy-Budget-Poster-Radiant-Energy-System-satellite-infrared-radiation-fluxes.jpg
is NASA’s version of budget diagram that provides the figure of 40 W/m^2.
Hence net energy transferred from surface into the atmosphere via IR exchanges is only about 397-40-342 = 15 W /m^2.
Format
The notch energy is of course not at all transferred to other molecules
Cheap champaign abuse, perhaps ?
What happens is that the notch energy is transferred to other wavelengths.
And for the very same molecules to emit more at those other wavelengths their temperature must increase in order to balance CO2 notch emission deficit.
There is no way out, grumpy.
Hideous GHE shows up over and over again.
Deniers funnily twisting themselves repeatedly into bretzels doesnt help.
No gc, the energy from the “notch” either gets absorbed by some molecule, or it gets radiated to space. Not only do you not understand thermo, you don’t understand radiative heat transfer.
Also, entering the same comment twice does not help your case. It falls under the category “two wrongs don’t make a right”. Or, in mathematical terms, “any number multiplied by zero is still zero”. You don’t want to appear un-educated, do you?
Glad to help.
Hey grumpy, you got it !!!
Pretty nearly. Keep trying.
The energy from notch “gets absorbed by some molecule”, which as usual increases its temperature so that it can radiate the relevant energy to space.
Hideous ugly GHE that shows up again.
Hilarious !
gummy agrees: ” so that it can radiate the relevant energy to space.”
And, that is NOT the GHE. That is the natural transfer of heat energy to space.
Glad to help.
says grumpy.
Well ask the alarmists such as David Appell:
“increased temperature of the IR emitting molecules in atmosphere and surface” = GHE
Now I sympathize, you don’t like the hideous ugly “greenhouse effect” or GHE. So, no problem, let’s call it the “grumpy effect” or GE.
Thus I have to correct once more you statement above:
Perfect!
There is no violation of the laws of physics, so I’m happy.
Thanks, g.
What”s a bit of a thriller now: Will DA be as happy as we are with it ?
gam,, You said this up-thread To make water vapor needs heat and high enough temperatures. If there were no CO2 at all in atmosphere, mean global temperature would be much lower and physics tells us that maximum possible water vapor in atmosphere drops rapidly with temperature by about 7 % / K.
Liquid water has vapor pressure which depends only on the temperature of the liquid water e.g. Water vapor partial pressure vs liquid water temperature http://intro.chem.okstate.edu/1515sp01/database/vpwater.html . From this reference, at 15 K liquid water temperature vapor pressure changes 6.25% / K change in liquid water temperature, at 25 K liquid water temperature vapor pressure changes 5.88% / K liquid water temperature. The presence of any other gas is not relevant.
In the atmosphere, vapor pressure is independent of temperature except at saturation (dew point). Max possible WV only applies to altitude and location where clouds might form which is a comparatively small part of the atmosphere. Average global relative humidity is about 75% http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/full/10.1175/JCLI3816.1 Useful with respect to GHE is absolute humidity which has been increasing 1.5% per decade, 8% since 1960. http://data.remss.com/vapor/monthly_1deg/tpw_v07r01_198801_201710.time_series.txt (the 10 should change to 11 for Nov. soon)
We talk about mean water vapor content of troposphere.
It is merely an observational fact that on average hot air contains more water vapor than cold air, up to 4 % in equatorial zone and less than 1% in polar regions.
This is in line with and related to the Clausius Clapeyron relation for maximum possible content at saturation or 100 % relative humidity versus temperature. Nobody claims water vapor in real atmosphere must be saturated and increase with temperature as the saturation curve, just that in cold air saturation occurs rapidly i.e. for a very small absolute content of WV, no further net evaporation is then possible and so it can only ever contain and indeed usually contains a much smaller amount of VW than hotter air.
Of course there are instances of relatively dry hot air (descending air in subtropical Sahara) and wet cold air (over arctic ocean).
gam,, The relation between air temperature and water vapor content is provided by a psychrometric chart e.g. http://www.coolerado.com/pdfs/Psychrmtrcs/0000Psych11x17US_SI.pdf
The Clausius-Clapeyron equation allows estimation of the vapor pressure of a liquid vs temperature of the liquid but says nothing about partial pressure of the vapor in the atmosphere. Exact vapor pressure vs temperature of the liquid for water is readily available e.g. http://intro.chem.okstate.edu/1515sp01/database/vpwater.html or any dry saturated steam tables.
Amount of water vapor in the atmosphere at saturation (100% humidity) and not saturated conditions is obtained from a psychrometric chart, not the Clausius-Clapeyron equation.
The Clausius Clapeyron equation relates the pressure Ps and temperature T of a liquid at thermodynamic equilibrium with its vapor.
In other words it gives the pressure of saturating vapor above a liquid at temperature T.
The table you linked to provides a sampling of function Ps (T) for water . For instance at 0 (30) C P=4.8 (31.8) mmHg. As you can see equilibrium or saturation pressure increases very rapidly (exponentially) with temperature. This makes temperature a major factor with respect of air absolute humidity.
The physics behind it is quite simple. At equilibrium the number nv of vapor molecules that hit and condense into the liquid per unit time is proportional to P in vapor i.e. nv = a P where a is a constant. The number of vapor molecules nl in liquid that manage to evaporate and get into vapor per unit time is proportional to the statistical mechanics Boltzmann factor exp(-E/kT) with k Boltzmann constant and E the energy/ molecule needed to break the bonds between molecules in liquid (latent heat) i.e. nl = b exp(-E/kT) where b is also (essentially) a constant. At equilibrium nv = nl and thus P = b/a exp(-E/kT).
If nv < nl ( P nl ( P > Ps there is net condensation until P = Ps
Now in air at temperature T the pressure Ps(T) corresponds to the maximal possible partial pressure of water vapor or (saturating water vapor pressure) at this temperature.
The actual partial pressure p of water vapor in a sample of air must therefore satisfy p <= Ps. And p in turn is directly proportional to the absolute content c of water vapor in that air namely (number or weight of water molecules/number or weight of air molecules) in unit volume. Relative humidity RH is p / Ps.
All this is the physics build in psychometric charts, there is nothing else. Measuring dry bulb and wet bulb temperatures permits to determine the actual water vapor content in a sample of air by means of this chart.
As an example and since you seem to like psychometric charts please check that even wet (RH=100%) air at 0C over arctic ocean still contains less ( 0.004 g/g) water vapor than dry (RH=20%) hot air at 30 C (0.005 g/g) over the Sahara desert. That was my point.
Typo:
At equilibrium nv = nl and thus P= Ps = b/a exp(-E/kT).
(where P is pressure and Ps is equilibrium or saturation pressure.)
Typo
Psychrometric instead of psychometric.
(damned automatic orthography ?)
Granted there are several gases that are IR active at terrestrial temperatures, but the only one with a significant effect on GHE is water vapor. EPA made a mistake in excluding WV.
Nate says:
December 14, 2017 at 7:50 AM
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/12/uah-global-temperature-update-for-november-20170-36-deg-c/#comment-276334
“Comparing religious beliefs of indigenous peoples to solid research that applies the laws of physics to the Earth, peer reviewed and published in a top journal, built on lots of previous work.
A bit of a leap. How bout working to find the flaws that you see in the paper?”
[I am quite fond of anthropology]
Silly Paper:
https://www2.bc.edu/jeremy-shakun/Lacis%20et%20al.,%202010,%20Science.pdf
“Ample physical evidence shows that carbon dioxide (CO2) is the single most important climate-relevant greenhouse gas in Earths atmosphere.
This is because CO2, like ozone, N2O, CH4,
and chlorofluorocarbons, does not condense and precipitate from the atmosphere at current climate temperatures, whereas water vapor can and does.”
I would say because water “condense and precipitate from the atmosphere” it is the most important greenhouse substance.
I would also say because H2SO4 “condense and precipitate from the atmosphere” it is the most important greenhouse substance on Venus.
But what reason does silly paper give to support it’s claim
that because a greenhouse gas doesn’t condense and precipitate from the atmosphere it’s most important?
“Noncondensing greenhouse gases, which account for 25% of the total terrestrial greenhouse effect thus serve to provide the stable temperature structure that sustains the current levels of atmospheric water vapor and clouds via feedback processes that account for the remaining 75% of the greenhouse effect”
That doesn’t seem like a good reason. One could say the mass of atmosphere which is composed nitrogen and Oxygen provides stable temperature.
Mars has about 28 times more CO2 per surface area as compared to Earth, and it’s atmospheric temperature wildly fluctuate daily.
If you were to trade atmospheres, give Mars, Earth’s atmosphere, and give Earth, Mars atmosphere. Then Mars with Earth’s atmosphere could have less daily temperature changes
and Earth with Mars atmosphere would huge swings in daily temperature.
And some believe that reason Mars greenhouse gases don’t provide stable air temperature is because it’s atmosphere is too thin. Or if it was thicken by nitrogen gas, Mars would have more of greenhouse effect.
With Earth there is 100 times more N2 than CO2, and Mars has about 25 trillion tonnes of CO2 atmosphere, so if you added 2500 trillion tonnes of N2 gas to Mars, there would be less daily temperature changes on Mars. Or Mars would have a greater greenhouse effect.
I should note that Mars has 1/100th of pressure of Earth.
Each square meter of Earth has 10 tonnes of air above. Or has about 8 tonnes of nitrogen per square meter.
Mars has surface area of 144.8 million square km. Or
144.8 trillion square meters. And 2525 / 144.8 is 17.4378 tonnes per square meter. And Mars gravity is 38% of Earth,
so in terms of weight it’s about 6.6 tons of pressure per square meter. Or it’s about 66% of Earth’s air sea level pressure. But in terms mass rather than weight would have 1.7 times per mass per square meter. So this would block sunlight reaching the surface and Mars would reflect more sunlight.
Or I would say this would not necessarily increases temperatures, but rather it would have a more stable temperature. Nor would I think adding a bunch or soup trace
super greenhouse gases “do much” in terms increasing the air temperature. But other people tend to think it would [My point no one believes CO2 stabilizes temperature, and therefore evidence is greatly needed for such assumption].
To continue, if you eliminate the most important substance in terms of greenhouse effect, H20 [ocean, clouds and vapor] and massive atmosphere, CO2 could be considered important because there is more of it than other “Noncondensing greenhouse gases” but pound per pound, CO2 is considered a weak greenhouse gas [by many].
“It often is stated that water vapor is the chief
greenhouse gas (GHG) in the atmosphere.
For example, it has been asserted that about 98% of the natural greenhouse effect is due to water vapour and stratiform clouds with CO2 contributing less than 2%
If true, this would imply that changes in atmospheric CO2
are not important influences on the natural greenhouse
capacity of Earth, and that the continuing increase in CO2
due to human activity is therefore not relevant to climate change.
This misunderstanding is resolved through simple examination
of the terrestrial greenhouse
The difference between the nominal global
mean surface temperature (TS=288K)and the
global mean effective temperature (TE = 255 K)
is a common measure of the terrestrial greenhouse effect”
2% of 33 K is .66 K
I don’t think it’s often said that 300 or 400 pmm of CO2
causes .66 K.
Wiki says:
water vapor, 3670%
carbon dioxide, 926%
methane, 49%
ozone, 37%
[of the 33 K]
The reference given is regarding Richard S. Lindzen’s paper, and don’t have it, but search got this:
“Lindzen accepts the main principle of the greenhouse effect, that increasing greenhouse gases (like CO2) will cause a radiative forcing that, all other things being equal, will cause the surface to warm. He uses an odd measure of its effectiveness though, claiming that a doubling of CO2 will lead to a 2% increase in the greenhouse effect.”
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/02/richard-lindzens-hol-testimony/
Lindzen saying doubling causes about .66 K
I would say less than 1 K- or I roughly agree.
So, that’s at least 2 people accounted for- of the millions of people often saying it.
And apparently
“Andrew A. Lacis, Gavin A. Schmidt, David Rind, Reto A. Ruedy” seem to think it’s an “odd measure”.
And they want conflate Lindzen as something “often said” and say what is often said is the total concentration [rather than doubling] is about 2% or about .66 K [2/3 of 1 K].
[[Btw, just to help you keep track: it’s both odd measure and also often said- Or as G* would say, the worms are constantly saying odd things and saying it often]]
“The Sun is the source of energy that heats
Earth. Besides direct solar heating of the ground,
there is also indirect longwave (LW) warming
arising from the thermal radiation that is emitted
by the ground, then absorbed locally within the
atmosphere, from which it is re-emitted in both
upward and downward directions, further heating
the ground and maintaining the temperature gra-
dient in the atmosphere.”
The only thing which warms the ground is sunlight.
Sunlight can warm the ground from say 10 C to 60 C when sun is
near zenith, and as lowers in the sky the ground will cool and continue to cool until the sunlight returns to warm it again.
If atmosphere is warm it has insultive effect upon the ground.
If atmosphere is cold [particularly if windy], it can increase heat loss from the ground rather act as insultive effect.
The Earth atmosphere is mostly warmed from the warmer oceans.
This because there is more ocean than land area AND the oceans have a higher average temperature than the land.
The land can heat up quickly during the daytime. Any air temperature higher than 35 C is due to sunlight heating the ground to high temperature. Land surfaces can be heated to about 70 C can heat air to around 50 C [at most] and ocean only gets as warm as 35 C, and can’t heat air higher than this highest ocean surface temperature of 35 C.
The highest properly measured air temperature was on land and is:
“The official highest recorded temperature is now 56.7C (134F), which was measured on 10 July 1913 at Greenland Ranch, Death Valley, California, USA.”
http://www.guinnessworldrecords.com/world-records/highest-recorded-temperature
On can expect the highest air temperature to be below sea level. And/or possible warming from Katabatic wind:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Katabatic_wind
And both factors apply to to Greenland Ranch, Death Valley, California.
But I will note even though ground surface can be 70 C air temperature doesn’t ever get very close to 70 C. Though if in car with windows rolled up, one can get air becoming as hot as this, because the environment of car prevents convection losses. So when have desert sand at 70 C and air at 50 C and 20 K difference is due to sand losing heat via convection loss. And if air was only say 30 C [because of weather] the surface can’t warm to as high temperature, because there is more convection heat loss to the atmosphere.
Or the ground is always losing heat to atmosphere, rather than atmosphere warming the ground.
Also ocean surface temperature is say 35 C, the surface air will be 35 C. Or if 20 C, the air will be 20 C. Etc. And atmosphere also doesn’t warm the ocean. The ocean always losing heat to atmosphere via evaporation. And because it’s losing heat from evaporation, the air temperature is the same as surface of ocean [unlike ground surfaces].
You have a neat little tale, but it falls apart completely when scrutinized. Heck, take just the first couple lines:
“The only thing which warms the ground is sunlight.
Sunlight can warm the ground from say 10 C to 60 C when sun is near zenith, and as lowers in the sky the ground will cool and continue to cool until the sunlight returns to warm it again.‘
It is well and good to say a few areas near the equator could get to 60 C at a few times near noon. That is the easy part!
It is well know that the average incoming sunlight is ~ 240 W/m^2. It is well know that the emissivity of the earth is close to 1. Using these numbers, calculate what the temperatures would be elsewhere and find a global average. It will be (as has been calculated many times) 255 K ( give or take a bit depending on emissivity, rotation rate, heat capacity, etc). You can change from a uniform 240 W/m^2 to something more realistic (that averages 240 W/m^2) so that some areas could get up to 60 C(333 K), but that will only serve to LOWER the average temperature.
IF YOU DISAGREE, SHOW SPECIFIC CALCULATIONS (or say why you think any of the basic numbers are incorrect). If you can’t do the calculations, then your ‘opinion’ really has no weight in a scientific discussion. ‘Wishful thinking’ will not get the average temperature above 255 K.
Tim, gbaikie was referring to surface temps. You are referring to atmosphere temp at effective radiating level. Two entirely different things.
gbaikie was not clearly referring to either surface temps or “effective radiating level” temps. The ~255 K effective temperature of the effective radiating level is indeed determined solely by the ~240 W/m^2 of incoming sunlight.
But the higher temperature (~288 K) of the surface must be enhanced by something more — the atmosphere as it turns out.
So he should have either said:
“The only thing which warms the EFFECTIVE RADIATING LEVEL [to ~255K] is sunlight.”
or
“NOT the only thing which warms the surface [to ~288 K] is sunlight.”
Yes.
But to answer Tim question, surface air temperature is nexus of two heat gradients- atmospheric plus ocean and land surfaces.
And the ocean surface and ocean air surface is 70% of earth entire surface and is the “control knob” or determines the Earth’s average air surface temperature and it’s average temperature is about 17 C.
“gbaikie was not clearly referring to either surface temps”
“The only thing which warms the ground is sunlight.”
Tim tries to spin his way out by claiming that the ground is not a surface!
Hilarious.
G*, your comment makes no sense!
!) You quote half a sentence of mine.
2) You quote someone else.
3) You attribute a conclusion that does not follow from either (1) or (2), and which does not reflect may position.
Tim, science is NOT about spin. That’s pseudoscience. You understood my comment. You even tracked down the correct sources. You have to claim it doesn’t make sense, because it does!
And, I didn’t even go into your 255K, 240 W/m^2 nonsense, but that would be even funnier.
Where does anything I said state (or even imply) “the ground is not a surface”???
Tim, gbaikie mentioned “ground”. You said he “was not clearly referring to either surface temps”
So, the only way you could spin your way out was to claim that “ground” was not a “surface”.
More spin, please.
“It is well know that the average incoming sunlight is ~ 240 W/m^2. It is well know that the emissivity of the earth is close to 1. Using these numbers, calculate what the temperatures would be elsewhere and find a global average.”
You can not divide the energy of sunlight in order to get the temperature of surface of a planet.
Or can get rough idea by using an ideal thermally conductive
blackbody as model. For this purpose Earth average temperature
should about 5 C.
And Earth is roughly 5 C.
And such a model deals with the intensity of sunlight.
Screwing around with it, is like the cargo cult,
“You can not divide the energy of sunlight in order to get the temperature of surface of a planet.”
Right! That is how you get the effective blackbody temperature at the “effective radiating surface”. The surface will be warmer. And why is that? Oh yes — because there is an atmosphere raising the effective radiating surface above the actual surface.
“For this purpose Earth average temperature should about 5 C.”
That would be if the earth reflected no sunlight, which is not realistic. Around 30% of solar power is reflected away. 255 K (-18 C) is a much more realistic.
“And Earth is roughly 5 C.”
Well, I agree — if by “earth” you mean “average over the surface” and by “roughly” you mean “5 is roughly equal to 15”. Or I also agree — if by “earth” you mean “effective radiating surface” and by “roughly” you mean “5 is roughly equal to -18”.
Okay Tim, are you seriously still trying to push that worn out 255-288K nonsense?
Haven’t you learned any actual science here?
Let me guess, you probably believe the Earth is warming the Sun.
Hilarious.
“Okay Tim, are you seriously still trying to push that worn out 255-288K nonsense?”
What specific nonsense are you referring to? This is what makes discussions with you so infuriating. You throw out mostly random, meaningless claims as if you are privy to a secret no one else in the world understands. An of course, you will never deign to provide a clear explanation.
255 K is the effective BB temperature corresponding to 240 W/m^2. No ‘nonsense’ here — just a trivial application of SB Law. Using average power provides a somewhat simplistic but useful upper limit on the temperature a planet can reach with no atmosphere (or a completely transparent atmosphere).
288K is an approximate average surface temperature. This is measured by satellites. There is some uncertainty of course, but satellite measurements are also not ‘nonsense’.
Tim asks: “What specific nonsense are you referring to?”
Tim, I’m referring to the failed GHE and all it’s components, such as the bogus 33K “heating” (288 K – 255K).
The 288 K figure is supposed to be Earth’s average temperature. It is an approximate, estimated, “modeled”, guess. For it to be “science”, there needs to be some links to reality, such as possible error of +/- 5K.
But, the really hokey one is the 255 K. This is a calculated by dividing TSI (after albedo) by 4, then calculating the corresponding S/B temperature. The 255K is then assumed to be the point in the atmosphere that radiates to space. How many things are wrong with this process?
So, again using S/B, the 288K surface is emitting 390 Watts/m^2. The 255K “surface” is emitting 240 Watts/m^2 to space. The pseudoscience nonsense says 390 is leaving the surface, but only 240 is going to space. The GHE is “trapping” 150 Watts/m^2!!!
(Are you getting any of this, yet?)
g*r…”(Are you getting any of this, yet?)”
They just do the math, it doesn’t matter whether it applies or not.
You can’t do S-B separate from the 2nd law and claim the 2nd law is satisfied based on a mysterious net energy exchange.
Often, they cannot even do the math, Gordon.
☺
“Let me guess, you probably believe the Earth is warming the Sun.”
Well, Timmy said earlier the earth’s surface is warmed “by restricting the escape of thermal IR from the surface to space.”
Tim’s same logic would apply to the sun’s surface. So as the atmosphere sends IR back earth, restricting its escape to space, the earth sends a minute amount of IR back to the sun, restricting the escape of EMR from the sun, causing the surface of the sun to warm. Just like David Appell says!
Hilarious indeed.
Tim Folkerts
I see you understand that g*e*r*a*n is a pretender. He doesn’t know any physics, just pretends to. He does do this childish act (something from gradeschool which is his mentality) “I know something you don’t know, you don’t know, you don’t know…Ha! Ha! Ha!”
In one post he parroted my post and thought himself clever. He really is a child at all levels. His interaction with adults is very childlike, his level of understanding science is very childlike, his attention span is very childlike, his endless repetition of using pet words like “pseudoscience, ramble, hilarious”. He often refers to other posters as 12 year olds. I think he is letting us know his mental age. It is as sad thing. If he were not so arrogant you might feel sorry for him. I guess kids are fairly annoying if they think what they are doing is funny.
You will never bring knowledge to this clown. He is too far gone. T
g*e*r*a*n
You childish clown, have you ever had a good thought in your limited brain?
Your post is bogus and shows lack of desire to learn. You can go to this web page and make various graphs and see for yourself. You are too stupid to figure out how to make graphs so you will not learn.
If you make global maps of the surface EMR you will see that the data from satellites matches what Tim Folkerts claims. Your simpleton views drag down the intelligence level of this blog considerably. You offer nothing short of the stupidest comments I think I could read. D*u*m*b and d*u*m*b*e*r. You are a Sad Sack poster.
https://ceres-tool.larc.nasa.gov/ord-tool/jsp/EBAFSFCSelection.jsp
Fantastic, the rabid, yelping chihuahua is back!
Con-man, I thought maybe you weren’t feeling well. I hadn’t seen one of your desperate rants in several days.
A ranting raving lunatic is much funnier than a dishwasher trying to peddle pseudoscience. I like the new routine.
—Tim Folkerts says:
December 15, 2017 at 2:02 PM
You can not divide the energy of sunlight in order to get the temperature of surface of a planet.
Right! That is how you get the effective blackbody temperature at the effective radiating surface. The surface will be warmer. And why is that? Oh yes because there is an atmosphere raising the effective radiating surface above the actual surface.
For this purpose Earth average temperature should about 5 C.
That would be if the earth reflected no sunlight, which is not realistic. Around 30% of solar power is reflected away. 255 K (-18 C) is a much more realistic.
And Earth is roughly 5 C.
Well, I agree if by earth you mean average over the surface and by roughly you mean 5 is roughly equal to 15. Or I also agree if by earth you mean effective radiating surface and by roughly you mean 5 is roughly equal to -18.
—
-18 C is more roughly wrong.
Earth’s average land surface is about 10 C which is pretty close to 5 C
Earth’s average ocean temperature is 17 C which is not very close to 5 C.
A simple question is the ocean warming the land surfaces?
It is well known that Ocean warms the Land. Europe would be much colder without the heat from Gulf Stream.
This is very basic stuff.
But I think it can also argued that lacking the gulf stream bringing tropical warm waters, the ocean without the added heat from the tropics, is also making Europe warmer.
There isn’t the gulf stream near BC Canada, and Vancouver Island isn’t frozen hell because it’s warmed by the ocean.
I lived on Vancouver Island- it rains a lot- the ocean is cold enough kill you in 30 mins, yet ocean keeps the regions a lot warmer than would be without the warming effect ocean water which is always below 60 F. [Unless you at shallow beach in which water warmed by tide coming in over beach surface warmed by the summer sun. Lakes can also be warm in the summer.] Of course over in Sweden the ocean water can be much warmer to swim in [Gulf Stream].
So Ocean is warmer, and it warms land, which otherwise would closer or below 5 C rather than average of 10 C.
Or without the ocean, Earth [all the land] would have average temperature below 5 C.
But if you have planet without ocean and at earth distance from the sun and it’s average temperature was say 0 C, the tropical region would have higher average temperature than 0 C. And pole ward one have much colder average temperature than 0 C.
Ocean gives a more moderate by higher average temperature in tropics and tropical ocean warms regions outside the tropics. Without ocean tropics would get hot daytime temperature and not do much to warm outside the tropics.
g*e*r*a*n
You are just chidlish.
Skepticgonewild your comment illustrates why Kristian’s model for insulation is best understood in terms of back radiation.
The presence of the earth does not affect the sun’s output of energy, which is fusion driven, but the back radiation that is absorbed by the sun increases the internal energy of the sun by an immeasurably minuscule amount.
The second law of thermodynamics is satisfied as the NET energy is a transfer from the sun to the earth. That is the sun heats the earth more than the earth heats sun.
If you had done the back of the envelope calculation I suggested you do, then you may have realised this. So give it a go.
Norm continues his desperate rant: “You are just chidlish [sic].”
Hey con-man, misspelling at the exact right time is PRICELESS!
wmiker claims: “but the back radiation that is absorbed by the sun increases the internal energy of the sun by an immeasurably minuscule amount.”
FALSE!
For that to be true, ALL IR must ALWAYS be absorbed, which is clearly not the case.
MikeR,
Now calculate how much energy you’ve created.
Tim never responds to this earth heats the sun nonsense. It would be too embarrassing.
So g*nat and Wildebeest , what happens to the radiation that is incident upon the sun? Is it always intercepted by a Klingon fleet of space ships and used to power their warp drives?
Incoming photons are either going to absorbed or scattered. The degree of back scattering would be close to zero for all wavelengths larger than the size of a proton and electron (see why the sky is blue) that make up the solar plasma. The scattering will be forward to below the surface of the sun. The chances of a photon coming out the other side of the sun is remote as the mean free path length of photons inside the sun is tiny are compared to the size of the sun (1.8 cm see section 4.1 of the pdf at http://www.jb.man.ac.uk/~smao/starHtml/radiativeTransfer.pdf ).
Maybe 1 or 2 photos a century will reach the other side but they are more likely to absorbed in-elastically (i.e. the energy will transferred to the constituent ions an electrons that make up the plasma).
I must apologise to g*nat that the article I linked to here has more than 10 lines.
WMikeR , the artist formerly known as MikeR is signing off. Actually another reminder to never post comments using a mobile phone late at night.
wmiker, or miker, or whoever you fancy yourself to be, if you have a coherent question that you can state in 10 lines or less, without your rambling tirade, I would be pleased to answer.
G*nat,
I don’t think anyone is interested in your opinion, so you can go silent for everybody else’s sake. It would be a blessed relief.
Correction to my commente above. I was wrong with my mention of an inelastic interaction between a photon and a proton. This was such an obvious error and I was surprised that g*nat was not all over it like a rash.
Yes I was 100% wrong and I will be mature and admit to my mistake.
Unlike g*nat who never could admit he was wrong. As others have pointed out that he exhibits the adolescent behavior of a 12 year old . Personally I would think a 4 old would be more appropriate.
I think i Need to pad this comment out to beyond 10 lines to ensure that there is no more noise from the g*nat .
MikeR,
You did not answer my question about energy creation. The sun emits 3.8×10^26 J/s of energy. So are you saying the sun emits more because of the minute amount of emr striking the sun from the earth?
Enquiring minds want to know.
mikeR
I think you can just safely ignore the i*d*i*o*t. His reality is so delusional and messed up it is better to ignore him.
Down below you will see he declares: “Con-man the Moon does NOT rotate on its axis. I know you were taught that. I know you probably cant accept it. Its somewhat like the GHE, you have no concept.
Hilarious.”
I almost wonder if he is insane or delusional.
I waste a lot of time responding to his posts. Sometimes the insane are extremely good at manipulation. He says things in ways that elicit responses. I try not to respond to his lunacy but he knows the right buttons to push. You can spend hundreds of posts with this lunatic and get nowhere. I should learn to ignore him. Someday maybe I will. Hope you can do the same.
Norm,
Regarding the moon spinning, it all depends on your frame of reference. So why not ask him for an explanation, then make a judgement?
Skeptic, with regard to the moon’s axis of rotation as being just a frame of reference issue, then you may be right. The entire universe could be just rotating about the moons axis.
I have not heard of such a selenocentric model of the universe. Is this your own idea?
SkepticGoneWild
Down below is my interaction with g*e*r*a*n concerning the Moon spinning on it axis. I did ask him for clarification as it astounded me anyone was that stupid.
Here is the interaction:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/12/uah-global-temperature-update-for-november-20170-36-deg-c/#comment-276577
He is so delusional it is difficult to logically figure out what he thinks. Most of what he posts are just made up crap with no supporting evidence. His posts are, by definition, pseudoscience.
Skepticgonewild
.
I am glad you have an enquiring mind but I wish you were able to do the calculations yourself.
Tbe sun will intercept about 5×10^-6 of the radiation emitted by the earth the earth emits about 1.8 x 10^17 W so the amount of energy arriving at the sun will be just under 10^12 W.
This is minuscule compared to the 3.9 x 10 ^26 W radiated by the sun.
The sun will still emit 3.9 x 10^26 W of radiation due to the fusion reaction plus an additional tiny amount ( in relative terms) of 10^12 W due to this absorbed radiation.
It is interesting to see how some people’s minds work, or don’t.
The con-man and miker both believe that the Moon spins on its axis. They were probably impressed by the NASA video that claimed as much. SGW has reservations. He is open-minded, willing to consider more facts.
It’s amazing, but believers in GHE likely also believe the Moon rotates on its axis.
Hilarious.
(Hint: When a race car moves around an oval track, is it rotating on its axis?)
miker tries to convince himself: “Tbe sun will intercept about 510^-6 of the radiation emitted by the earth the earth emits about 1.8 x 10^17 W so the amount of energy arriving at the sun will be just under 10^12 W.”
miker, do you feel better now? Is there something about spouting pseudoscience? Some kind of adrenaline rush?
Or, maybe you just don’t know how stupid it is to believe the Earth is warming the Sun?
MikeR,
Thanks fir confirming your analysis is creating energy in violation of the First Law, along with Second Law violations as well.
You know your physics is bad if your before and after calculations indicate an increase in the sun’s energy, when the sun is the only energy source in your system.
g*e*r*a*n,
Scientists should have an open mind, which is why I examined the GHE phenomenon and found it to be pseudoscience.
Now with respect to your explanation that the moon does not rotate on its own axis, your details are too sketchy for me to make an adequate analysis of your viewpoint.
As to your comment about the race car. To an observer on the inside center of the track, the car is not rotating, since the observer sees the same side of the car at all times (assume it’s a circular track). Now draw an imaginary arrow pointing to the front of the car at all times. Now change your observation position to high above the center of the track, looking down. What is the arrow doing? It’s rotating. It’s easy to observe this in your mind. Place an axis through the center of the car. Draw another arrow that is always pointing north fixed to the axis. Looking from above above the arrow pointing to the front of the car will be rotating about the arrow always pointing north and fixed to car’s axis.
SGW–Inside the oval, the race car appears to not be rotating on its axis. Outside the oval, the race car APPEARS to be rotating on its axis. But the reality is the race car is NOT rotating on its axis, it is following an oval track.
If you need further illustration, attach a string to an orange with a thumbtack. Hold the end of the string with one hand, and rotate the orange on its axis. Notice the string wraps around the orange.
Now, holding the end of the string in the middle of a table, move the orange in an orbit about the fixed end of the string. Notice the string does not wrap about the orange, because the orange is not rotating on its axis.
If the Moon were actually rotating on its axis, we would see different sides from Earth.
g*e*r,
Please look at the following Youtube illustration starting at 0:59 min:
https://tinyurl.com/j3xnejl
One side of the moon is always facing the earth. You have to look at the reference plane looking from above. The axis for the moon is not fixed to the moon itself, but in reference to the plane looking from above. Looking at the simulation, draw an arrow that points to the top of the page through the moon’s axis. You will see that the moon is rotating through this axis point. (The red half-circle demarcation line is rotating through the moon’s axis which is always point to the top of the page)
Try this. At 0:59 in the video, hold a very thin pencil or rod always pointing up, and follow the moon. The red half circle demarcation line of the moon is rotating about your pencil pointing up (which is fixed to the axis point.)
MikeR,
You just don’t get physics at all, including rotating reference frames.
SGW–They are confusing you with appearances. Make sure you understand what “rotating on its axis” means. Use the string attached to an orange (described above), to clearly understand.
In the first orbit, they say the Moon is NOT rotating, but it is! (Imagine the string attached to Moon and Earth. The string would be wrapping around the Moon.)
In the next example (about :31) they say the Moon IS rotating, and they get that one correct.
In :59, they say the Moon IS rotating, but it is NOT.
There’s a lot of pseudoscience out there. You’re doing the right thing by trying to figure it out. Use an actual orange or apple, as your mind can play tricks on you.
Get out that bowl of fruit and have fun!
— SkepticGoneWild says:
December 17, 2017 at 3:54 PM
g*e*r,
Please look at the following Youtube illustration starting at 0:59 min:
https://tinyurl.com/j3xnejl—
The correct answer is the Moon is tidal locked with Earth and has uneven mass [why it’s tidally locked- though it sways a bit back and forth but the uneven mass gives gravity gradient which keeps it facing Earth despite non circular [or elliptical] orbit].
But Earth and Moon is within the sun’s gravity, and both Earth and Moon orbit the sun.
We have twin body system- with Earth’s mass 80 times more massive than the Moon.
Or anything at 1 AU distance has to going around 30 km/sec relative to the sun and would be always traveling in straight line [Newton law: “Newton’s first law states that every object will remain at rest or in uniform motion in a straight line unless compelled to change its state by the action of an external force.”]
And force of gravity alters space- Einstein. Everything in space is traveling a straight line [unless you add rocket propulsion or something else]
So mass of Earth and Moon gravity bends space, but bigger bent space is from the Sun.
Or Moon needs about 1 km/sec to stays where is is relative to Earth, but needs 30 km/sec to stay where it is relative to the sun.
Or anything launched from Earth or the Moon is going around 30 km/sec relative to Sun. If want to go nearer/closer to the sun, you slow down, if want to go further away you speed up.
If you want to escape the sun gravity at Earth distance you go 42.1 km/sec. And since already going about 30 km/sec the delta-v needed is 42.1 – 30 = 12.1 km/sec:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Escape_velocity
Or 12.1 km/sec delta-v which is a hohmann transfer or hohmann escape trajectory. Though one can escape from the sun with less rocket delta-v by doing gravity assists [stealing orbital energy from planets] Though stars are far away, and you need to go a lot faster to get there in a shorter time period.
So, from sun or stars point of view, the Moon appears to be speeding up and slowing down and going away and nearer, and is rotating. Which should tell you, it’s orbiting a gravity well- Earth’s.
But the Moon is not speeding up or slowing down nor rotating/spinning- it only appears to be doing this.
It’s going in a straight line and is tidally locked with Earth.
Though you could disregard Newton and Einstein.
“[stealing orbital energy from planets]”
You can also give rather just take.
g*e*r,
You have it completely backwards. If the moon did not rotate, we would see all sides of it.
Look at another animation:
https://tinyurl.com/yael4jnc
At time 0:23, the moon starts orbiting the earth but is NOT rotating. At t=0:23 (start of the orbit), a person on the earth would see the reddish shaded side which faces the earth. At t=0:32, the moon has completed half an orbit, and a person on earth would see the dark side. The non-rotating moon orbit completes at t=0:40.
Now the animation starts a spin of the moon which can be seen at t=0:44. The moon is shown spinning on its own axis. The animation then shows the rotation for clarity by taking the moon off the orbit for a moment so we can see the moon spinning. The spinning moon is then place back on orbit, and is spinning just enough so the reddish shaded side is always facing the earth as the moon proceeds through its orbit.
This is one time where NASA is correct.
SkepticGoneWild,
Thank you for pointing out g*’s mistake with respect to the moon.
Despite it being a schoolboy error, I hope g* will be mature enough to admit to his mistake. I hope it is not just another tantrum laced with hilarity.
SkepticGoneWild,
With respect to the earth increasing the sun’s internal energy marginally (and consequently radiant energy emitted), I think we have been through this before (or was it with Tony? it is hard to keep track).
The suns output will increase by a minuscule amount for the same reason a mirror can be used to increase the temperature of an object that is already illuminated by the sun. The mirror does not add energy to the system but to the object that is being illuminated by the mirror. Try the experiment on a sunny day. A cheap IR thermometer will do the trick.
Let us know if the mirror does or doesnt increase the temperature of the object. If you need me to elaborate why this is relevant to the sun-earth situation I will be happy to oblige.
SGW, you are still being confused by animations. Do the simple experiment I described. Attach a string to some small object. Hold the loose end of the string in the center of the table. Rotate the object on its axis. Notice the string wrapping around the object. ANY rotating on the axis will wrap the string. The Moon would NOT “wrap the string”.
This is known as the “string theory”.
☺
This problem is perfectly analogous to the bogus GHE. People who cannot think for themselves are constantly inundated and misled by inaccurate “animations”.
“The Moon would NOT “wrap the string”.”
Sure it would. The Moon would “wrap the string” in anger’s thought experiment:
Attach a string to some small object such as the moon. Hold the loose end of the string in the center of the table. Rotate the moon on its axis. Notice the string wrapping around the moon.
cabbage head unwittingly proves my points.
G*. A dude the stadium is holding end of the string. Other end attached to front of car (orange). Does it wrap the car (orange)?
G*e*r*a*n,
Your orange experiment does not reflect what is happening.
This little experiment is real easy. I did it in my truck and it took maybe 60 seconds. Get one of those cylindrical lint rollers. Clearly place a mark on the outside of the roller. Sit in the front drivers side of your vehicle. Hold the roller in your left hand perpendicular to the steering wheel. Now rotate the roller around the steering wheel (without touching it) while your right hand adjusts the roller so the mark is always facing towards the center of the steering wheel.
What happens? The outside roller is rotating around the axis of the roller. Amazing.
QED.
g*e*r,
Just so there is no confusion, here is the type lint roller I used:
https://tinyurl.com/yb2bfszz
SGW–The fact that you had to adjust with your other hand tells you that the roller wasn’t following an orbital path. We know one side of a race car always faces the inside.
Stick with the simpler model. You want to lessen the confusion, not increase it.
PS see more discussion here:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/12/uah-global-temperature-update-for-november-20170-36-deg-c/#comment-276785
You did NOT do the experiment. The lint roller followed the orbital path. The white part of the roller spun around the handle’s axis. It took one orbit for it to spin once. It is painfully obvious. You can observe the roller spinning around the handle.
NASA is absolutely correct on this.
There is absolutely no confusion on my part. The confusion is all yours. The white part of the roller spun around the handle as the mark on the white part of the roller is adjusted to face the center of the wheel.
SGW–You are confusing “turning” with “rotating on an axis”. Compare your observation to a race car. The race car driver turns the steering wheel to follow the oval path. But, the race care is NOT rotating on its axis.
If you want to believe the Moon rotates on its axis, just say so. It won’t bother me at all if you want to believe it. I’m just trying to help. Let’s not waste each other’s time.
All the right hand was doing was to turn the white part of the roller in order to have the mark always pointing towards the center of the steering wheel, as the lint roller orbited the steering wheel.
For example, if you start at the 9:00 position, the mark on the roller is pointing to the right. If you don’t “spin” the roller part as it orbits the wheel, the mark will always be pointing to the right. Try it. But if you spin the roller part as it orbits the wheel so that the mark points to the center, then the white part spins around the handle axis one time for each one orbit.
OMG G. It is spinning on the handle axis. It is ROTATING on its axis. This can be observed. You are SOOOOOO confused.
Just do the experiment, otherwise you will remain in your ignorance.
SGW–Just one more time, then I have things to do.
The reason you believe there is “rotation on the axis” is because your device is not in “orbit”. Forget that device, it is confusing you. Look at a race car. There is NO rotation as it makes its “orbit”.
G,
It is in orbit. I am performing a complete circular orbit around the steering wheel with the lint roller pointed directly away from me. Like I said, if you start at the 9:00 position the mark on the roller part will need to point to the right in order face the center of the wheel. If you do not induce any spin on the roller, and make one complete orbit (clockwise or counterclockwise) around the steering wheel, the mark will remain pointing to the right. But if you manipulate the roller part to always point to the center as the lint roller orbits the wheel, it WILL spin about the lint roller handle’s axis. This is NOT an opinion. This is a real observation. No guesswork involved at all.
Here’s another suggestion, SGW. It appears that the two pieces are confusing you. You are obviously turning them at different rates. Secure the two pieces together. Maybe that will make it clearer.
But, the best model is just the race car, which you can easily replicate on a table or floor.
I’m willing to help later, but tonight I’m busy helping with gift wrapping.
G,
Your race car analogy is flawed. You have not fixed the race cars axis relative to the non-rotating reference frame. Your axis is rotating with the race car as it revolves around the track. If that were true, then what you say is true. But that is not the case. You have to rotationally anchor the axis to the non rotating reference frame so that the axis does not rotate. Therein lies your error.
With my actual observable experiment, my hand is not rotating as it orbits the steering wheel with the lint roller. The axis is fixed so as to not rotate. And what is actually observed in real life, is the rotation of the roller part around the axis of the handle as the device makes an orbit (when the roller is positioned to always face the center)
No SGW, the race car analogy is NOT flawed. The race car is doing the same motion as the Moon. It is orbiting, without rotating. You’re just having a hard time understanding because of many distractions.
The axis of rotation for a body moves with the body. It is not fixed to a “reference frame”.
The hilarious con-man drew a sketch to help. I suggest you bring up the sketch in a separate window, as I discuss it.
https://tinyurl.com/yb63xrea
Norm sketched a vehicle traveling CCW around a track. There is also an arrow, always pointing in the same direction.
First, ignore the arrow, and consider only the vehicle. The vehicle is traveling just as does the Moon. It is orbiting, but not rotating on its axis.
Next, ignore the vehicle, and consider only the arrow. The arrow is orbiting, but it is rotating on its axis. It is rotating 360 degrees CW with each orbit. Can you see that?
It’s important you understand both “axis of rotation”, and the difference between “orbiting” and “rotating”.
Ger,
As part of my engineering degree, I took a mechanical engineering course in dynamics. I know what rotation and an axis is. I am not confused at all. I’ve revised the experiment to make it even better. You will observe the rotation of our “moon” about it’s own axis. You will need the following:
1 – lint roller – https://tinyurl.com/yb2bfszz
1 – foot long piece of string.
1 – small metal circular keychain holder.
1 – roll of some kind of tape
Procedure:
1. Tie one end of string to key chain holder
2. Tape the other end of the string securely to outside white part of the lint roller.
3. Have a friend stand in front of you with their finger held straight out and point at you.
4. Place the keychain holder around their finger.
5. With a little tension to make the string tight, start rotating the lint roller in a circular orbit around the persons finger.
What you will observe is this. The surface of the lint roller where the string is attached is always point to the center of the orbit. Furthermore, you will observe that the lint roller (the white part which represents the moon) is spinning around the handle and axis of the lint roller. QED.
If you cannot perform this and understand what is happening, then it is pointless to continue.
I would suggest you take up your argument with NASA, who after all did send satellites and manned orbits around the moon. They should know if the moon spins on it’s axis.
SGW, with all of your vast experience in dynamics, you should have recognized that the lint roller is held constant by the tape/string. But, the other part is held by your hand. So, the “Moon” is not rotating, but the other part moves against it, since it is not attached.
You’re confused by the rotating parts. Just use the simple race car analogy.
Back to the drawing board, huh?
SGW states: “I would suggest you take up your argument with NASA, who after all did send satellites and manned orbits around the moon. They should know if the moon spins on its axis.”
SGW, don’t be overly impressed by the crap that exudes from NASA. All of the great work done by NASA was done by qualified individuals. I used to review such work. The “Moon rotation” nonsense is not coming from such engineers. It is coming from “managers”, with an agenda.
Think for yourself.
OMG,
Just stop it. You are embarrassing yourself. You have it fixed in your mind that you are right, but you are dead wrong.
Your race car analogy is a thought experiment. I performed TWO simple experiments that proved my point. In BOTH experiments the white part of the roller rotated about the handle axis as the lint roller made its orbit. It rotated once about its own axis for every 1 circular orbit, which is to be expected.
I as explained earlier, in your race car analogy, you have fixed your axle so it rotates at the same rpm as the car turns around the track. OF COURSE the car will not rotate about this axis. You are turning the axle at the same rate!! Your analysis is tied to the rotating reference frame which is wrong. Dynamics 201.
No, I am not going back to the drawing board. I will leave you in your confusion. Rotating reference frames are not intuitive, and they are confusing the heck out of you.
SGW, your two simple experiments only “proved” your point, to yourself. They did not pass peer review. Don’t lose sleep over it. Just do better next time.
The race car, or horse race if you prefer, is a great analogy. But there are many. Driving in a circle does not translate to the car is rotating on its axis. I haven’t even mentioned angular momentum, as that would be scary to the unwashed. Just be skeptical when they tell you the Moon is rotating on its axis.
I might not be around too much during the Christmas Season, but feel free to ask questions when you see me commenting.
Keep the lint off.
☺
Ger,
Take a class in university level dynamics and then we’ll talk.
Why would I ask a question to someone with no answers?
What other conspiracy theory will you come up with next? (I’ll make one exception to the above)
–A bit of a leap. How bout working to find the flaws that you see in the paper?–
So did that- and paper should not have been published as flaws were obvious.
But now I want go over again, how cold can warm something which was/is warmer.
And general issue is related to warming of Katabatic wind as mentioned and linked above.
Katabatic wind can cool and can warm.
Basically cooler or same temperature, or warmer air *can* warm
warmer air, by movement upper air to lower air.
And I think this how Venus has hot air near its rocky surface.
Now like many things the Venus greenhouse gas of H2SO4 isn’t a gas nor greenhouse gas. Or Sulfuric acid doesn’t work because of some radiant process, just as Katabatic wind isn’t radiant process of warming.
What the Sulfuric acid does is it get warmed by sunlight and the H2SO4 molecules which are liquid convects heat to the atmospheric gas it’s floating in.
Clouds of Venus are at wide range of elevation:
“At around 60 kilometres altitude is a very thick cloud layer a 20 kilometre-deep blanket surrounding the planet. It marks the limit between Venuss lower and middle atmospheric layers. It is this yellowish layer that prevented for a long time Earth-based observatories and previous orbiter missions to see through.”
http://www.esa.int/Our_Activities/Space_Science/Venus_Express/Acid_clouds_and_lightning
And this interesting:
Venusian clouds are thick and are composed mainly (75-96%) of sulfuric acid droplets.These clouds obscure the surface of Venus from optical imaging, and reflect about 75% of the sunlight that falls on them. The geometric albedo, a common measure of reflectivity, is the highest of any planet in the Solar System. This high reflectivity potentially enables any probe exploring the cloud tops sufficient solar energy such that solar cells can be fitted anywhere on the craft. The density of the clouds is highly variable with the densest layer at about 48.5 km, reaching 0.1 g/m3 similar to the lower range of cumulonimbus storm clouds on Earth.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmosphere_of_Venus#Clouds
Now H2SO4 loves water, and such variation of H2SO4 [75-96%]
is varying amount water is diluting the acid- or 100% is no water in the acid. Pure acid will evaporate into gas, and diluted acid will evaporate more than more pure acid.
Pure acid has boiling point of 337 C and “When sulfuric acid is above 300 C (572 F), it will decompose slowly”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sulfuric_acid
And so sulfuric acid can’t exist on the rocky surface of Venus. Also “Solubility in water miscible, exothermic”
Or add the acid to water, not add acid to water [or it could splash all over you- ruining your day]. And when water added it warms.
Generally speaking there are numerous ways Venus could be warmed which relate to cycle H2SO4, none have anything to do with radiant affects [or like O3, it’s not really a greenhouse gas- and could involve an exothermic chemical reaction].
But I tend think it involve droplets of acid which convect heat to air and/or transfer heat by evaporation to the air. I think it’s mostly droplets warming and the warmed droplet warm the air [or could say the warmed droplets are cooled by the air- same thing]. But point is the air is warmed when at a high elevation. That elevation is something around 1 atm of atmospheric pressure, which is at about 50 km above the rocky surface. So in comparison to Earth it’s at very high elevation.
And I think the average velocity of air molecules [mostly CO2 molecules] are about same at 1 atm pressure as there are at 94 atm pressure, but there is more molcules in given volume when at 94 atm pressure- so they hit themselves or rock more often and so have a higher temperature.
“paper should not have been published as flaws were obvious.”
And heres where you explain what they are.
Instead you write a tome on something else? Im supposed to wade through it? No thanks!
We don’t know the exact way Venus is warmed- Venus lacks exploration.
Btw, exploration drives science.
And Venus is one of the most easiest planets to get to from Earth, and it’s the least explored.
Though NASA should been exploring the Moon first, and has failed to do adequate job of doing this. The Moon is easiest body to explore in space, though we have recently discovered a smaller Earth moon which would be easiest to land on and leave- but the Moon is more important [probably].
But despite the lack of exploration of Venus, I think it can be rule out, that CO2 of Venus atmosphere [other than the large amount of it] is not the reason, Venus has a hot rocky surface, and the issue is related to the surface which reflecting 75% of the sunlight- the clouds.
Gbaike, i missed the first comment, you did begin to try to find flaws in the paper. But you quickly departed into lots of handwaving–that just doesnt compare to solving a realistic earth model.
What flaws are in the model?
Earth’s atmosphere doesn’t warms the land surface nor ocean surface.
Venus atmosphere probably warms it’s rocky surface- or probably the interior heat of Venus is not causing it [due to insulative effect of large atmosphere inhibiting heat loss].
So neither Earth or Venus rocky surface air temperatures are caused by interior heat of the planet.
One of the words occuring the most in your comments: ‘probably ‘.
How can people like you criticize scientists just because they write things you don’t understand or even don’t like?
binny…”How can people like you criticize scientists just because they write things you dont understand or even dont like?”
Why are you criticizing gbaikie when your source, the IPCC, has papers riddled with probabilities, in the guise of likely and not likely?
The IPCC has never claimed that ACO2 is warming the atmosphere they claim it is only likely. They have no proof that it does.
Bindidon says:
December 15, 2017 at 3:37 PM
One of the words occuring the most in your comments: probably .
There is theory that Venus’ surface periodically re-surfaces [become molten lava]. And far as I know, we don’t know how thick the crust is. Unlike the Moon or Mars which we some pretty good guesses about.
gbaikie…”There is theory that Venus surface periodically re-surfaces [become molten lava]”.
Something has to explain the 450 odd degrees C of the surface. A greenhouse effect could not do that. The atmosphere would have to be hotter than 450 C.
“Gordon Robertson says:
December 16, 2017 at 3:11 AM
gbaikieThere is theory that Venus surface periodically re-surfaces [become molten lava].
Something has to explain the 450 odd degrees C of the surface. A greenhouse effect could not do that. The atmosphere would have to be hotter than 450 C.”
Suppose you didn’t want Venus to be hot.
I think Venus being hot is good thing.
I could say a lot about why a hot Venus is good, but my favorite is that Venus is fortress planet.
Or if you are spacefaring or others are spacefaring, the planet Venus is fortness, and Earth isn’t. Or killing everything on Earth is simple- no need of a deathstar.
Blowing apart planets is dumb idea, incinerating them is simple and cheap. And Venus is already incinerated. Or if you want Earth as fortress, you have assets in the sky, underground or underwater. Live in sky, underground, and on the ocean and below the ocean. And living on surface of Land is not good.
But as I said suppose one had irrational need to make Venus cooler. How could you do it?
An obvious way is to build a sunshade. Wiki:
“A space sunshade or sunshield is a parasol that diverts or otherwise reduces some of a star’s radiation, preventing them from hitting a spacecraft or planet and thereby reducing its insolation, which results in reduced heating. Light can be diverted by different methods. First proposed in 1989, the original space sunshade concept involves putting a large occulting disc, or technology of equivalent purpose at the L1 gravitation point between the Earth and Sun.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_sunshade
I think cheapest and best way is to make if out of dust- our solar system has lots of dust. Or if water in space becomes cheap, dust in space will be cheaper. But right now dust in space is quite cheap.
And Venus has, of course, an L-1 point, which you put lots of rocks and dust in, and it could completely block the sun.
The more rocks and dust you put into L-1 the more it blocks sunlight and one could completely or essentially block all sunlight and effectively removing the sun- one make the sun disappear [as far as Venus is concerned].
The economically problem with such idea is not delivering dust to the Venus L-1. The economical problem is it would require a long time to cool Venus. Time is money.
So to do quicker you could use a more expensive material which is water.
But point is we don’t know how long Venus has been hot- we know it’s been hot for decades but not for centuries or thousands of year. Though the assumption is Venus has been the way it has been for billions of years.
Anyhow getting back to incinerating planet all need is 100 km diameter space rock, and there at least thousands of them in our solar system. And is there anyway to know that Venus hasn’t been hit a space rock say 10 km in diameter is last 5000 years. 100 km rock would vaporize the surface, make the entire planet molten and vaporize the rock so it’s part the atmosphere [and with such hit, you could survive it if living in sky of Venus- Venus orbit would be a more dangerous place to be- or Venus is a fortress].
But anyhow, getting back to theory of Venus re-surfacing say +100 million years ago. The idea of theory doesn’t involve impactors, but rather the heat comes from the interior of Planet. Or interior heat builds up and gets near the surface then dump heat into space, and cools, and repeats.
So if theory is true, we don’t know when it repeats it’s re-surfacing. Or it be due to happen in next million year? And because it’s close to happening, Venus atmosphere could be warmer [and will get much warmer over next thousands of years].
Or got impactors, internal heat, or “greenhouse effect related to sunlight”. And I think the most probable is the sunlight warming the clouds which are at about 50 Km in elevation.
norman…”Here is an empirical test done with detailed measurements. It is done in a vacuum to eliminate conduction and convection so the only energy transfer is from EMR.
https://www.avs.org/AVS/files/61/61088ed4-a189-469b-9393-fba7570c8e76.pdf”
You should learn to read and understand these experiments. This one was done by rank amateurs.
From page one, the authors state:
“From this we get equation 3 which describes the net heat flow from an object. Simplifying this equation, we end up with equation 4. [1]
H = e(const)AT^4 (1)
Hnet = HRadiated_ Away – HAbsorbed From_ Surroundings (2)
Hnet = e(const)AT^4 – Rod e(const)AT^4 Surroundings (3)
Hnet = e(const)A(TRod^4 – TSurroundings^4) (4)”
*********
Complete and utter bunk. Equation 2 above is what is confusing Norman and many other alarmists:
Hnet = HRadiated_ Away – HAbsorbed From_ Surroundings
It states nothing in S-B to the effect the power radiated from a body is a net radiation comprising emitted energy versus absorbed energy.
There is nothing in Stefan-Boltzman to indicate a ‘net heat’ flow. The left hand term in SB is the radiation from the body or into the body, depending on the temps of either body, not the net heat nor the net radiation.
The notion of net heat and net radiation is nonsense. In the amateur experiment to which Norman has linked, they have an electrically powered heat source warming a bar, which sits inside a cylinder with it all enclosed in a vacuum.
They are claiming the EM emitted from the bar, obviously IR, represents a net heat flow, which is plain wrong. It represents only the power radiated from a body which has an atmosphere or another body nearby with a different temperature.
The S-B equation tells you that. It comes down to Tbar^4 – T surround^4. In case WordPress messes with that it is
Tbar^4 minus Tsurround^4
If Tb = Ts, there is no power radiated either way. If Tb > Ts power is radiated from Tb because Tb will be warming Ts. If Ts > Tb, the bar is absorbing as it’s temperature rises.
That satisfies the 2nd law.
Gordon Robertson
I don’t know why you have such a negative attitude toward established science. On the next thread you call scientists idiots for coming up with the Big Bang Theory. It is just a model of the Universe that fits observation. It could be wrong but you call them idiots when this model satisfies observations. Do you have another model that satisfies the observed reality?
Now with your dislike of science (except for crackpot science, made up versions that do not have to be supported by empirical observations), I would like to inform you, textbook heat transfer science is not just isolated to teaching University students. It is used all around the world in all things using heat transfer. Heat exchangers, power plants, space equipment, the list is vast and endless. If the science were not spot on, the flaws would have been found and corrected many decades ago. They have not been because the stuff is real and valid physics (even if you hate it, your feelings do not in any way affect reality).
YOU: “The notion of net heat and net radiation is nonsense.”
You make this declarative statement and think it means something. Calling established physics nonsense does not make you seem a bright or intelligent poster. Here I will link you to established science, it will state exactly what you reject. So you have an option. Eihter learn reality or stay in your delusions. Makes no difference to other bloggers. I think many are starting to ignore your posts as they are based on nothing but you own opinions.
Anyway I would like you to scroll down to page 20 of this document and read the material. This page clearly demonstrates you do not have a clue of what you are talking about. Making things up and declaring them as fact.
http://nptel.ac.in/courses/112108149/pdf/M9/Student_Slides_M9.pdf
Con-man, just because someone does not fall for institutionalized pseudoscience does not mean they are opposed to science. Take your “big bang” example. That is NOT science. It is PURE pseudoscience. No one has to come up with something better, to debunk it. The “big bang” destroys itself.
g*e*r*a*n
I do not think you understand the concept of science. It is a method of modeling Nature using mathematical equations and logical thought process. Big Bang is not pseudoscience, it is the current model that can explain the observed data. It could be wrong and many ideas in science are overturned. It is not pseudoscience. Observation: the more distant galaxies have greater redshifts corresponding to the distance they are away from us. The galaxies also appear to be moving in directions away from each other. These are observed phenomena. I also took Astronomy. If you would have taken such a subject you would know that there were rival theories and ideas proposed about the Universe. Where it came from and what is going on with it. The Big Bang was chosen as the one that could most explain what was observed.
I already know that you strongly believe established science is pseudoscience. I get this about you. It makes you a crackpot. Is it beyond your stupidity to see that established science in heat transfer works and has worked for decades. No you probably are not able to grasp such ideas. Sorry I can’t help your limited thought process. It seems no one will be able to do so.
Con-man starts off with “I do not think. ..”
Norm, you should have stopped right there. You would have been correct.
But, you went on with your rambling, easily debunked pseudoscience.
There are NO observations that prove the “big bang”.
Just look at your rambling: “Big Bang is not pseudoscience, it is the current model that can explain the observed data. It could be wrong and many ideas in science are overturned. It is not pseudoscience.”
It sure sounds like you are cautious the BB is valid. You keep a lot of exits open. But, yet you want so hard to believe. “Belief” is not science. “Belief” is a religion.
Redshifts of distant galaxies means nothing, if you take away all the assumptions. Hint: Assumptions are NOT science.
You took astronomy! Hilarious.
No, I’m not against “established science”. I’m against “established pseudoscience”, like the BB, and the GHE.
And since you “took” astronomy, you may have heard about the Moon. You may have been taught that the Moon rotates on its axis. That’s what NASA teaches. Enjoy you “established pseudoscience”:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=exIpL0Uhr_k
g*e*r*a*n
You presume I have this desire to believe on theory or another.
You say there is no evidence of Big Bang. Here are some the major evidence. There are others.
If you can find a valid explanation for the observed information than you have a rival theory and new information will need to be discovered to determine which is more correct. How do you explain all these pieces of evidence? If you have one don’t be shy, find a valid explanation for all the collected evidence. How do you explain the red-shift of galaxies based upon their distance away from us?
https://www.universetoday.com/106498/what-is-the-evidence-for-the-big-bang/
Are you making the statement that the moon does not rotate? I am not sure of what your position is no that one.
Con-man the Moon does NOT rotate on its axis. I know you were taught that. I know you probably can’t accept it. It’s somewhat like the GHE, you have no concept.
Hilarious.
g*e*r*a*n
So what do you think the Moon does? Does it rotate? Is the word axis what you object to? You really are not explaining much with your posts, they are not very useful. Be more specific, that could help. This generic declarations have little value. Explain you position and what you think the moon Moon does.
Con-man, you claim you “took” astronomy. Did you not learn about the Moon? Do you not know what an “axis” is? Do you not understand the verb “rotate”?
Are you that poorly educated?
g*e*r*a*n
I am not asking you to explain what you thought I learned. I am asking you to explain what you mean. Does the Moon rotate yes/no?
If you answer No what do you think it is doing?
con-man, can you do anything besides wash dishes and pound on that keyboard?
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/12/uah-global-temperature-update-for-november-20170-36-deg-c/#comment-276577
g*e*r*a*n
I know you are working hard to get me annoyed. I notice that you are still not answering any questions.
Does the Moon rotate YES or NO?
Linking to another post is not an answer.
My poor castrated, rabid chihuahua, can you not follow the link to the exact answer?
Are you that incompetent?
g*e*r*a*n
I am not asking for a link I am asking you a simple question.
Will you answer. Do you think the Moon rotates Yes or No. Nothing more needed than your own thought. Just a Yes or No. Nothing more.
g*e*r*a*n
Alright I guess you did answer. I am so surprised that you are proud of your stupidity. Most people would not flaunt it the way you do.
I was trying to be certain of your post, was I really getting your lunacy correct?
YOU: “Con-man the Moon does NOT rotate on its axis. I know you were taught that. I know you probably cant accept it. Its somewhat like the GHE, you have no concept.”
When you call me Con-Man that means Honest man. Thanks.
So the Moon does not have a night/day cycle. Wow! Are you joking or have some weird angle with your claim. I think Gordon Robertson might have to abandon you after that one.
You really do make up your own reality.
My poor incompetent, let me copy/paste from the link:
“Con-man the Moon does NOT rotate on its axis. I know you were taught that. I know you probably cant accept it. It’s somewhat like the GHE, you have no concept.
Hilarious.”
And again, hilarious!
Perfect. After not being able to follow my link, the con-man now gets there.
How long does it take?
Hilarious.
And, once there, he now tries to make up new definitions for “rotate”. He believes that Moon’s day/night cycle is related to “rotate on its axis”.
Hilarious.
And this clown “took” astronomy!
Hilarious.
g*e*r*a*n
You are a delusional lunatic. Much better for me to end communication. You are too far gone and not really funny.
No problem, con-man.
We all knew you were not an honest man.
Hilarious.
G*nat’s concept of celestial mechanics is truly amazing (not in a good way). Does he really believe that the moon does not rotate on its axis?!!! Come on, almost no one is that stupid.
I say almost no one, because I had an eerily similar interaction with another lunatic (how appropriate) called Mack who believed the phases of the moon were as a result of by the earth blocking the sun’s rays.
You can see my interaction with Mack starting here –
http://jennifermarohasy.com/2015/10/sceptics-and-alarmists-together-present-to-coalition-environment-committee/#comment-581537 .
and then read the comments that follow.
At least Mack saw the errors of his ways and apologized.
Will G*nat likewise apologize? From his past adolescent behaviors, I think not.
Don’t worry, miker. We’ve got you down for believing the Moon rotates on its axis.
I’ll be glad to remind you, from time to time, so you won’t forget how stupid you are.
G*nat
You can put down the entire astronomical and physics communities as believers that the moon rotates. Is this theory that the moon does not rotate your own? I don’t put the flat earth society in the above categories so maybe you can run it past them.
You are one confused puppy. The concept that revolution and rotation are distinct entities was known in ancient times and is by no means a NASA invention. You have really got it in for NASA.
The lunar day is 27.3 earth days see
https://www.universetoday.com/20524/how-long-is-a-day-on-the-moon-1/.
Information about the moon that is appropriate for a 12 year old or younger can be found at
http://www.primaryhomeworkhelp.co.uk/moon/facts html.
I must warn g*nat , the information at these sites are longer than 10 lines. Perhaps g*nat needs to investigate whether tinfoil hats protect against information overload.
If you were able to think for yourself, miker, you could figure this out in about 5 minutes. But, since your mind is locked up, you must search the internet for anything you belief supports your pseudoscience.
You must have learned this technique from some con-man.
Hilarious.
I’ve always considered Flynn to be the dumbest blogger ever. Now I’m not so sure.
Yep Snape,
This guy makes Mike Flynn seem positively sane in comparison.
MikeR
G* doesn’t seem very impressed with the links you provided. Too mainstream. This, OTOH, should be right up his alley:
http://www.skepticreport.com/sr/?p=416
g*e*r*a*n, please update Wikipedia:
“The Moon is in synchronous rotation with Earth”.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moon
svante adds her name to the list of “Moon-spinners”.
(You folks should get an orange, apple, or tennis ball, and work this out on your kitchen table. It’s not that complicated. But, you do have to think for yourselves.)
G*nat,
Do your kitchen top experiment with your favourite fruit (make sure it is not a banana) . Remember to label one point on the equator. Film your experiment with your phone camera and place it on YouTube and provide a link.
Information about how to upload a YouTube video can be found here –
https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/57407?co=GENIE.Platform%3DDesktop&hl=en
You will then have convincing evidence one way or the other.
Prove us all wrong.
Snape
Thanks for that link. It is what I feel we are getting from a few of the hard core skeptics.
Above SkepticGoneWild showed the l*u*n*a*t*i*c a computer moon which was started rotating slowly. The user than moved this rotating moon around the Earth moving it at around so the same side faced the Earth. It was very clear, very direct. I think the loon is mad at NASA because he is a cheese lover and the folks at NASA are keeping the secret out so they can slowly mine the moon and make themselves rich and deprive the d*u*m*b*e*s*t poster off all time the opportunity to get some very low cost cheese to go with his excessive wine drinking.
Norman
Mike suggested g* should use his favorite fruits to represent the earth and moon. I’m worried this will only reinforce the “celestial foodstuffs” theory.
Con-man critiques the egregious Moon video: “It was very clear, very direct.”
Norm, it was very WRONG!
It’s amazing you can’t figure out this simple problem. Maybe it’s all those worms in your head?
l*u*n*a*t*I*c
No the video is not wrong your are just incredibly stupid and have zero logical or rational thought process. You need some help buddy, I can’t help you with your issues.
MikeR suggests you make a video of your experiment with fruit and post it on the web to show us all we are wrong and you are the profound genius. Since you are a lazy lunatic with no rational thought process, I do not expect to see such a video from you. Get lost gnat you are a big waste of time for everyone on this blog.
You can always tell when Norm knows his pseudoscience is busted. His comments are less than 500 words!
Hilarious.
g*e*r*a*n, what about the moon landings, true or false?
svante, what about your sex change operation, true or false?
g*e*r*a*n
is correct, the moon does not rotate.
the whole universe revolves around the moon.
I can’t believe you can not understand this.
11 minutes and 9 seconds of up and down again.
Dummy gets a ride to Space:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=669&v=6ZJghIk7_VA
Linked from:
https://www.geekwire.com/2017/dummy-blue-origin/
and
http://www.transterrestrial.com/
This New Shepard rocket launch of Blue Orgin.
Wiki:
“Blue Origin is an American privately funded aerospace manufacturer and spaceflight services company set up by Amazon.com founder Jeff Bezos with its headquarters in Kent, Washington. The company is developing technologies to enable private human access to space with the goal to dramatically lower costs and increase reliability. Blue Origin is employing an incremental approach from suborbital to orbital flight, with each developmental step building on its prior work.”
And from geekwire
“This weeks flight was the first conducted under a license from the Federal Aviation Administration that allowed Blue Origin to charge for payloads.”
They hope to be offering rides in 2018. Have you seen what a ride will cost?
With such a small passenger capacity, the cost must be outrageous, just to break even.
“Normal” asking price per seat for 100 km elevation [where space officially starts, though US force considered 50 miles
as beginning space and had given astronaut wings for getting this high- and one see the blackness of space directly above you can be much lower though this] is about $100,000 to $250,000. People bought tickets at such prices and none of which have not been delivered yet. Or there a big difference between a test pilot and paying customers and everyone want a careful testing program before the public can allowed into space.
So anyhow, Virgin Galactic apparently has pre-sold or recieved partial payment for about 500 seat tickets in the range of $200,000 to $250,000 per seat. And plans to fly 6 passengers per trip.
And Virgin Galactic is way behind schedule and had one test pilot killed and the other survived a test flight accident.
It was planned to already be flying customers- but delays sort of normal with space related stuff.
SpaceX also planning space joyrides and global travel with suborbital flight.
Other companies have failed- XCOR and others.
As far as I know at moment it’s Virgin Galactic and Blue Orgin who seem nearest to getting FAA certification for paying customers.
Oh, I should say the idea, is seat costs will eventually go down- and something $20,000 or less is possible.
And [eventually, the idea is] suborbital travel will be competitive with air travel. Competitive in same sense as concorde planes was competitive [even though Concorde was governmental backed and evenually after decade of service went bankrupt- so ultimately failing to be competitive].
But This isn’t backed by government- though governments are involved in buying some payloads and FAA is being “helpful” as compared to opposite of deciding to outlaw it.
October 26, 2017
“Today at Future Investment Initiative, a major investment conference in Riyadh, Crown Prince HRH Mohammad bin Salman Al-Saud and Sir Richard Branson announced an exciting partnership, whereby Saudi Arabia, via the Public Investment Fund, intends to take a significant stake in Virgin Galactic, Virgin Orbit and The Spaceship Company with an investment of approximately $1bn. Under the planned partnership, Virgin will retain the majority interest in the three space companies.
There is still some work to do before the deal is finally confirmed, including securing US regulatory clearances, but as Richard observed, the investment is a sign of confidence from the international investment community that our vision, our approach and our technology are on the right path to commercialising space access.”
https://www.virgingalactic.com/saudi-arabia-announces-intended-1bn-investment-in-virgin-space-companies/
Which good news, I guess. It’s been reported that Branson
had spent about 500 million on the project- and that’s a
problem. Blue Orgin seems to be spending less money- which is good or a more hopeful sign.
I’m glad to see entrepreneurs spending their money. Hope they are successful. NASA should be worried.
–g*e*r*a*n says:
December 16, 2017 at 8:15 PM
Im glad to see entrepreneurs spending their money. Hope they are successful. NASA should be worried.–
NASA has had the delusion that they are rocket launch company- the US Senate also shares this delusion.
But NASA job is exploring space, and the cheaper and better rockets are going to make NASA job less cluttered with delusions. Now, if NASA can get over the idea that they a spacestaton company or Lunar base company. or Lunar mining company, things will even get better.
But NASA should do something about starting fuel depots in space- no private company is doing this, and probably better if NASA builds and operate a depot in LEO until such time as the bugs get worked out.
Or what would better [and so NASA doesn’t get deluded] the US government should offer prize to any private company developing operating a depot in space.
US government could do that right now by passing a reasonable law that has the purpose of kick starting that industry.
Don’t fret. Dummies get to ride for free.
That was for dummy: http://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/12/uah-global-temperature-update-for-november-20170-36-deg-c/?replytocom=276551#respond
gam,, Thanks for the discussion upthread on the psychrometric chart. It triggered a learning experience for me which I will share here.
First thing learned was two different expressions for the Clausius-Clapeyron equation; one exact, which I was already aware of, and one nearly exact. Although I never needed to use it, one of my thermodynamics texts gives the ,,exact relationship between the change in volume and the latent heat (enthalpy change) when a liquid changes into a vapor,,. The relation is exact but requires the exact enthalpy change and volume change of the phase change vs temperature to determine the saturation line (which is easily measured).
A second expression exploits that the enthalpy change is nearly constant (~1.7%) over the temperature range of interest for the atmosphere. It is held constant. This allows an analytic relation between temperature and pressure defining a very good approximation of the saturation line which is defined exactly by the exact C-C equation.
The Boltzmann work came later. Clapeyron (a railroad engineer) came up with his equation the approximate year Boltzmann (a physicist) was born. (These two and many others are all rightfully honored for charting new territory in understanding the physics of nature.
Once the saturation line is established, the rest of the psychrometric chart can be constructed using the ideal gas laws. This works because of the somewhat unusual condition that water vapor near saturation in the atmosphere is acting very much like an ideal gas. Because the construction uses p = (wR/V) * T, it is the weight of water molecules that is used, not the number.
ASHES TO AUSTRALIA !!
Lunar Libration
Wiki:
“In astronomy, libration is a perceived oscillating motion of orbiting bodies relative to each other, notably including the motion of the Moon relative to Earth, or of trojan asteroids relative to planets. Lunar libration is distinct from the slight changes in the Moon’s apparent size viewed from Earth. Although this appearance can also be described as an oscillating motion it is caused by actual changes in the physical distance of the Moon because of its elliptic orbit around Earth. Lunar libration is caused by three phenomena detailed below.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libration
Continue wiki:
— Lunar libration
The Moon keeps one hemisphere of itself facing the Earth, due to tidal locking. Therefore, humans’ first view of the far side of the Moon resulted from lunar exploration on October 7, 1959.
However, this simple picture is only approximately true: over time, slightly more than half (about 59%) of the Moon’s surface is seen from Earth due to libration.
Libration is manifested as a slow rocking back and forth of the Moon as viewed from Earth, permitting an observer to see slightly different halves of the surface at different times.
There are three types of lunar libration:
1: Libration in longitude results from the eccentricity of the Moon’s orbit around Earth; the Moon’s rotation sometimes leads and sometimes lags its orbital position.
2: Libration in latitude results from a slight inclination (about 6.7 degrees) between the Moon’s axis of rotation and the normal to the plane of its orbit around Earth. Its origin is analogous to how the seasons arise from Earth’s revolution about the Sun.
3: Diurnal libration is a small daily oscillation due to the Earth’s rotation, which carries an observer first to one side and then to the other side of the straight line joining Earth’s and the Moon’s centers, allowing the observer to look first around one side of the Moon and then around the otherbecause the observer is on the surface of the Earth, not at its center. —
The “Moon rotation” issue fooled several. gbaikie was the only one that got it right. The one that “took astronomy” failed miserably, as usual. SGW may have understood by now, but was struggling for awhile.
So, to explain again, start with the race car scenario, which is a perfect model. There are two types of motion involved. The first is the car traveling around the track. The car is NOT rotating on its axis. It appears to be rotating to someone outside the oval track. But, there is only one type of motion–traveling along the track.
Rotating on an axis is a different motion. An object can rotate on its axis without any other motion involved. If the race car were parked on the track, and you were inside the oval, you would see the driver’s door. If you rotated the car 90 degrees CCW, you would see the car’s headlights. Another 90 degree rotation CCW, and you would see the passenger door, with the car facing backwards on the track. Two more 90 degree rotations CCW would bring the car back to the starting position. The car rotated on its axis. The rotation was visible from BOTH the inside of the track and the outside.
As indicated earlier, the motions can easily be replicated at home.
anger 5:17pm miserably fails race car driver school.
Every race car driver knows turning left into corner 1 at Indy you will need to account for & counter balance the nonzero rotational inertia of the engine with downforce et. al. or you will spin out causing many TV replay angles, collision damage, angry drivers/owners & a restart without you, since you are now on the tow hook.
The motion can easily be replicated at home.
Do you feel better now, tricky?
That you’ve crashed in turn 1 because you forgot about your car’s rotational inertia? No, after all it was my duty.
A car would only be a model or analogy or parable.
You could hang a rope from the Moon.
Space elevator.
The rope would hang towards earth.
This space elevator would pass thru Earth/Moon L-1.
It needs to be a long rope and strong rope, but it’s doesn’t to be as strong as rope needed for Earth space elevator, but would have to longer than an Earth- which needs to be about 40,000 km or longer.
With Lunar space elevator one has go past Earth/Moon L-1 point and with Earth space elevator need to go past GEO [36,000 km from Earth surface- lunar space elevator would need to be at least as long].
Lunar space elevator doesn’t need to get close to Earth to work, but it could be near earth.
The closest Earth gets to earth is “Perigee (10^6 km) 0.3633”
https://tinyurl.com/yablg3a8
Could be 360,000 km.
So have 360,000 strong rope, lowering from say 100,000 km from Moon and between Earth and Moon. And you could a rope hanging to lunar surface. Then feed rope the other way towards Earth. And rope will vary it’s distance from Earth depending whether is at perigee or apogee:
Perigee: 0.3633
Apogee: 0.4055
Or varies by about 40,000 km.
The rope hangs vertically on same spot of Moon, and at other end of rope, earth spins below it [at about 1000 mph].
[36,000 km from Earth surface- lunar space elevator would need to be at least as long].
Should be:
[36,000 km from Earth surface- lunar space elevator would need to be at least twice as long].
And:
“The closest Earth gets to earth”
Should be:
The closest the Moon gets to Earth
When earth orbits the sun it rotates once per year Plus it spins at rotation rate of once every 24 hour [at equator it spins at a speed of about 1000 mph.
See:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sidereal_time
[That’s why G* mentions astronomy- as they use Sidereal time.
“Common time on a typical clock measures a slightly longer cycle, accounting not only for Earth’s axial rotation but also for Earth’s annual revolution around the Sun of slightly less than 1 degree per day (in fact to the nearest arcsecond, it takes 365.2422 days to revolve, therefore 360 degrees/365.2422 days = 0.9856 or 59′ 8″ per day, i.e., slightly less than 1 degree per day).
A mean sidereal day is 23 hours, 56 minutes, 4.0916 seconds (23.9344699 hours or 0.99726958 mean solar days), the time it takes Earth to make one rotation relative to the vernal equinox.”
G*nat,
So which comment by gbaikie are you referring to? This one http://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/12/uah-global-temperature-update-for-november-20170-36-deg-c/#comment-276679 .
Or the one directly above.
If the latter, then which of the three forms of libration are inconsistent with the moon rotating?
Additionally, with regard to your analogy how does the above three libration effects relate to the car on the race track?
1. Does the car have constant tilt (you need to check the shock absorbers, driving in this state would be dangerous), or
2. perhaps the car is moving on an oval track or
3. the people watching the car periodically turn from side to side?
Finally you claim that SGW may have understood by now. This is the first correct statement you have produced in several months,
Yes, he now understands your lunacy –
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/12/uah-global-temperature-update-for-november-20170-36-deg-c/#comment-276804 .
— mikeR says:
December 18, 2017 at 8:00 PM
G*nat,
So which comment by gbaikie are you referring to? This one http://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/12/uah-global-temperature-update-for-november-20170-36-deg-c/#comment-276679 . —
Yup.
“Or the one directly above.
If the latter, then which of the three forms of libration are inconsistent with the moon rotating?
Additionally, with regard to your analogy how does the above three libration effects relate to the car on the race track? ”
Lunar Libration post is only direct quotes of wiki.
I didn’t add any comments to that particular post.
I posted it because in first link above I said:
“The correct answer is the Moon is tidal locked with Earth and has uneven mass [why its tidally locked- though it sways a bit back and forth ”
My description of “though it sways a bit back and forth” is:
wiki:
“There are three types of lunar libration:
1: Libration in longitude results from the eccentricity of the Moons orbit around Earth; the Moons rotation sometimes leads and sometimes lags its orbital position.”
And nothing to do with the other two types of lunar libration.
So I was adding to the “…though it sways a bit back and forth”
g*e*r*a*n
I made a crude drawing of your race car. It is very obvious you have no understanding of the concept of “axis of rotation”. You really don’t know what it means. I saw above SkepticGoneWild explained the concept but you still do not understand.
I need to provide the current accepted definition. Try to understand what this means.
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/axis%20of%20rotation
“Definition of axis of rotation
: the straight line through all fixed points of a rotating rigid body around which all other points of the body move in circles”
https://tinyurl.com/yb63xrea
Notice in my very crude race car drawing, the axis of rotation always must point in the same direction. This is a line with fixed points, they do not move and hence are always pointing in the same direction (I drew it as up). I drew crude headlights on my car and you can see the headlights are rotating around the fixed line, the axis of rotation. They form a complete circle around the fixed axis in making one lap around the track.
If you can’t see this, sorry you need help.
Con-man, you’re always the funniest when you try to teach. Here you are attempting to teach about “axis of rotation”. (Obviously you’ve never had a course in “dynamics”.)
You draw the axis of rotation in the plane of the rotation. Hilarious! An axis of rotation is PERPENDICULAR to the plane of rotation.
More “teaching”, please.
l*U*n*a*t*i*c
Yes the line would be pointing straight up from the car. The point I illustrate (which you can’t comprehend because you possess irrational and delusional thought process but can’t recognize it) is the car is rotating around a fixed line.
If the line is pointing out of the page and up the effect is exactly the same. I think your example is very pointless about connecting the Earth and Moon by string and if you don’t see the string wrap around the Moon you conclude that the Moon does not rotate. That is not an axis of rotation.
I read SkepticGoneWild appeal to you. You are both skeptics and he does not want you to paint the GHE skeptics as incapable of logical thought. He used a roller and moved it around a steering wheel and the roller turned on its axis as he moved it around the wheel keeping the same point of the roller pointed at the wheel. You really are a complete moron aren’t you? Mindless it would seem.
No con-man. The vehicle is NOT rotating on its axis. It is orbiting–traveling around a track.
Two distinct, independent motions, beyond the comprehension of many.
It’s fun to watch.
BTW, con-man, I never said connect the string between the Earth and Moon. I used the sting to teach what “rotating on an axis” looked like. As always, your comprehension skills match your knowledge of physics–both nearly non-existent.
But, you’re still funny. (Can we see more of the yelping chihuahua? That’s when you’re outrageous.)
The following is dedicated to g*nat, that endless mother lode of idiocy that keeps on giving.
For the diagram, on the left is the rotating moon and on the right what would happen if the moon did not rotate.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tidal_locking#/media/File%3ATidal_locking_of_the_Moon_with_the_Earth.gif .
g*e*r*a*n
Does your stupidity have no limits? You can’t grasp even the simplest of concepts. Yes the race car rotates around a fixed axis. My crude diagram clearly shows it does. A fixed axis is one in which they do not rotate but everything else rotates around it. The arrow I drew is the direction of a fixed axis, it does not change direction, it does not move with the rotation of the car. The lights rotate around this axis dunce. You are dumber than one could imagine. Why do you post?
Sorry Norm but your race car is NOT rotating on its axis. It is turning around the middle of the track. The middle of the track is NOT the car axis.
You don’t understand “axis of rotation”, and you confuse rotating on an axis with changing direction.
But, I bet you can really wash dishes well.
g*e*r*a*n says, December 19, 2017 at 6:02 AM:
Yes, but a thing can orbit something else AND rotate on its axis at the same time, or NOT rotate on its axis at the same time.
If the car/Moon didn’t rotate on its axis at the same time as it orbited the centre of the track/the Earth, it would point in the same direction during its entire orbit. Neither the car nor the Moon does.
You’re seemingly confused by this peculiar notion that something rotating on its axis necessarily has to do so at a high rate, sort of spinning around AS it goes around its orbit. It doesn’t. The Moon rotates around its axis ONE time only during its full orbit around the Earth. Why? Because the Earth holds it in a tidal lock.
Take your race car, drive an imaginary pole through its roof and into the ground below and have it constantly point directly to the west as the car races around the track. That’s your race car’s AXIS. Its directional position in space is fixed. It follows your car around the race track, but remains pointing west at all times.
AROUND this fixed pole/axis, during the car’s full ‘orbit’, what do you see? The car ROTATES. SLowly. Just once each round. Nevertheless, it rotates, g*e*r*a*n.
K: Yes, but a thing can orbit something else AND rotate on its axis at the same time, or NOT rotate on its axis at the same time.
g: Agreed.
K: If the car/Moon didnt rotate on its axis at the same time as it orbited the centre of the track/the Earth, it would point in the same direction during its entire orbit. Neither the car nor the Moon does.
g: A race car “points” forward (relative to itself) as it travels around the track. It is NOT rotating on its axis. The Moon has the same motion.
K: Youre seemingly confused by this peculiar notion that something rotating on its axis necessarily has to do so at a high rate, sort of spinning around AS it goes around its orbit. It doesnt. The Moon rotates around its axis ONE time only during its full orbit around the Earth. Why? Because the Earth holds it in a tidal lock.
g: Sorry K, but you’re confused if you believe I have any problems with rotating at a high rate. The Moon does NOT rotate. Everyone has difficulty with this simple concept. Think of a horse on a race track. Before the race, the horse is nervous, and turns in circles (rotates on its axis) waiting for the race to start. As the horse turns, someone in the middle of the track will see the head, tail, and both sides of the horse. Once the race starts, the person in the middle only sees one side of the horse, because the horse is no longer “rotating on its axis”. But, the horse is racing around the track.
K: Take your race car, drive an imaginary pole through its roof and into the ground below and have it constantly point directly to the west as the car races around the track. Thats your race cars AXIS. Its directional position in space is fixed. It follows your car around the race track, but remains pointing west at all times.
AROUND this fixed pole/axis, during the cars full orbit, what do you see? The car ROTATES. SLowly. Just once each round. Nevertheless, it rotates, g*e*r*a*n.
g: NOPE! The car is turning on the track, not rotating on its axis. You are trying to make the axis a part of the track. The axis is part of the car.
Another contribution along the lines of Norman’s drawing, dedicated again to g*e*r*a*n, which of course he will ignore because he cannot even consider that he may be wrong.
https://s20.postimg.org/3pg6pjawt/Car_Rotation.jpg
So g*e*r*a*n explain which diagram, the one on the right or the left , corresponds to no rotation about an axis centered on the centre of mass of the car.
I eagerly await your answer.
Well miker, since you kept your comment to the 10 line max, and you didn’t get too carried away with derogatory nonsense, I’m pleased to answer your comment.
(Bonus points for the graphic, BTW.)
The left side is NOT rotating on its axis, just as the Moon, and just as a race car. The right side is rotating CW about its axis, making a full rotation in 360 degrees of orbit.
MikeR
Thanks for both your links. The rotating and non rotating video and your much better version of race cars on a track. Your excellent contribution to reality will not change g*e*r*a*n. He does not know the meaning of “axis of rotation”. In his twisted and warped understanding he thinks it is something else all together. The best thing to come from his incredible stupidity is others now will see what he contributes. Highest level of stupidity the human mind can come up with. Funny though in a way. He keeps arguing his stupid point. Not only stupid but block head. He is unable to see how dumb he really is. Hilarious!
I requested, and the con-man responded: “Can we see more of the yelping chihuahua?”
Hilarious.
Ok g*e*r*a*n,
This is like pulling teeth. I have to go through in meticulous detail.
See improved diagram –
https://s20.postimg.org/7wetahrn1/Car_Rotation_Center_of_Mass.jpg
What is relevant is the ROTATION around the AXIS of the car ( the vertical line going through the centre of mass of the car) .
Do you know where the centre of mass of the car is? Hint, see the red asterisk which represents an, out of plane, axis through the car’s centre of mass.
This is different to the centre of the arc of the trajectory (green circle) of the car.
I hope this now satisfies g*e*r*a*n !
Again, this time with feeling. Which one, left or right indicates that the car is rotating about its center of mass?
The analogy with the moon is obvious. Do I need to spell it out?
g*e*r*a*n says, December 19, 2017 at 2:18 PM:
Yes, but the car is not its axis. Its axis is fixed directionally in space, and so, if the car changes ITS direction, it changes its direction RELATIVE TO its axis.
Yes, it most definitely is. As the car completes one full ‘orbit’ around the race track, it also completes one full revolution around its axis. It simply changes its “pointing” direction in space a full 360 degrees as it moves around the track, and since, at the same time, its axis is always fixed in ITS “pointing” direction in space, the car naturally also revolves a full 360 degrees RELATIVE TO IT. That’s what “rotating on one’s axis” is all about, g*e*r*a*n.
I don’t believe it. I see it. I’m pointing it out.
Well, many do. People like you. Not all, though. People who understand the simple physics involved DON’T have any difficulty with it. It’s pretty straightforward, really.
Hahaha! No, g*e*r*a*n. This is just you being confused. The person in the middle of the track is only able to see the same side of the horse as it races around the track BECAUSE the horse at the same time rotates on its axis. If the horse DIDN’T rotate on its own axis, the person in the middle would end up seeing ALL sides of the horse as it made its way around the track. As it completes its ‘orbit’, it has rotated exactly ONCE relative to its axis.
It’s not like you have to see it “spin” like a top AS it moves around its orbit, g*e*r*a*n …!
Yes. AND it rotates on its axis. Only very slowly. Two things can happen at the same time, you know.
Ehm, no. The car’s axis always follows the car. It’s always where the car is. Wherever it goes. It is simply fixed directionally in space. So whatever directional motion the car does, it does so RELATIVE TO its axis.
This isn’t so hard to understand, g*e*r*a*n.
K claims: “This isn’t so hard to understand, g*e*r*a*n.”
Well Kristian, since it isn’t so hard to understand, you should be able to quickly answer the question posed below. Here it is again:
NASA claims the Moon is rotating in “synchronous rotation” with its orbit around Earth. Is that “synchronous rotation” CW or CCW?
mikeR,
Your diagram is good, but it lacks the essential ingredient – it fails to show how the car’s axis is always directionally fixed in space even as the car itself moves around in different directions.
I have thus taken the liberty of modifying your diagram slightly, adding in this all-important detail (the red arrows signifying the fixed directional position of the car’s axis):
https://okulaer.files.wordpress.com/2017/12/car_rotation_center_of_mass.jpg
If he (g*) doesn’t get it now, he simply doesn’t want to.
Note: The axis itself of course runs vertically through the car, that is, into the screen (from above, through the roof and into the ground beneath). The arrows just show the direction in which this axis would ‘look’ (if it had eyes to see) …
Kristian
Your addition to MikeR’s car graphic was exactly what I was trying to do with my crude one. The cult of Postma is strong with a couple. I see J Halp-less is also convinced the Moon does not rotate, but if you were on the Moon you would experience a Sunrise and Sunset, yet it is not spinning. Wild how the lunatic Postma can destroy rational science and create these non thinking True-Believers that think science is wrong, scientist are stupid yet they, with almost zero knowledge of physics. Hapless may have taking Junior High Science but with his thought process it is obvious he did not perform well. The lack of rational thought process exposes the cultists.
Kristian, you still didn’t answer the question.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/12/uah-global-temperature-update-for-november-20170-36-deg-c/#comment-276957
Con-man, you got in your yelping chihuahua insults, and your obsession with Postma, but you forgot to answer the question.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/12/uah-global-temperature-update-for-november-20170-36-deg-c/#comment-276957
Hilarious.
One could roughly say the stars are fixed points.
If take time lapse picture of stars from north pole, the stars will spin.
So go to north pole of Moon and do some thing, time lapse it for one year [365 days of 24 hours each]. Do the stars spin?
Gbaike, Good idea. Need 29 days for your time lapse on the moon.
G*, A lighthouse has a rotating light inside, correct?
A certain town in Maine doesn’t have one. So instead, they have a car with super bright headlights drive around in circles in a parking lot on a cliff over-looking the ocean.
On a foggy night a ship far out at sea sees a lighthouse with its bright beam of light rotating through the fog.
Or is it a car? Could they tell the difference?
Norman, this has *absolutely nothing* to do with Postma. Not everything bad in your world is his fault. This, is just a very simple thing that everyone seems to desperately want to obfuscate for some reason. I genuinely dont even see what there is to argue about. Orbiting is orbiting. Rotation is rotation. Whats even hard to understand!?
J Halp-less
You are correct on one point. YOU: “Not everything bad in your world is his fault.”
But all the bad physics peddled on this blog seem to stem from his lunatic views. He is a most disgusting human and also stupid. He is not able to grasp rational arguments and when intelligent people clearly point out he does not know what he is talking about, he does not thank them but go off on some vicious unwarranted attack. I think his goal is to create a cult so he attacks anyone who dares to weaken his position (which is not based on any physics, might sound good to someone like you who did very poorly in High School science classes). Reading yours and g*e*r*a*n’s posts I can see he is quite successful at this endevour. He is really weak with actual physics but very good at manipulation.
Con-man, the only thing you got correct was the exact quote from J Halp-less.
Now, if you could just understand and learn what you are quoting.
Correct Norm. G-man has fixed his race car axis to the circular rotation of the car. As in your sketch the axis must be fixed as far as direction to the non-rotating reference plane below. So in your sketch, the car will be rotating about its own axis relative to the north arrow pointing through that axis. In my two experiments, my hand fixed the axis in one place (or direction). If I had rotated my hand at the same rpm as my orbit during the experiment, of course the lint roller part would not rotate about the handle. This is why he sees no rotation.
The only remaining interest in the preceding discussion regarding the moons rotation, cars and balls (where he has been hounded by everyone including his natural allies such as SGW) , is g*nats reaction.
Does he have the balls to admit he was wrong?
If he doesnt then he is clearly deficient in this regard , just like the 2nd world war criminal whose only one was made of brass.
Apologies,
G*nat should not be compared directly to a war criminal. That’s over the top.
I meant to say- like the song about the 2nd world war criminal.
Anyway I would still like to hear an apology from G*nat for wasting everyone’s time.
mikeR,
It’s a nice break from thermodynamics. We’ve just removed the “thermo” part and are talking about dynamics, another field of physics.
Kristian,
Moved to down here because the sub-thread was getting unwieldy.
Blue plate only knows of green plate temperature because of green plate radiation. These blackbodies (by definition) absorb all incoming radiation.
It is by blue plate absorbing green plate radiation that it experiences any temperature difference from when the green plate was not there. Plus, of course, the constant input from the sun.
There is no photon cloud here because the vacuum is without matter. Essentially, the radiative exchange is 2-way. No thermal bath between the plates, just photons zipping past each other.
There is definitely a radiative exchange.
It is this exchange that sets the resulting steady-state temperature gradient in the 2-plate system, with constant energy coming from the sun.
You can also describe this in the language of thermodynamics, with a unidirectional flow.
Both methods of description are abstracts of reality. There’s no time in thermodynamics, for example, so we can’t use that system to plot the evolution of temperature, only beginning and end states. Nor can thermo encapsulate moment to moment fluctuations in real systems, which are quite real. Both systems are mathematical abstractions of reality, so saying one describes reality and the other doesn’t is a non-starter.
I’ll reply to this:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/12/uah-global-temperature-update-for-november-20170-36-deg-c/#comment-276621
and the post after when I’ve more time.
Wasn’t this an interesting quote from Kristian:
Often, split flux for axisymmetric field into up ( > 0) and down ( < 0) components:
F_v = F_v,+ F_v,-"
Yes:
http://www.astro.wisc.edu/~townsend/resource/teaching/astro-310-F08/09-radiation-field.pdf
http://www.ifa.hawaii.edu/users/kud/teaching_12/3_Radiative_transfer.pdf
http://www.astro.sunysb.edu/fwalter/AST341/idef.html
barry says, December 18, 2017 at 6:58 PM:
Thermal photon clouds do not just exist within the confines of matter. They’re CREATED and sustained by matter, but of course also exist outside the matter itself. This has been explained several times, barry, with direct quotes from various sources.
https://okulaer.files.wordpress.com/2017/11/smoketex.jpg
Do you want me to quote them again …?
You might have to do so, Kristian. I’ve seen you write it ‘gas/cloud’, which doesn’t work for the 2 plate set up, and clouds have internal interactions while photons (each one) zips in one direction and hits no other. In the 2 plate set up, what we have are a bunch of bullets going in essentially 2 directions (to and from each plate), and none of them interact with each other.
I don’t know what utility viewing a cloud of photons has.
Both plates are emitting and absorbing radiation to and from each other. Each experiences the others’ temperature by absorbing the others’ radiation, and this is how the blue plate ‘knows’ that there is a temperature field off to the right affecting its rate of energy loss. This interaction (powered ultimately by a constant sun) sets the negative thermal gradient through the system.
It is by believing that the green plate cannot possibly affect the blue that we get g*e*r*a*n*’s idea that the blue plate remains at constant temperature wen the green plate is introduced, and the green plate therefore has to become as warm as the blue plate for the 2 plate system to achieve thermal equilibrium with its energy source.
Eventually you have to give over the semantics and admit that the only possible way that the blue plate can have its rate of emission changed is because it absorbs radiation from the green plate.
There is no other way, although there are other ways of describing it.
barry correctly states: “It is by believing that the green plate cannot possibly affect the blue that we get g*e*r*a*n*’s idea that the blue plate remains at constant temperature when the green plate is introduced, and the green plate therefore has to become as warm as the blue plate for the 2 plate system to achieve thermal equilibrium with its energy source.”
barry, thanks for believing.
☺
barry says, December 19, 2017 at 6:29 PM:
Ok. Couldn’t post it directly for some reason, so will have to link to it:
https://okulaer.files.wordpress.com/2017/12/text1.png
The second part is describing a cloud of molecules as well as radiation. This obviously doesn’t work with the 2 plate set up and vacuum. Also, your quote says that a photon has a temperature. This is crazy. EM radiation has no temperature, it only conveys energy that transfers to objects which have temperature.
Even if we accept the premise that photons work like molecules, they still do not interact with each other in this way. They zip past each other. There’s no ‘thermal bath’ between the plates.
The 2 plates are emitting and absorbing radiation. There is no other activity.
Please respond to the rest of my post.
As a special favour just to barry, Im going to link through to some of the responses he received at Climate of Sophistry, which literally go point by point through his comments, explaining and correcting in great detail (and, initially, with great patience) every single misunderstanding and error in looking at the problem. First, heres one containing some definitions of heat:
https://climateofsophistry.com/2017/10/06/slayers-vindicated-by-additional-independent-researchers/#comment-31206
Prior to that there was this very detailed response to one of his comments:
https://climateofsophistry.com/2017/10/06/slayers-vindicated-by-additional-independent-researchers/#comment-31199
Then there was this response:
https://climateofsophistry.com/2017/10/06/slayers-vindicated-by-additional-independent-researchers/#comment-31221
Which also, incidentally, explains that barry is not actually banned. Then, much later, a comment was pulled from trash and answered again in detail, which explains yet further:
https://climateofsophistry.com/2017/10/06/slayers-vindicated-by-additional-independent-researchers/#comment-31261
Earlier there were also answers to further comments explaining, in great detail, the view factors involved, and exactly why they make a difference, etc. Now, this is no attempt to shame or embarrass. There is absolutely nothing wrong with not understanding something, if that lack of understanding is genuine. So, one more time, giving barry the benefit of the doubt yet again for some strange reason, perhaps barry could look again through these comments, the answers given, and just keep reading through all the comments there generally…until it clicks.
Naturally, as with the conversation above, there will be no response from me for at least a day. The thing is, there is no need for anyone to reply to me. Everything that could possibly need to be asked or answered, already has been. It is done. But…I understand how these things are. PLs are PLs.
I was not convinced by any of those arguments. I was polite. I got banned under the peculiar pretext that I need to post under my real name, a double standard that does not apply to those with nom-de-plumes throughout that thread (like AfroPhysics) that agree with Postma.
In other fora I’ve posted at it is considered bad etiquette (ban-worthy) to bring conversations from other websites to the forum. It’s a recipe for flame wars, no mater how innocently it’s couched. I’ve determined that, whatever else you may have to offer, you troll way too much, and it’s going to be better to ignore you.
So you didnt understand, or werent reading through properly then, and refuse to try again now. Thats OK, its your loss. Stay ignorant.
And by the way, barry, if you are aware that its bad etiquette to bring up conversations from another forum, then its strange that both you and Nate decided to bring up your so-called bans from Climate of Sophistry in the first place. Which you did, as an attempt to discredit the blog.
Oh, dont go there anyone, he is so rude to everyone, and he bans anyone that disagrees, etc etc. When I went there, this happened, oh no, so terrible…
…whoops, you just brought up a conversation from another blog.
test
https://tinyurl.com/yb63xrea
LESSON 1
Since so many are making the same mistakes, it might be easier to just address the mistakes, rather than try to answer each individual.
There are TWO distinct, independent movements being discussed. People continue to confuse the TWO. If you cannot remember this basic fact, you will just continue to be confused.
One movement is called “orbiting”. This is the regular movement of the Moon around the Earth. The second movement is “rotation on an axis”. The Earth orbits around the Sun, and also rotates on an axis. The Moon orbits around the Earth, but does NOT rotate on its axis.
The simple demonstration is to fasten a string to an object, such as an orange, apple, or tennis ball. Hold the loose end of the sting with one hand, and slowly try to spin the object in place. Notice the string tends to wrap around the object. The object is “rotating on its axis”, to wrap the string.
Now, holding the loose end of string firmly to a table top (center point), move the object in an orbit about that center point. Notice the object does not have to wrap the string to orbit around the center point.
One movement is “rotating on an axis”. The other movement is “orbiting”. The two movements are independent of each other.
(I will stop here to address any questions or concerns about the two movements, before proceeding.)
So you have avoided my question.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/12/uah-global-temperature-update-for-november-20170-36-deg-c/#comment-276920 .
Do you still believe that the left hand side is not rotating while the right hand side is rotating about the centre of mass of the car?
if so then please give your considered reasons while referring to the diagram.
It is completely, trivially, obvious that the left-hand side diagram shows the car not rotating whilst completing a circuit, whilst the right-hand side diagram shows a car rotating about its axis once as it completes a circuit. Your diagram makes g*e*r*a*ns point so far absolutely clear.
Seriously, a child could understand this up until now. Not intended to be derogatory, just a simple statement of fact. I think the only reason people arent getting it is because of their personal bias against g*e*r*a*n, and because they have just too much indoctrination in the way they think everything works. Im not suggesting this is an intelligence issue at all, for the people not getting it. But, I think you could show that diagram to a reasonably bright child, and they would get it.
(the reason being, the childs mind is more open)
The simple demonstration is to fasten a string to an object, such as the moon. Hold the loose end of the sting (sic) with one hand, and slowly try to spin the moon in place. Notice the string tends to wrap around the moon. The moon is “rotating on its axis”, to wrap the string.
Now, holding the loose end of string firmly to a table top (center point), move the moon in an orbit about that center point with the moon NOT “rotating on its axis”. Notice the moon does have to wrap the string in orbit around the center point. Now repeat the same motion AND rotate the moon on its axis such that it faces the center point on the table all the time in which case the moon is now “rotating on its axis”.
I am completely with you at this point, g*e*r*a*n. Im not sure why, up to this point, so many people have got confused. Im still interested to see what LESSON 2 will bring, and reserving overall judgement until then. But it seems fairly obvious that with the race car going round the oval track, there is a difference between a situation where the car was somehow able to complete a circuit whilst the car itself was magically spinning round and round on its axis, as opposed to a situation where it just completes a circuit, as normal. Yet somehow people seem to think that after completing one circuit, the car has also rotated on its axis. Nope. It was in the same forward facing position the whole time.
J, thanks for having an open-mind. That’s rare these days.
This is an interesting situation, with people so adamant against the obvious truth. It’s a great illustration of how the AGW/GHE nonsense continues to linger, even against the science. People get “worms” in their head, and can’t get rid of them.
The advantage with the Moon is that the correct answer is so easy to demonstrate. No advanced physics is required.
(Lesson 2 will be tomorrow, to allow time for responsible questions/comments. Lesson 2 will deal with the Moon’s “synchronous rotation”.)
I had an open mind, and I created a simple experiment where one could actually observe the “phantom” rotation that you say is not happening. But you close your eyes and plug your ears and scream “la la la la”. Can’t help you there, bub.
Its definitely a great illustration of that. The trouble with the GHE is that there are just *so many* worms to get rid of. Even now, in a discussion further up, I can see someone with the same particular worm in their head which they just cant seem to shake. They will have to wait until tomorrow, of course, to see what the next update is, but, theyre not going to like it. Thats because it has already been explained to them. I guess thats it…if you dont want to understand something, the human mind gives you ways round it. One way it can do that is to make you think that you should take one tiny piece of a puzzle and insist that this piece, alone, must show you a whole picture. Since it doesnt, you can reject the whole puzzle.
Yet, all you had to do was just put in that last piece into the puzzle, and look at the whole thing…which has been staring you in the face, the whole time.
Rotating reference frames are confusing to some people. Maybe some day you will get it. NASA does. They sent a man to the moon. If the moon was not rotating, they would have missed their target, don’t ya think? OMG, go howl at NASA.
SGW, NASA claims the Moon is rotating in “synchronous rotation” with its orbit around Earth. So, since you know dynamics, and since you trust NASA, is that “synchronous rotation” CW or CCW?
You may use all reference materials, even contacting NASA, as needed.
(Kristian, Norm, miker, and other “spinners” are welcome to answer also.)
From NASA:
https://tinyurl.com/y76zlgw3
It states:
” From Earth, we always see the same face of the Moon because the Moon rotates once on its own axis in the same time that it travels once around Earth (called synchronous rotation)”
Bummer, man.
“Rotation period” is also given as 27.32 earth days. Not orbit period.
SGW, all your “research” brings us right back to where I linked to the NASA video, 4 days ago.
Dang, you are behind!
Bummer, man.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/12/uah-global-temperature-update-for-november-20170-36-deg-c/#comment-276566
PS: CW or CCW?
G.eran,
Here is a video of the rotating moon from the LRO:
https://tinyurl.com/ydyom7co
Total bummer.
Now I want you to practice saying the word “uncle!”
I suggest you quit posting here and spend your time emailing NASA so they can correct their multitude of mistakes.
SGW, that link is to a composite video. Translation: FAKE!
The very first sentence of the “explanation” is: “No one, presently, sees the Moon rotate like this.”
I’m glad that you have come out of the closet, and are now openly embracing pseudoscience. You will be quite happy with the others.
And, you are lint-free!
Hilarious.
‘whathever nates been drinking’
Moonshine obviously!
I think I understand now why there is confusion by J H and g*e*r*a*n.
From the perspective of an observer on the ground the car is slowly rotating on its axis (and moving around the centre of the track).
For the left hand case, from the frame of reference of a passenger in the cartge front of the car appears to be just going forward, which would be the case if it was moving in a straight line or going around a bend . However if the passengers in the look instead outside at a distant object, for example the moon,sun, stars or distant mountains they will soon realise they are slowly spinning around an axis centred on the car
For the case on the right, for which both of you claim the the car is rotating on its axis, the observed positions of the distant objects will remain fixed which basically proves that the car is definitely not rotating.
Sorry for all the typos. I accidentally hit the submit button prematurely.
Getting late here.
The second and third paragraphs should read as follows.
For the left hand case, from the frame of reference of a passenger in the car, the front of the car appears to be just going forward, which would be the case if it was moving in a straight line or going around a bend .
However if the passengers in the car instead look outside at a distant object, for example the moon,sun, stars or distant mountains they will soon realise they are slowly spinning around an axis centred on the car.
For the case on the right, for which both of you claim the the car is rotating on its axis, the observed directions of the distant objects will appear fixed, which proves that the car is definitely not rotating around an axis centred on the car.
Again the analogy with the moon’s rotation should be obvious.
miker, the reason a passenger in the left-case car sees different scenery is because he is seeing different scenery! There is only one movement–orbiting. He is changing his direction of view constantly.
In the right-case car, there are TWO movements. The TWO movements cancel, so the passenger’s view does not change.
You are still making the same mistake as mentioned in Lesson 1. You can not recognize the movements. Please review Lesson 1.
(Oh, and you did not answer the question. NASA indicates the Moon is rotating in sync with its orbit. So, which way is it rotating, CW or CCW? It should be obvious, right?)
OK,for the right hand diagram, what physical mechanism is the causing the rotation around the centre of mass to occur in the opposite direction to the path of the car around the track and at exact the same rate to compensate? Where does the torque come from?
In the left hand side the car rotates around its centre of mass CCW in the same direction as the car is going (also CCW). This just a natural consequence of the centripetal force in the direction of the centre of rotation causing the car to rotate in the same direction as the path of the car. If the car didn’t rotate to match the car’s circular trajectory it would fly off in a straight line at a tangent (which is obviously the case if the frictional forces between the tyres and the surface is too low).
Nice try to run away, miker. But, I caught you again.
You made the graphic, so don’t ask me where the torque came from!
And, the question was about the Moon, not a car.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/12/uah-global-temperature-update-for-november-20170-36-deg-c/#comment-276957
OK g*e*r*a*n made an “interesting” claim that the right hand diagram represented the car rotating about it’s centre of mass but gave a bizarre explanation about why the car is pointing “northwards” all the time. I just wanted a dynamical physics explanation for this claim, but he just unsurprisingly squibbed out.
The moon analogy in some respects, is actually clearer.
For the car, the centripetal force and geometry lock the car into rotating once for each revolution of the track.
In the case of the moon, there were an almost infinite range of rotational speeds possible before tidal locking occurred. The rotational speed due tidal locking (and whose physical mechanism is well understood) is the only one that results in one side of the moon being visible from earth.
I just can’t believe I have wasted so much time on this.
You’re still running, miker.
CW or CCW?
CCW for both .
See
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/12/uah-global-temperature-update-for-november-20170-36-deg-c/#comment-276958 .
Finally, miker.
That was like pulling teeth.
G8e*r*a*n ,
Really! You asked me at 8:39 am, I answered your specific question an hour and half later at 10:08 am!
I do have a range of other activities in my life, such as a paid employment and interactions with family and friends.
Despite your attention seeking behavior, I am not devoted to continuous monitoring of this site to alert me to any or all of your contributions.
Life is too busy to waste too much time on such nonsense which unfortunately I have).
But miker, you had time for that last rambling, unnecessary comment.
G*, yes I can always manage to find some time in my busy day to puncture your pretensions .
You also seem to have alienated everyone here with possible exception of J Hapless. Quite an accomplishment.
So like, all good pathogens, is it time to move on and mutate?
You could dispense with your *s which are, appropriately enough, a pain in the arse. This could easily be accomplished by judicious rearrangement of letters. An appropriate anagram that has been suggested by others is “Anger”. My preference is to add a few letters to get “Deranged” which suits you to a T.
Alternatively you could return to the bosom of Joe Postma’s site, where all idiocy goes unchallenged. This is an ideal environment fo you to flourish in and you would have no need for any *s.
Another rambling rant with no substance.
And, you even mentioned your obsession with Postma.
The con-man would be proud of you.
“Deranged” (aka g*e*r*a*n).
If the way you present here is a reflection of your personal life, then it might explain your lack of friends and the inordinate amount of time you spend online.
Just a suggestion, group therapy can be a useful to address your problems. Getting personal feedback about your interactions with others may be a useful learning experience.
miker, thanks for your concern about my personal life. Handling pseudoscience clowns is no problem. I can usually do that while checking my email, in between chores, in between handling my consulting work, and planning a week of family/friend visits.
But, if you’re truly concerned, the con-man believes I drink cheap booze. I’m always willing to upgrade. Let me know how much you would like to contribute each month, and I’ll set up a pay-pal account.
Thanks, again.
Miker hands me the baton. Also Halp brought up a child’s viewpoint.
The car driver’s toddler is asleep laying in the back seat. Its night. She wakes up not quite aware of the cars motion (you may recall such an experiences). She looks up at the stars through the back window. What does he see?
I say she sees the stars slowly rotating around, just like if she were at the north pole of the Earth looking up at the stars (for 24 hours!). She could conclude that the car is rotating.
Whatever Nate’s been drinking, I’ll have two.
Hi “Deranged”,
I would be glad to donate to such a worthy cause. However Paypal tends to charge for their services. Why don’t you post your bank account details here (plus social security number, we wouldn’t to send the money to the wrong deranged individual).
By the way do you show your comments here to your friends and family? if so, you are not only deranged but brave.
miker, in the spirit of the season, and knowing you wanted to help me, I was sure you would be willing to pay the small service fee.
Can you manage at least $1000 per month? Then I could upgrade, somewhat.
Thanks, again.
$1000 a month. Would that be enough to cover tuition fees at your local college for a an elementary course in physics? Let me know what it costs and we could crowd source the funds. I know many here would love to contribute.
Either that or a one way ticket to Belleview Hospital and we could help cover the treatment costs.
p.s. i am not hoping for a response. This is the best outcome for all concerned.
Great idea, miker. Just have everyone click Dr. Roy’s donate button. I trust him to split 50/50 with me. That way, everyone is contributing to Dr. Roy’s research, and to my “research”.
Contributions are tax deductible*.
* Tax deductibility may not be legal in all jurisdictions. Please consult your local tax attorney.
I think I will go with the latter. How far are you from Belleview?
Maybe you are currently an involuntary resident there.
G is free to define “rotation” and “orbit” these ways. He is just not free to expect others to follow along with these rather unusual definitions.
As a specific example, there would still be a Coriolis force on the moon (but not on a moon that did not rotate in the standard sense of the word). This force arises in a rotating reference frame and is related to the rate of rotation round the axis. There well-developed equations for the Coriolis force — and they involve angular speed of the rotation. G would have to create a whole new set of equations for the Coriolis force since his paradigm has ω = 0 for the moon.
Tim, Coriolis force? Are you really that desperate?
You must have missed Lesson 1, because you also are confusing “rotating about an axis” with “orbiting”. Make sure to study Lesson 1, and don’t miss tomorrow’s exciting Lesson 2.
Homework:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/12/uah-global-temperature-update-for-november-20170-36-deg-c/#comment-276957
Sorry, G — but if your version of ‘physics’ can’t handle Coriolis force (or even centripetal force!) correctly, then it is not of much use. Come back with equations.
Sorry Tim, but I’m not willing to let you “spin” things the way you want. The Coriolis effect is your desperate attempt to cover your pseudoscience. There are TWO different, distinct, independent motions we’re discussing here. One is “rotating about an axis”. The other is “orbiting”. I have provided examples of each, if you do not understand.
The Moon is only partaking of ONE of the motions. So, if you really believe the Moon has both motions, which way is it “rotating on its axis”, CW or CCW?
Come back with an answer.
G* says:
“Now, holding the loose end of string firmly to a table top (center point), move the object in an orbit about that center point. Notice the object does not have to wrap the string to orbit around the center point.”
The string doesn’t wrap around the object because the two rotations are in sync.
Make a mark on the object directly opposite from where the string is attached. The mark will have pointed exactly 360 degrees of direction after one orbit of the center point.
The poor 12-year-old can’t even spin an orange on a table.
(I almost hate to laugh.)
G*
Tape a pencil on top of the orange while conducting your string experiment. The pencil will do a 360.
IOW, the string forces the object to rotate once on it’s axis every time the object completes an orbit around the center point on the table.
G*e*ran:
I propose Norman’s CCW car experiment.
You are at the centre of the track. You sit on a stool which is fixed to the ground such that none of its parts can move wrt ground. It has a hole through the seat centre. Poking through this hole is a sharp large screw but with a counter spiral (ie it screws in by rotating backwards CCW) and with reverse sharp fish hooks once engaged it does not let go! It too is fixed to the ground but with silky smooth movement in a vertical direction say vertical flanges along the shaft inside a fixed casing.
I won’t go into gory details but if you don’t turn or start to spin on the stool it wont engage. The slightest spin and it engages quite decisively in a non reversible way. The challenge is to watch the car for the full circuit, without taking your eyes off the car.
That is the only lesson you will ever need to learn about the relevant spin and orbit.
Alternatively, you may save yourself some time and pain. On a flat table using a normal writing position hold a ballpoint pen in a vertical position ready to write on the table top. The clip faces one direction say Northerly depicted by infinite parallel lines on the table top. Now draw a circle say CCW without taking the pen off the table, keeping the pen in a vertical position with the clip always pointing in the direction of those lines.
We call this no spin of the pen even though it has “orbited” around the centre of the circle. Distinctly different to your orange or the moon spins.
You of course can imagine yourself at the centre and will see this pen spin in a CW direction.
If you don’t believe then go do the screw experiment. Has your hallmark of being hilarious.
tonym, in the “screw” experiment you are confusing “rotating on an axis” with “orbiting”. In the “ballpoint pen” experiment, someone in the center of the circle would see the all sides of the pen, which does NOT happen with the Moon.
See Lesson 1.
G*
That is the whole point!!!
A perfectly still non rotating pen as described shows all its sides to a person in the centre with the proviso that person rotates his head (i.e. eye line of sight) through 360deg. The person in the centre sees a CW rotation the opposite of his head rotation. A person from the centre of our galaxy sees no rotation.
Suggest you do the screw experiment; it will give you all the lessons you need to grasp all you need to know about orbits and spin (rotate on axis).
No tonym, the point is the pen is NOT what the Moon is doing. We only see one side of the Moon.
You’re “screwed” up, again.
G*
Read what I said!!! I did not say the pen was the moon. Quite the opposite. The pen is STILL (zero spin) per orbit but you see it spin in a CW direction once. The moon spins once (CCW) per full orbit but it appears to have no spin.
Observations are from the centre of the orbit.
Do the screw experiment. U will feel the spins and won’t have to guess.
tonym, I don’t know if you’re brain dead, or just trying to be cute. But, since we are in the Christmas Season, I want to be charitable. So, I will try to help.
The pen is not rotating on its axis because you are holding it. That negates what happens in orbit.
The Moon does NOT rotate CCW. That is why you always see the same side.
Go to Lesson 1, then Lesson 2. All the relevant examples are shown. If you have any responsible questions, I will try to answer.
tonyM,
You could also try explaining it like in the quote below and then see if he manages to comprehend …
http://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/2010/07/13/2951472.htm
Kris, see how many links from “institutionalized pseudoscience” you can find that are WRONG.
Then, ask if you’ve done anything constructive.
The Moon’s axis angle is about 1 1/2 degree.
And Earth’s axis angle about 23 1/2 degree.
Both are related to Sun.
In terms of Lunar orbit around earth:
Perigee: 363,300 km
Apogee: 405,500 km
Inclination to ecliptic: 5.145
And related to sun:
Moon:
Obliquity to orbit: 6.68 degrees
Earth:
Obliquity to orbit: 23.44 degrees
Inclination of equator: 23.44 degrees
From:
https://tinyurl.com/zxwsff3
Earth and Moon orbit around the earth and Moon Barycenter:
“The barycenter (or barycentre; from the Ancient Greek βαρύς heavy + κέντρον centre[1]) is the center of mass of two or more bodies that are orbiting each other, which is the point around which they both orbit. ”
And:
“In cases where one of the two objects is considerably more massive than the other (and relatively close), the barycenter will typically be located within the more massive object. Rather than appearing to orbit a common center of mass with the smaller body, the larger will simply be seen to wobble slightly. This is the case for the EarthMoon system, where the barycenter is located on average 4,671 km (2,902 mi) from the Earth’s center, well within the planet’s radius of 6,378 km (3,963 mi).”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barycenter
Earth orbits the sun. The solar system orbits within the Milky way, and our galaxy orbits other galaxies of the Local Group.
gbaikie,
You forgot one important data item. From your table the moon’s “rotation period” (not to be confused with orbital period) is 655.7 hours.
If you click on “rotation period”, it states:
“Rotation Period (hours) – This is the time it takes for the planet to complete one rotation relative to the fixed background stars (not relative to the Sun) in hours. Negative numbers indicate retrograde (backwards relative to the Earth) rotation.”
This is the concept g.eran does not get. The rotation is relative to the “fixed background stars”, whereas g.eran is referencing the rotation to a rotating reference frame. Rookie mistake.
Sadly SGW, you continue to confuse “orbiting” with “rotating on an axis”. The Moon is only doing one, not both.
Review Lesson 1. You have a great deal more to learn, just to get to the “rookie” level. The learning never ends.
In all your research, have you got to the answer yet, CW or CCW?
G,
Keep up with the silliness. It’s quite entertaining.
The data link gave both orbit time and rotation time. Plus I already performed an experiment in which the representative of the moon was observed rotating about its own axis as it made one orbit.
I think you lost all your supporters. So it’s just you, p***ing into the wind.
I suggest you go ask Postma. He has a Masters Degree in Astrophysics. I’ll bring the popcorn.
G*
One last try:
The big hand on a clock rotates around a center point, right? It does so regardless of how the clock is oriented, right?
Ok, so place a coin on the floor, and set the clock on the floor in a position where the big hand points to the coin. Keep orienting the clock so the big hand continues to point to the coin. In one hour the clock will have made an orbit around the coin.
Did the big hand stop rotating?
CW or CCW?
snake, do you have any idea why your comments show up above previous comments? For example here, I commented 6 minutes before you. But, your comment showed above mine. Are your comments being held in moderation?
Now, to your clock-on-the-floor model.
That is a fairly good representation of what the Moon is doing. The clock is orbiting the coin, but NOT rotating on its axis.
G*
Often I will start writing a comment, and for various reasons not finish it for a few minutes. By the time I hit the “publish” button, somebody may have replied before me.
Back to the clock on the floor. My apologies. It’s rather more confusing than helpful.
The big hand can be kept pointed at the coin simply by rotating the clock CCW. The clock need not orbit the coin at all.
It was a good lesson. I made a comment based solely on a thought experiment. When I actually put the clock on the floor, I saw my mistake.
I dont see anything to object to in Lesson 1. As to whether or not the moon rotates on its axis, I reserve judgement until I hear more, as I said. But, I have no issues with the race car analogy, ball and string, the correct way to interpret MikeRs diagrams, etc. An object completing its orbit/circuit does not rotate on its axis simply by virtue of having completed that circuit. The rotation on its axis is always separate/additional to the orbiting, if it occurs (it doesnt for a car on a race track). Thats where Im at. I notice Norman has immediately jumped to conclusions about what I think, but, not true. I wait for Lesson 2!
Halp
This is from g*
“The simple demonstration is to fasten a string to an object, such as an orange, apple, or tennis ball. Hold the loose end of the sting with one hand, and slowly try to spin the object in place. Notice the string tends to wrap around the object. The object is rotating on its axis, to wrap the string.”
In that situation, the object is indeed rotating on it’s axis, but it’s position is stationary (not orbiting the center point). That’s why the string gets twisted. Do the same experiment, but as you rotate the object about it’s axis, KEEP THE STRING STRAIGHT. The object will necessarily have to rotate around the center point.
J Halp-less states: “An object completing its orbit/circuit does not rotate on its axis simply by virtue of having completed that circuit.”
Exactly.
J halp-less,
Forget the lecture.
The following animation is the best visual to see the moon rotating on its axis as the moon makes an orbit around the earth:
https://tinyurl.com/yc35go56
Time 0:43. – Before beginning the orbit, the moon starts rotating about its axis. It’s easy to see since the red demarcation line is rotating.
The moon then starts the orbit with the red face always pointing towards earth. The moon is still rotating because you can see the demarcation line rotate at the same rate as before it started its orbit.
The moon continues to orbit the earth until at 1:24 the orbit suddenly stops in the 9:00 o’clock position, but the moons is still rotating on its axis, which it had the whole time it orbited the earth.
So simple. Except for the simpleminded.
You could drive due west [east, south or north] and you would rotate relative to the stars. But driving straight in a direction, does not mean you are spinning, it means, you driving in some direction [for hours, days, or years].
One could be driving in direction that the earth spins, and thereby add to rotational speed of the spinning Earth, Or could go in opposite direction of earth spin and reduce the rotational speed of the spinning earth. Or you could travel north or south [or perpendicular] to the spin of earth- adding another axis to the Earth’s rotation relative to the stars.
Though it’s true that people do sometimes say they are going to go for a spin.
An object completing its orbit/circuit does not rotate on its axis simply by virtue of having completed that circuit.
Totally wrong.
Imagine a circular race track. The car is at the start line at the 12:00 noon position facing west. Place an axis through the centroid of the car. Before the race starts, begin a rotation of the car about its axis at 1 rpm. So it is making a complete 360 degree revolution on its own axis in one minute.
Now, is there any reason the car cannot make a loop around the track while rotating on its own axis? No. (It’s a hover car) So we will begin an orbit around the track, accomplishing the orbit in one minute.
What happens? As the race car orbits the track, it’s rotational velocity about its own axis is just the correct speed to make the left side of the car always face the center of the track as it makes its orbit. When it crosses the 12:00 noon starting position one minute later, it will have rotated once (360 degrees) on its own axis. (it’s been rotating the whole time at 1 rpm on its own axis)
QED.
Just to clarify the above. At the start line, before the race begins, we’ve initiated at rotation of the hover car at 1 rpm (1 360 degree rotation per minute counter clockwise about its own axis). And the race commences at the moment in time when the left side of the car is facing the center of orbit, and the car is pointing west.
SGW, your 1 rpm “hover car” scenario is some GREAT pseudoscience! You’ve made it to the big time now.
Your scenario is IMPOSSIBLE. (See Lesson 2.)
You really are clueless. The video animation essentially showed the same thing. My hands-on experiment showed the same result.
You CAN rotate the vehicle about its own axis while at the same time moving it around the orbit. There is no physical reason whey this cannot happen. It does happen. What specific movement cannot happen?????????????????????????????????????????????????????
You REALLY give GHE skeptics a bad name.
SGW, your ability to see truth continues to deteriorate as you plunge deeper into pseudoscience.
I NEVER said the two movements cannot occur at the same time. So your statement: “You CAN rotate the vehicle about its own axis while at the same time moving it around the orbit.”
is just a desperate straw man.
What will be your next act of desperation?
Im starting to think G* is a blonde. He thinks being kooky and not to bright is appealing. At least I hope so.
Nate, it looks like another night you better call a cab. (I’m not even sure you could walk home safely.)
SkepticGoneWild
I think this is the video that brainwashed gullible simpleminded g*e*r*a*n.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0JsOHA4bmgY
It becomes obvious from this video why g*e*r*a*n is a mindless lunatic with pretend knowledge. The maker of the video is not giving an example of the axis of the moon with his string. The string represents the axis of orbital rotation only and the Moon does not rotate in this axis since it keeps the same face to the Earth. If you notice the person’s fingers he IS rotating the Moon cork to keep it facing the Earth cork. I think g*e*r*a*n is even dumber than I had long suspected. No rational thought process with this goofball.
You can also see it is impossible to reason with him. He is too dumb to understand how dumb he really is.
Here is a better video clearly showing the Moon has to rotate on its axis to keep its face toward the Earth. Nothing can convince the d*u*n*c*e. The only thing I can think of is he is just playing around to have some stupid fun. I am hoping that is the case.
You have provided some really good videos showing the rotating Moon.
Here is another.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VKTQx8IySBk
Hey con-man, NASA says the Moon is rotating on its axis. Is it rotating CW or CCW?
I keep asking “Spinners” this question, and they seem to be avoiding it.
Hilarious.
g*e*r*a*n
The answer was already given above by MikeR why does each person have to answer this and what is your point with it anyway. I see no significance to this question on how it relates to the Moon’s rotation upon its axis.
The answer above is the Moon orbits couunterclockwise and rotates counterclockwise.
And so what is the point of the question?
Sorry Norm, I forget sometimes that your ilk cannot think for themselves.
My mistake.
g*e*r*a*n
I made a similar mistake by assuming you could think. Not only do you not think for yourself but also you don’t think at all. You have no logical or reasoning ability. You are a complete idiot. Sorry for assuming you had a trace of thought process. Hopefully I will remember this reality next time I respond to one of your delusional and idiotic posts.
Too bad J Halp-less has fallen for your lunacy.
Yelping chihuahuas never have any substance.
Hilarious.
L*u*a*t*I*c*s
Never show the slightest ability at rational thought. It is most likely most dogs have more rational thought process than g*e*r*a*n. You have negative reasoning. Not even zero.
Idiot, instead of your stupid strings just take any object and move it around an other object and keep the same side of the moving object pointed to the center object and you will easily see you have to rotate the moving object to keep it facing the first one.
You are a dunderhead. You confuse the Moon’s axis of rotation (which is an axis through the middle of the moon perpendicular to the direction of rotation) with the Moon’s orbital axis and so does the goofball on the video I linked to. The string he has connect to the Earth cork is of the Axis of rotation and of course the Moon’s axis of rotation will not move with respect to the orbital axis since the same side of the Moon always faces the Earth. You and him are really ignorant. By the way your stupidity is not funny at all it you think it might be. Just shows you need help, sorry I am unable to help you.
A yelping chihuahua tangled up in his string!
Hilarious.
Norman,
It’s because he seriously believes THIS car is rotating on its axis:
https://postimg.org/image/ucks4wcmv/
Kris, do you not have any spacial ability? Do I need to do another lesson just on how vectors work?
“spatial”!
Stupid auto-spell. Let me make my own typo’s, will you?
g*e*r*a*n says, December 21, 2017 at 10:30 AM:
*Sigh*
The left-hand car here is obviously the one rotating on its axis, the right-hand car isn’t:
https://okulaer.files.wordpress.com/2017/12/car_rotation_center_of_mass.jpg
Note: The car’s axis goes right down through the roof of the car and into the ground below (directly into your screen, that is) and is always facing the same way (red arrows); it is directionally fixed in space. Hence, if the car changes its pointing direction in the x-y plane (as it does in the left-hand cycle, but NOT in the right-hand one), it automatically moves RELATIVE TO its axis.
You’re just being a stupid troll here, g*e*r*a*n. You can’t be this dull-minded …
Kris, you have not studied Lessons 1 and 2. You are still making the same mistakes. You are confusing “orbiting” with “rotating on an axis”. That makes you say stupid things like a horse running on an oval track is “rotating on his axis”.
You don’t want to appear stupid. Study the lessons.
If a car/horse/whatever was pointing East on the opposite side of a circular course to you, and it also pointed East when it was on the side nearest you, this would be a non-rotating object.
If it is pointing in the opposite direction on each side of the track, that is a rotating object.
Orbit (revolution) is the movement of an object around another body (axis is external to the object in question) Rotation is the spin of an object (axis is internal to the object in question).
Hi barry, welcome to this discussion.
You appear to be as confused as many others. Take a close look at these two links, and let me know if you have any questions.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/12/uah-global-temperature-update-for-november-20170-36-deg-c/#comment-276941
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/12/uah-global-temperature-update-for-november-20170-36-deg-c/#comment-277084
(Isn’t it interesting how the “Moon-rotation” issue parallels the AGW/GHE issue?)
If the moon did not rotate, then on one side of the Earth we would see one face, and on the other side of the Earth we would see the other face. That is a non-rotating moon, because it would stay constant relative to its own axis.
The moon is definitely rotating. It just so happens that it rotates at a speed perfectly in sync with its orbit, such that we see the same face no matter where we stand.
I can see how the piece-of-string thinking leads you astray, though. It seems ‘fixed’ But even an object on a piece of string being whizzed around is rotating. The orbit has nothing to do with whether or not the object is rotating. Rotation is a continual change in direction around an object’s internal axis. Doesn’t matter if it is travelling in a straight line, along a wave down or orbiting a different object. Rotation refers strictly – and only – to the movement of an object around its own axis. The fact of orbit or any other motion does not impinge on that tenet whatsoever.
It is not others who are trying to conflate orbit and rotation here, G. Feel free to respond to what I’ve written in this post. Merry Christmas.
Lesson 2
[Lesson 1 is a prerequisite for this course.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/12/uah-global-temperature-update-for-november-20170-36-deg-c/#comment-276941
Please make sure you have read and understood Lesson 1 before proceeding.]
>>>>>
There are TWO distinct, independent movements being discussed here. One movement is “rotating on an axis”. The other movement is “orbiting”. Both were described in Lesson 1. NASA claims that the Moon is making both movements at the same time. But, observers on Earth do not see the Moon rotating. They only see one side of the Moon. NASA answers this by saying that the Moon is in “synchronous rotation”. That is, in one complete orbit, it makes one complete rotation-on-its-axis.
Lets see if that is true.
First, lets consider an example of orbiting, without rotating. Consider a “boat in a moat”, “orbiting” around a castle. The boat is so long, it cannot rotate in the narrow moat. It is IMPOSSIBLE for it to “rotate on its axis”. Here is how the boat would appear, every 90 degrees of orbit:
https://postimg.org/image/8js2kzmzr/
Notice that, from the “castle” (center of orbit), only one side of the boat is visible. This is exactly what we see the Moon doing. There is NO “rotating on an axis”, but there is “orbiting”.
So, if the Moon is actually “rotating on its axis” in “synchronous rotation”, as NASA claims, it has to either be rotating CW, or CCW. Lets see how both would appear.
In clockwise (CW) rotation, the vehicle (Moon) would always be pointing the same direction. From Earth, an observer would see all sides of the vehicle. This does NOT match what we observe with the Moon.
https://postimg.org/image/3oydmreef/
In counter-clockwise (CCW) rotation, again all sides of the vehicle (Moon) would be visible from the Earth, at times. This does not match our observations of the Moon.
https://postimg.org/image/ucks4wcmv/
So, it is IMPOSSIBLE for the Moon to “rotate on its axis” without Earth seeing more than one side. The Moon is, therefore, NOT rotating on its axis. It only appears to do so to the un-educated. Now, you have been educated!
The remarkable profundity of lesson 2!
Is there is a lesson 3? I can hardly wait.
Thanks miker.
And also thanks for the linking me to postimg. It works great!
Don’t know about Lesson 3, yet. We’ll see how much confusion remains.
The truly amazing thing is that “Deranged” can actually learn.
If only he could put this into practice in every other area of his unfortunate life. He would find life a lot less confusing
By the way “Deranged”.before you proceed on to Lesson 3, you have some homework to catch upon.
Your long promised “shock and awe” treatise on the thermodynamics of the plates has not appeared. You said you were waiting for the element of surprise. This is the perfect opportunity.
Surprise us all. It would be even amazing if it contained a coherent thought.
You mean you missed it, miker?
Oh well, maybe next time.
I must have blinked and missed it or overwhelmed by the surprise.
So where exactly is your detailed exposition including calculations that prove self consistency etc.?
Does it contain explanations, with words strung together in a sentence or god forbid a paragraph, and not just a link to a diagram of dubious provenance?
The above refers to my bespoke diagrams that were modified at your request, but did in fact become useful as an illustration of your stupidity.
Less than 10 lines–Pass.
Unnecessary and derogatory remarks–Fail.
Sorry, your comment has been rejected for consideration. Please feel free to try again at some later date.
Line 1: Promises, promises, promises. You promised not to reply if
Line 2: my comment did not meet your requirements.
Line 3: I may need to post 11 lines of derogatory rhetoric to ensure Line 4: some quiet from your end. If my comments don’t meet these Line 5:criteria then I can just pad them out to the necessary line Line 6: length.
Line 7: Padding,
Line 8 more padding.
Line 9: If he keeps to his promise (doubtful) then I may never hear Line 10: from him again.
Line 11: Aloha.
Line 1: Second attempt to make sure.
Line 2: G*, promises, promises, promises.
Line 3: You promised not to reply if my comment did not meet your
Line 4: requirements.
Line 5: I may need to post 11 lines of derogatory rhetoric to
Line 6: ensure some quiet from your end.
Line 7: If my comments don’t meet these criteria then I can just
Line 8: pad them out to the necessary length.
Line 9: if he keeps to his promise (doubtful) then I may never,
Line 10: with any luck, hear from him again.
Line 11: Aloha.
Kids these days. ..
Three words from the g*. We could be getting there.
MikeR,
This is hilarious.
Lesson 2: How I Can Look Like a Dumb@$$ without Really Trying
And can keep it less than 10 lines? My head is spinning
At least you’re learning the difference between “spinning” and “orbiting”.
anger failed Lesson 1. Please make sure you have read and understood anger’s Lesson 1 was incorrect before proceeding.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/12/uah-global-temperature-update-for-november-20170-36-deg-c/#comment-276989
Now anger fails Lesson 2. Here’s the corrected version from anger’s orbital dynamics instructor:
First, lets (sic) consider an example of orbiting, with rotating. Consider a “boat in a moat”, “orbiting” around a castle. The boat is not so long, it can “rotate on it axis” in the narrow moat. It is IMPOSSIBLE for it not to “rotate on its axis”. Here is how the boat would appear “rotating on its axis” from pointing N to pointing W a 90 degree “rotation on its axis” to each new cardinal direction every 90 degrees of orbit, note the 90 degrees the boat “rotates on its axis” every 90 degrees of orbit.
https://postimg.org/image/8js2kzmzr/
Notice that, from the “castle” (center of orbit), only one side of the boat is visible. This is exactly what we see the Moon doing. The moon is therefore “rotating on an axis”, and there is “orbiting”.
Since the Moon is actually “rotating on its axis” in “synchronous rotation”, as NASA claims, it has to be rotating.
So, it is IMPOSSIBLE for the Moon NOT to “rotate on its axis” since from Earth one sees only one side. The Moon is, therefore, “rotating on its axis”. It only appears NOT to do so to the un-educated. Now, anger has been educated!
trick is still up to his old tricks.
Predictable, but somewhat funny nevertheless.
I see I won’t be getting a card from anger this Xmas. It was just my duty to play Scrooge. Mele Kalikimaka anger:
https://www.etsy.com/listing/204024114/mele-kalikimaka-hawaiian-printable-diy?gpla=1&gao=1&utm_campaign=shopping_us_kauaiartist_sfc_osa&utm_medium=cpc&utm_source=google&utm_custom1=0&utm_content=5295291&gclid=EAIaIQobChMIlP-Ii6ub2AIVXLnACh3OIQGBEAQYAiABEgJr4vD_BwE
anger’s present will be a ball and string to demonstrate orbital mechanics to the family on Xmas morning.
Fantastic! My old ball of string is getting worn out.
Yeah, I see your string is getting used up too getting wound around your nonrotating moon (~ball) as it orbits your center point. Santa will bring your gifts down the chimney on Xmas.
Funny film this one.
https://youtu.be/4aWElKfOc50?t=3m5s
Good second lesson, g*e*r*a*n. I’m inclined to agree with you!
Halp,g*
Look once more at the right-hand side of Kristian’s diagram:
https://okulaer.files.wordpress.com/2017/12/car_rotation_center_of_mass.jpg
You can see the car at different locations around the track, but it is always facing one direction (north).
The car is not rotating on it’s axis, agreed?
Then why are you able to see all sides of the car from the middle of the track? You have claimed this is not possible!
snake, you are crawling up the wrong tree.
First, the vehicle (moon) on the right is rotating on its axis, CW, in sync with the orbit.’
Second, all sides of the vehicle are visible from the center because it IS rotating on its axis.
You need to find another tree.
G*
You think an object always facing one direction is rotating on it’s axis? OMG. That’s quite a trick!
Just wondering, looking at Kristian’s diagram, do you think the car is rotating 360 degrees from one location to the next?
What say you, Hap? Do you agree with your buddy?
snake, your 1:06 comment is unintelligible. See if your mommy has time to help you prepare something I can respond to.
What don’t you understand?
snake, it is your responsibility to make your comments understandable.
Take your very first sentence, for example. What in the world are you talking about?
G*
In Kristian’s diagram (right hand side), I see a car at eight locations in it’s orbit around a center point. The car is always facing north:
https://okulaer.files.wordpress.com/2017/12/car_rotation_center_of_mass.jpg
From this you claim: “First, the vehicle (moon) on the right is rotating on its axis, CW, in sync with the orbit.”
I’m wondering why you think the car in the diagram is rotating on it’s axis, even though at each location it’s pointing north? The only explanation i can think of…. the car has done a 360 degree spin from one location to the next.
Did you study both lessons? Do you understand the difference between “orbiting” and “rotating on an axis”? Did you understand the illustrations provided?
That’s where you need to start.
PS I’m assuming you know that 45 degrees CCW is cancelled by 45 degrees CW.
Maybe you haven’t been taught that yet?
As I expected, you are either unable or unwilling to answer my question. Pathetic. Here it is again if you change your mind:
“Im wondering why you think the car in the diagram is rotating on it’s axis, even though at each location it’s pointing north?”
snake continues: “As I expected, you are either unable or unwilling to answer my question. Pathetic. Here it is again if you change your mind:
I’m wondering why you think the car in the diagram is rotating on its [sic] axis, even though at each location its pointing north?
snake, as I expected you have not had vector algebra. There are 8 positions in the diagram. Each position is 45 degrees farther around the orbit. A 45 degree CW orbit change is cancelled by a 45 degree CCW axial rotation. Consequently, the car does not change it’s orientation.
With so little knowledge of math and science, the last thing you want to attempt is snark. You don’t want to appear pathetic.
G*
Start with the bottom car and move it clockwise 90 degrees around the track. Now rotate it CCW on it’s axis 90 degrees. It will now be pointing west rather than north.
Maybe you are partial to 45 degrees? Move the bottom car clockwise 45 degrees around the track. Rotate it CCW on it’s axis 45 degrees. Now it points Northwest.
Infact, the car will point in the direction it has been rotated to, regardless of it’s position in the orbit. There is no “cancelling out” that will keep it always pointing north.
Ball4,
This is absolutely hilarious.
Lecture 2: How to Look Even More Stupid
Snape, you asked:
You can see the car at different locations around the track, but it is always facing one direction (north). The car is not rotating on its axis, agreed?
I have already answered this question (it was in relation to MikeRs diagram, but, pretty much the same thing). No, it is not agreed. The car IS rotating, CW, on its axis. In fact, it has to be rotating CW on its axis, in order to always face North. It is very funny to watch everybody flailing about in their confusion. Hilarious, you might say. The cognitive dissonance in this case seems to unleash a particularly deep-seated fury. Some really unpleasant responses which will form a particularly amusing permanent record once the obvious is understood.
Now, please, once and for all: can everybody STOP asking me questions that I have already answered. *Especially* people that Ive already told Im not going to respond to (Nate, that means you).
Halp
I wish you and g* would agree on which way you think the car is rotating. Anyway, my comment’s to g* apply to you as well.
What you guys don’t realize is the whole argument is based on an optical illusion. Even though the moon/car is continually facing a different direction, you are fooled into thinking it’s not rotating.
snape, let’s do only one step at a time.
1) Car at “bottom” position (6:00 on a clock face) moves CW 90 degrees (to 9:00). The car will then be facing east.
2) Now, the car rotates on its axis 90 degrees CCW. The car will be facing north.
G*
You are assuming the car at 6:00 will naturally move sideways around the track to the 9:00 position (always facing the central point). Right or wrong, I will play along.
Then yes, it would be facing east. What’s odd, however, is you don’t think a car that initially faced north, and now is facing east, has rotated!
You apparently believe this is because it’s at a different location in it’s orbit.
J Halp-less says:
“No, it is not agreed. The car IS rotating, CW, on its axis. In fact, it has to be rotating CW on its axis, in order to always face North.”
Totally wrong. “Rotation” is measure with respect to the fixed reference frame, NOT the rotating reference frame. If an object always faces in one direction on the fixed reference frame, then it is not rotating because it does not meet the definition of rotation. Come on, even a fifth grader will tell you the car is not rotating. Your thought process is completely backwards.
Who are you going to believe? NASA or some pyscho posting on a blog?:
https://tinyurl.com/y76zlgw3
From Earth, we always see the same face of the Moon because the Moon rotates once on its own axis in the same time that it travels once around Earth (called synchronous rotation)
https://tinyurl.com/y8lpobvf
“Misconception
The Moon does not rotate.
Reality
The Moon does spin on its axis, completing a rotation once every 27.3 days; the confusion is caused because it also takes the same period to orbit the Earth, so that it keeps the same side facing us.”
SGW, in your new infatuation with pseudoscience, you better get some hair rollers to go along with your lint roller. There’s a lot of actual science to beat down out there.
G*’s arms must be getting fatigued with all the hand waving.
snake: “You are assuming the car at 6:00 will naturally move sideways around the track to the 9:00 position (always facing the central point). Right or wrong, I will play along.”
g; I’m not “assuming” that. That’s how orbital motion works.
snake: “Then yes, it would be facing east. What’s odd, however, is you don’t think a car that initially faced north, and now is facing east, has rotated!”
g: No, what’s odd is you have not studied the lessons, yet you believe you know what you’re talking about. The car is NOT rotating on its axis, in that motion. It is “orbiting”.
snake: “You apparently believe this is because its at a different location in its orbit.”
g: I have no clue what that means.
G* says, “I have no clue what that means.”
If the car had pointed north, then east while remaining at 6:00, you would agree that it had rotated. If the car performs the exact same motion while moving to a different location (9:00), you think it has not rotated.
This illusion was demonstrated upthread in a link SkepticsGoneWild posted. We see a stationary object rotating about it’s axis. Then, still rotating, it begins to orbit an object in sync with it’s own axis of rotation. It suddenly appears to no longer rotate.
Snape attempts:
Halp
I wish you and g* would agree on which way you think the car is rotating. Anyway, my comments to g* apply to you as well.
Snape, we do agree. If the car on the right is orbiting once CCW (like the moon does around the Earth, and like the car does on the left) then it is rotating once CW on its axis. If the car on the right is orbiting once CW, then it is rotating once CCW on its axis. G*e*r*a*n also kindly gave you an illustration of what a car would look like when it was orbiting once CCW, whilst also rotating once CCW on its axis. The CCW/CCW (or, CW/CW) example makes this entire concept even more obvious than it already is (which is, very obvious). Perhaps you should study that diagram.
snake, the application of both orbital and axial rotations are applied consistently. You just don’t know how to do it. Build yourself a chart, such as this:
Postion orbital movement axial movement result
6:00 90 degrees CCW 90 degrees CW 0 degrees
(There’s no guarantee the columns will hold. Hopefully you can do the alignment yourself.)
For clarity, I will separate columns using asterisks.
Position **** orbital movement **** axial movement **** result
6:00 ***** 90 degrees CCW ********* 90 degrees CW **** 0 degrees
G*
My comment above was a more general criticism, not just related to Kristian’s figure with north facing cars.
Let’s look at your ball on a string example: when the ball is at 6:00, tape an arrow on top that faces north. Swing the ball CW to the 9:00 position. The arrow will now be pointed east.
My point is that If you had turned the ball from north to east while it was still at the 6:00 position, you would say it had rotated on it’s axis..
But if the ball turns from north to east while simultaneously moving to a different location (9:00), you think it has NOT rotated on it’s axis.
G*
If the ball rotates 90 degrees on it’s axis while stationary, the string will get twisted. If the ball rotates 90 degrees on it’s axis, and simultaneously moves 90 degrees in it’s orbit, the string will stay straight.
snake starts to get it: “My point is that If you had turned the ball from north to east while it was still at the 6:00 position, you would say it had rotated on its axis.”
That’s correct, snake. There are TWO distinct motions. One is “orbiting” and the other is “rotating on an axis”. If the ball spins in the 6:00 position, it is “rotating on an axis”. If it “appears” to spin at the 9:00 position, it has “orbited”.
Please study the lessons. There are clear illustrations to help you further understand.
G* says:
“There are TWO distinct motions. One is “orbiting” and the other is “rotating on an axis”.
We finally agree on something! You just get confused when the two happen at the same time, and think they are no longer separate.
Congrats snake, you just made the “Incorrigible” list.
“Deranged” has threatened, many times, to not reply if faced with material longer than 10 lines or that he finds personally offensive.
I do wish he would keep his promise.
MikeR
I wish he would quit posting. He is an incredible idiot. Offensive, pointless and really dumb. I think it was amazing he was able to convince another person of his lunacy.
miker, con-man, wow, only 6 lines total! Now if you can just come up with something of substance.
One step at a time.
One thing he has learnt. That is to answer to the appellation “Deranged”.
And he thinks the vast majority of his own comments contain any substance. I wonder if he also instinctively answers to the name “Deluded”?
G*’s boat experiment shows he does not understand inertia, force, geometry or frame of reference. Otherwise he is a great entertainer for the jolly season.
His use of the word IMPOSSIBLE demonstrates worms. G* does not grasp that the driver of the car or the man in the boat does not see that G* is actually rotating (i.e. sees only his eyes and not all sides). Don’t tell me that G* will now claim he is not rotating when making observations!
G*, go back and do the screw experiment above. You will then understand all you need to know about orbits and rotation in one single, painful lesson.
You will soon learn that if you rotate 360deg (spin on your axis) from the centre of the orbit to follow the object, you are countering the object spin in the opposite direction (by 360deg). So a still object orbiting in a CCW direction will appear to spin once (CW) in the opposite direction to your spin (follow the still ballpoint pen). If the object is rotating once in a CCW direction you will see it as not rotating at all (car, boat, moon). The same sequence will continue for more spins per orbit.
An observer from a fixed point near the centre of our galaxy in the same plane will see it differently.
Great blah, blah, blah, tonym.
But the boat is NOT rotating on its axis.
Now, more blah, blah, blah.
tonyM
You have to realize g*e*r*a*n does not understand what an axis of rotation means. He confuses orbital axis with axis of rotation. He will not get his mistake and he will never change. Already several posters have shown him how dumb he is but he takes pride in his lack of reasoning ability and since he is unable to grasp it all he has left to him is make fun of those that do.
Only the goofy Postma disciple seems to agree with him. All the other Sketpics think he is a lunatic.
Norm is so desperate. And his desperation is fueled by the freedom to spout whatever he imagines. No credibility whatsoever.
Hilarious.
g*e*r*a*n
I really am hoping to bring you back to reality. No desperation. You are delusional again. It is odd that the one that does not understand the concept of axis of rotation would even dare to suggest someone has no credibility. Weird that you would go that path.
Did you actually take an object and try to orbit another one keeping the same side always pointed toward the center? You have to rotate the object to keep the same side pointing toward the center. Try it and Shut the Heck up! You might cry when you see how stupid you were with your series of posts on the topic of Moon rotation.
Con-man, did you have an intelligent question about the lessons?
(Need I say it–hilarious.)
g*e*r*a*n
I think you would be the first person to do real magic if you could get a boat that faces North (front of boat) to face South without rotating it. Maybe you should look at your rudder position or your tires and see that they are rotating the boat or car. If you did not force rotation of your boat in the moat it would crash into the side wall. You are rotating the boat, the car and the horse at the same time they are moving around the circle. You are one dumb dude. Dumbest yet I am afraid. Worst of all you don’t understand how dumb you are.
Roy Spencer advised you long ago “You need to study some physics” but you ignored his kind gesture and with each post you make a fool of yourself. Why do you relish in being dumb? What does it get you? I still am amazed that you got one person to believe you but he is not very bright himself, I have read his exchanges with people. Seems to posses your low IQ.
So when you can get a boat pointing North, to point South without rotating it, let me know. I might accept your stupid posts at that time.
Norm, study Lesson 1. It will help you to understand the difference between “orbiting” and “rotating on an axis”.
Someday, you may even be able to advance to Lesson 2.
Everybody can dream.
g*e*r*a*n
I must say you have brought up an interesting project. I have been looking at other videos and there are others who think like you do.
Here is one example.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=skUPmztubMI
Maybe consider Jeffery Black’s comments.
The flaw in your thinking and the others seem to be the same one. You are locking the Moon to the axis of orbit. If you had a solid pole that held the Moon in place and linked to the orbital axis, the Moon would always face the Earth but not rotate. As Jeffery explains the Moon is not tethered to the Earth. The strings etc all tether an object to the orbital axis which is not the case with the moon.
You can see it either way. If you glue a rod on a toy the face of the toy will always face the orbital axis which is also the axis of rotation. It will move in circles, face the center but not rotate. If the toy is not linked to the center axis but just moves around it, you have to rotate the toy face to keep it pointing at the center. Try it and you will see the difference. All the examples trying to prove the Moon does not rotate on its own axis have to fix the Moon to the orbital axis and link it.
Con-man, if you do enough research, and can ever learn to think for yourself, then you will see I’m right and you’ve been wrong.
But, then you would have to explain your hundreds of rambling rants hurling insult after insult at me.
Best not to do any more research. ..
Norm,
Great point about taking an object and actually trying to perform an orbit.
For example, on my desk right now, I have a small roll of black electrical tape, and a large can of snack mix from Costco. If I try to orbit the can with the electrical tape, in order to keep one side of the tape always facing the center of the can, I have to constantly rotate the tape about its own axis. I mean you can SEE the electrical tape rotate about its own axis.
Yet all G* gives us is hand-waving and thought experiments.
g*e*r*a*n
You are one person I don’t mind insulting. It is not because of what you believe or think. It is because you have repeatedly attacked me with little or no reason. You are the one who chose to call me con-man. You constantly attack my ability to learn.
You might make it about your ideas but that is a delusion on your part. You are an unpleasant jerk. The insults come because you give first. You generally receive what you give. If you want to insult other posters expect to get them back.
I saw you and barry had this “gentlemen” agreement a few threads back but you could not keep it. You just have an abrasive unpleasant online personality. Other posters with different views I would not be so immediate to insult. With you, however, it is not so difficult.
I still strongly believe you are wrong on this and the evidence is far greater against you than for you. I just think it is interesting so many people can’t figure out the Moon does actually rotate.
N: You are one person I dont mind insulting.
J: For everyone else, it bothers you a little bit.
PGW laments: “Yet all G* gives us is hand-waving and thought experiments.”
PGW, that’s just not true.
Study the lessons. The orbital vs. axial movements are clearly discussed, including illustrations. You have wrapped yourself around you own axle, and are grasping at straws.
G* states:
“The boat is so long, it cannot rotate in the narrow moat. It is IMPOSSIBLE for it to rotate on its axis.
So many mistakes. First of all “rotation” is measured with respect to the fixed background, whereas the confused one is measuring it relative to the rotating reference frame. ROOKIE MISTAKE ONE. He goes through all this mental gymnastics to essentially say the boat is locked to the center of orbit as if it had a rod attached to it, extending to the center. So he has not prevented rotation at all. The way to prevent the boat from rotating is to grab hold of it and make it point in the same direction at all times throughout the orbit. His thinking is completely backwards.
He has guaranteed the boat WILL rotate about its axis with respect to the fixed reference frame.
He just compounds his error throughout his whole spiel because he does not understand the concept of “rotation” and how it is measured, and he is confused by rotating reference frames.
All he has accomplished is much hand waving. I explained to him a simple experiment involving a lint roller and piece of string to simulate the synchronous orbit. What was OBSERVED was the outside roller part rotating about the handle of the lint roller as it completed a circular orbit, confirming the rotation of the object about its own axis.
SWG, a lot of hand-waving on your part, but I provided the visuals. The “boat in the moat” is NOT rotating on its axis.
I know you are married to your new lint-removing invention, but the Moon does NOT rotate.
Sorry.
You did not provide anything. I provided a simple experiment that one can OBSERVE. You obviously did not perform it, because you are too chicken to see your weird vision crumble.
All you provided was the concept that an observer sitting at the center of orbit cannot see the boat rotate. That’s because he is rotating too, Einstein! However, rotation is measured with respect to the non-rotating reference frame. Your confusion continues.
SGW claims: “All you provided was the concept that an observer sitting at the center of orbit cannot see the boat rotate.”
SGW, that makes NO sense!
(Welcome to pseudoscience!)
Oh, so G* sees the moon rotate? We always see the same side of the moon and so that it “appears” to not rotate. That makes NO sense? We cannot observe the rotation.
I suggest you lay off the booze or drugs.
At least one of us should lay off the booze or drugs. ..
What is this silliness, and how does it pertain to the climate debate? I’ve looked up-thread and cannot see what it has to do with anything.
Maybe you guys need to more carefully define your terms. Rotation, like all forms of motion, must be defined relative to something else, in this case, some frame of reference defined by coordinate axes.
The Moon is not rotating with respect to its orbital frame (or at least, not much). But, that orbital frame is rotating with respect to inertial space, and thus, the Moon also is rotating with respect to inertial space.
The “Moon-spinners” believe the Moon is actually “rotating on its axis”. Some even believe a horse is “rotating on its axis” as it runs around a race track.
This relates EXACTLY to the climate change issue. It demonstrates how some can get so “wrapped around an axle”. Once wrapped up, they no longer accept facts or logic.
Rotation is measured about the fixed reference frame you goofball. NOT the rotating reference frame.
Have you called up NASA yet?
Here’s how the conversation will go:
G: Hello NASA?
N: Yes, how can I help you?
G: Well, I would like to correct your mistake about the moon rotating on it’s axis. It doesn’t
N: Really?
N: We’ll get right on it!
N: ROTFLMAO…………Hey Frank, this guy thinks the moon does not spin?….Really? Bwahahahahah. Bwahahahahaha……
G: Hello NASA! Hello? Hello?
N:
SGW, when do you plan to change your screen name to “Pseudoscience Gone Wild”?
SGW – Rotation can be measured between any frames. What is physically meaningful, as far as Newton’s laws and the resulting Euler equations for rigid bodies are concerned, is the rotation with respect to inertial space. The utility of using inertial space as the reference frame is that the angular momentum of the spin is conserved in the absence of external torques.
G – the moon is rotating about an axis that is more or less fixed in inertial space with respect to inertial space. The axis wobbles and precesses a small amount due to external torques from gravity gradients.
The Moon is orbiting around its barycenter. It is NOT rotating on its axis.
I think you are getting confused because you are attaching your perspective to a particular reference frame. It is true the Moon is not rotating with respect to its orbital frame. But, that orbital frame is rotating with respect to inertial space. Ergo, the Moon is rotating with respect to inertial space.
It is the same with your horse race analogy. If you are at the center of the track watching the horse, you always see the same side. The horse is not rotating with respect to you, but you are rotating with respect to the race track. Hence, the horse is rotating with respect to the race track.
I like to put it in words a 12-year-old could understand: The Moon is NOT rotating on its axis.
Not that any will ever choose understanding.
That statement has no meaning. You must specify a reference frame with respect to which the rotation is measured. The Moon is rotating on its axis with respect to inertial space.
It means the object has a non-zero angular momentum about its axis.
That’s not clear. “Rotating on its axis” means it has a non-zero angular momentum.
” Rotating on its axis means it has a non-zero angular momentum.”
It does. There are two components of angular momentum here: the spin of the distributed mass of the Moon with respect to inertial space, and the orbital angular momentum due to the orbiting of the center of mass.
It is a fascinating derivation, but taking the Earth-Moon system in isolation, and adding together the spin momentum of the Earth, of the Moon, and the orbital angular momentum, one arrives at a quantity that is conserved over time. If one then assumes that the tides are dissipating energy, one can work out that the Moon must be receding from the Earth over time. And, it is.
Bart, you’re trying to play linguistic games. I was clearly referring to “axial rotation”. I was not talking about TOTAL angular momentum. The Moon has angular momentum due to the forces acting on it in orbit.
In simple terms, a horse running around a race track is NOT rotating on its axis. Translate that to your preferred language, if desired.
I’m not. Inertial frames are important in physics because Newton’s laws hold in inertial frames only. That is why it is crucial to define your frame of reference. In an inertial frame, and only in an inertial frame, the rate of change of angular momentum is equal to the sum total of applied torque.
The orbital angular momentum of the Moon’s center of mass in inertial space is only a part of total angular momentum. There is also angular momentum due to its rotation about an axis in inertial space.
A horse running around a race track is rotating about the vertical axis with respect to the race track. If you have to rotate yourself around to keep seeing the same view, then that is the rotation rate you need in order to keep up with its rotation rate.
Look, it’s been fun explaining all this, but I do have things I need to do. Think on it a bit. Sooner or later, the vase will resolve itself into a picture of two faces.
I think Bart is trying to straddle the fence.
Let’s see, we’ve got the “Spinners”, and the “Non-Spinners”, and now the “Luke-Spinners”?
The analogy to the climate debate continues.
You always have to have luke-something. Usually people with a vested interest in keeping the debate rolling on indefinitely.
Um, no. No fence straddling here.
To the others, I am saying they need to be more careful in how they define things.
To you, I am saying that the Moon absolutely does spin relative to inertial space, and that we are interested in inertial space specifically because that is where Newton’s laws hold.
So Bart, since you won’t admit to straddling the fence, is the horse obeying, or disobeying, Newton’s laws when he refuses to rotate on his axis when running the track?
“So Bart, since you wont admit to straddling the fence, is the horse obeying, or disobeying, Newtons laws when he refuses to rotate on his axis when running the track?”
The horse is not rotating on its axis relative to the rotating reference frame. That much is obvious. Otherwise he’d be twirling around in circles as he orbited the track. But we measure rotation in reference to the non-rotating reference frame. This is where you simply fail to grasp the issue.
Put a toothpick through a toy horse (a rectangular rubber eraser will substitute) and orbit it in a ccw direction about some round object (like a coffee can). In order for the left side of the horse to face the center of orbit, you have to rotate the toothpick with your fingers as you make the orbit. If you do not rotate the toothpick, then the horse will point in one direction during the complete orbit. It is just that simple. Do the experiment and you will see.
The toothpick is the axis. So whenever you twirl the toothpick with your fingers, you are rotating the object on its axis.
If you cannot get this, then you have no business posting on a science blog.
G*e*r*a*n, you would think at this stage *at least* some people (certainly Bart) would have realised how silly it is to term it, synchronous rotation! The moon is orbiting Earth CCW. If some people want to see that orbit as involving a rotation of the moon CCW with respect to inertial space, then clearly they should see that this rotation along with the orbit is not some remarkable synchronised thing, but simply a given. More simply, you can just say, the moon does not rotate!
So the moon rotates but it does not rotate? You can’t have it both ways.
Im not having it both ways. I said:
The moon is orbiting Earth CCW. If *some people* want to see that orbit as involving a rotation of the moon CCW with respect to inertial space, then clearly they should see that this rotation along with the orbit is not some remarkable synchronised thing, but simply a given.
Its an IF, THEN.
I finished by saying that its simpler to say (overall) that the moon does not rotate on its axis. So my position has not changed.
I sometimes wonder if you lot think that g*e*r*a*n are myself are somehow unaware that seen from above, it would *appear* that the horse rotates on completing a circuit. I mean…obviously, it seems that way…but thats not the point.
PGW appears to try to be positioning himself to desert his sinking ship: “The horse is not rotating on its axis relative to the rotating reference frame. That much is obvious. Otherwise hed be twirling around in circles as he orbited the track.”
g: Yes, if the horse were both “orbiting” and “rotating on his axis” at the same time, he would be “twirling around in circles as he orbited the track”. But, the horse is only performing ONE motion, orbiting, just as the Moon is doing.
Then PGW backs away, so he doesn’t have to admit he was wrong: “But we measure rotation in reference to the non-rotating reference frame.”
g: No PGW, the reference for an object “rotating about its axis” is the axis of the object, NOTHING else.
PGW’s “toothpick on the eraser” fails because that is NOT orbital motion. To replicate orbital motion, attach the eraser to the side of the coffee can and rotate the can.
If PGW cannot get this, then he has no business posting on a science blog.
Let me make it even clearer, if I can:
Synchronous rotation is an entirely superfluous and ridiculous term for describing what happens to a horse when it runs round and round a circular track.
“No PGW, the reference for an object rotating about its axis is the axis of the object, NOTHING else.”
G* once again proves he does not understand basic science conepts, nor does he have the logical mind for science.”
Halp halplessly follows him down the rabbit hole.
J Halp-less @ December 23, 2017 at 7:00 AM
“If some people want to see that orbit as involving a rotation of the moon CCW with respect to inertial space, then clearly they should see that this rotation along with the orbit is not some remarkable synchronised thing, but simply a given.”
Not even in the slightest. The synchronization of the Moon’s spin rate with its orbit rate is enforced by a restoring torque due to the gravity gradient. The Moon is slightly oblong in the direction of the Earth. If it deviates from synchronicity, the one end pitches up. Gravity falls off with distance, so the oblong end on the top gets slightly less gravitational force on it than the nearer end. That disparity causes a torque that tends to pull the near end back to an Earth facing orientation.
This is a very well known phenomenon known as “tidal locking”. We use the concept on Earth orbiting artificial satellites to keep the oblong end pointing at the Earth, but we generally call it “gravity gradient stabilization” in that case.
“Synchronous rotation is an entirely superfluous and ridiculous term for describing what happens to a horse when it runs round and round a circular track.”
If the horse does not rotate synchronously, then it will have to run sideways for part of the race, which would slow it down considerably. Synchronous rotation is then a rather obvious strategy for optimizing race performance.
You guys are really embarrassing yourselves. This stuff is old hat, exceedingly well known, and used daily and habitually for real benefits. You have only succeeded in outing yourselves as totally clueless naifs. You have to fight the alarmists with real science, not just turn your back on everything that is known.
If the horse does not rotate synchronously, then it will have to run sideways for part of the race
Ah, I see. Its a genetically-enigineered crab/horse hybrid.
B: Synchronous rotation is then a rather obvious strategy for optimizing race performance
J: Or, another way you could put it:
Synchronous rotation is an entirely superfluous and ridiculous term for describing what happens to a horse when it runs round and round a circular track.
Bart emphatically states: “You guys are really embarrassing yourselves. This stuff is old hat, exceedingly well known, and used daily and habitually for real benefits. You have only succeeded in outing yourselves as totally clueless naifs.”
Bart, since you believe yourself an expert on Moon rotation, and you have clearly stated that it has both motions–orbiting and rotating on its axis, then which way is it rotating on its axis, CW or CCW?
And, if a train is on a continuous track from Kansas CIty, to Dallas, to Memphis, back to Kansas CIty, where did it “rotate on its axis”?
No, we do not need such horses, because we can simply have them rotate synchronously with the track. In fact, even a horse is smart enough to effect the rotation on its own. They do this by deviating the stride of their forelegs slightly with each pace forward to match the curvature of the track.
Bart imagines: “In fact, even a horse is smart enough to effect the rotation on its own.”
Bart, so now it takes intelligence to know how to rotate on an axis, unnoticed.
Hilarious.
(You’re not embarrassing yourself, are you?)
G –
“Bart, since you believe yourself an expert on Moon rotation, and you have clearly stated that it has both motionsorbiting and rotating on its axis, then which way is it rotating on its axis, CW or CCW?”
Again, one must define terms carefully. CW as seen from above, or below?
If we look down on the orbit from the Northern vantage point, then it is revolving CCW. Due to tidal locking, the Moon rotates in the same direction.
“And, if a train is on a continuous track from Kansas CIty, to Dallas, to Memphis, back to Kansas CIty, where did it rotate on its axis?”
Wherever the track curves, or wherever there is a wheelhouse.
That brings up a limiting case that is of interest. Suppose the track is all straight lines. The train has to turn somewhere. So, it would use wheelhouses. Would you deny that a wheelhouse rotates the train cars? I mean, that’s it’s purpose for which it is specifically designed, you know?
“Bart, so now it takes intelligence to know how to rotate on an axis, unnoticed.”
So, you think horses are brainless animals that can only run in straight lines? That would limit their utility considerably. Eventually, they would all run into an ocean or a pit, and die out.
(Bart, sorry for trying to pin you down, but you’re so slippery.)
So, you’re saying the Moon orbits around the Earth CCW, AND also rotates on its axis CCW, and both movements are synchronized?
Bart uses tactics: “So, you think horses are brainless animals that can only run in straight lines? ”
No Bart, that’s not what I think. You’re trying to build that straw man. I haven’t even begun to debunk your pseudoscience, and you’re already grasping at straws.
Bart claims a train rotates on its axis: “Wherever the track curves, or wherever there is a wheelhouse.”
Is any change in direction a rotation on axis?
“So, youre saying the Moon orbits around the Earth CCW, AND also rotates on its axis CCW, and both movements are synchronized?”
That is correct. It is not by accident. The tidal locking mechanism I described previously enforces the synchronization. If the Moon were perfectly spherical, there would be no tidal locking, and the rotation rate could be anything within the confines that would prevent the Moon from tearing itself apart.
However, in its molten state, the Moon would naturally assume an oblong shape and, once it had hardened, the gravitational gradient would ensure that it eventually came to assume an orientation with the spin rate synchronized to the orbit rate, and the oblong axis pointing to the Earth.
“Is any change in direction a rotation on axis?”
Any change in orientation of a distributed mass is a rotation of that mass on an axis. If the direction changes, and the orientation changes along with it, then that is a rotation.
I’m not trying to be slippery. This is standard, boilerplate dynamics. If you think it is slippery, that you cannot seem to find a chink in the armor, it is because it is very extensively and thoroughly established.
Bart protests: “Im not trying to be slippery. This is standard, boilerplate dynamics. If you think it is slippery, that you cannot seem to find a chink in the armor, it is because it is very extensively and thoroughly established.”
No Bart, you are slippery. That’s why you can’t answer direct questions. That’s why you keep throwing out red herrings and building straw men.
What you are claiming is NOT “standard, boilerplate dynamics”. It is pseudoscience, which I will be glad to prove to you if you will not try all your debate tricks.
I must go. But ask yourself, if you were right, and the Moon were not rotating, why would it not be rotating? The Earth rotates. The Sun rotates. All the planets rotate. The odds of having precisely zero rate by happenstance are basically nil.
Go anywhere in the galaxy, in the universe, and try to find a body that is not rotating at all; complete, absolute zero rotation. You won’t. The odds are that tiny. In mathematics, we say the set has measure zero.
The Moon rotates at the rate it does because it is tidally locked to spin at its orbit rate about the Earth. No accident. Solid science.
The horse rotates because it and its rider consciously decide to rotate. There is no natural torque acting on the horse to make it rotate as there is for the Moon, but there is conscious will.
Bart “must go”!
One of the best debate tricks of all.
Hilarious.
I have a life. Strongly recommend you get one, too.
I thought you had to “go”, slippery.
g: Yes, if the horse were both orbiting and rotating on his axis at the same time, he would be twirling around in circles as he orbited the track. But, the horse is only performing ONE motion, orbiting, just as the Moon is doing
SGW: No. The horse is performing TWO motions. One, by orbiting. And TWO. It is rotating around its axis WITH RESPECT TO THE FIXED REFERENCE FRAME. You are confusing orbit and rotation about an axis.
Think how a crank arm functions, like for opening a window. SO you have the crank arm which orbits about the crank arm axis. Then you have the crank handle, which can rotate about the handle axis. When you hold the handle and operate the crank, two things are happening. The handle is orbiting about the crank axis, and the handle is spinning about the handle axis, concurrently.
You don’t perform these experiments, do you? I didn’t think so.
You said:
“to replicate orbital motion, attach the eraser to the side of the can, and rotate the can”
I had to use something a little more secure, so i used a short segment of gluestick, drilled a hole through the lengthwise edge and stuck an 8 P finishing nail through it. Got it? So the gluestick can rotate about the nail just like a propeller. I taped the gluestick lengthwise firmly to the edge of the can. So just to be clear, the nail is pointing up perpendicular to the gluestick and top surface of can. I rotated the can with my left hand from underneath, and held the nail through the axis of the gluestick as I carefully rotated the can. And just as expected, the gluestick rotated about the nail while making an orbit.
As I keep trying to tell you, the motion is relative to, in this case, the worktable I am sitting at, which is fixed and not moving. I’ve done multiple hands-on experiments where this “rotation about an axis” motion can be observed.
Sorry PGW, but your crank handle and glue stick are just confusing you. The crank handle is no different than your lint roller.
1) Study the lessons.
2) Go through the illustrations using only a simple orange or tennis ball.
3) If you have questions, just ask.
Any other activity will just confuse you further.
Just as I figured. You did not perform any of the experiments. You can’t seem to observe two things happening at once. I guess you do not operate crank handles because they confuse you? How do you function in life being so inept?
I have no questions, because I already have the answers confirmed by multiple experiments. Why would I ask a clueless idiot about anything.
I’ll leave you in your confusion.
My only confusion is why you are so addicted to pseudoscience.
But, don’t let that slow your departure.
Turnip boy’s thought experiments are on par with the infamous steel greenhouse. Not based in reality. Not confirmed by experiment. Just a lot of yapping and yelping, with much hand-waving.
B: That is correct. It is not by accident. The tidal locking mechanism I described previously enforces the synchronization
J: Yes, it was a lovely description. And, because of that tidal locking, the moon does not rotate on its axis as it orbits the Earth. And, synchronous rotation is therefore a superfluous term. You want to think of the moon as rotating, with respect to inertial space. OK, knock yourself out. Its just a whole lot simpler to say the moon doesnt rotate on its axis. But why keep it simple when you can have so much fun with your pomposity.
SGW: Think how a crank arm functions, like for opening a window. SO you have the crank arm which orbits about the crank arm axis. Then you have the crank handle, which can rotate about the handle axis. When you hold the handle and operate the crank, two things are happening. The handle is orbiting about the crank axis, and the handle is spinning about the handle axis, concurrently.
J: Great example. Draw a car pointing upwards on the handle. Or, just an arrow. As you hold it in your hand, to crank the handle, the car/arrow will remain pointing upwards, as the handle orbits about the crank axis, and the handle spins about the handle axis (think MikeRs right hand side diagram). This demonstrates either a concurrent CCW handle orbit about the crank axis/CW handle spin about the handle axis, or a concurrent CW handle orbit about the crank axis/CCW handle spin about the handle axis, depending on whether you are opening or closing the window.
J Halp-less @ December 23, 2017 at 5:35 PM
“And, synchronous rotation is therefore a superfluous term.”
No, it isn’t, because not all orbiting bodies are synchronized, i.e., tidally locked, between spin and orbit rate. The orbit rate of the Earth about the Sun is 1 rev/year, but the spin rate is 1 rev/day.
For physical calculations, it is important to identify what is happening in inertial space because, once again, that is where Newton’s laws hold. From such considerations, we can e.g., determine that the Moon is receding from the Earth, as I described above.
[rolls eyes] The Point Misser 5000 strikes again.
It’s like trying to enlighten primitives living in mud huts. No, Ng-ong-ong, the rumbling of the Earth isn’t actually the indigestion of the gods. Oh, well…
Well, thank God youre here, Bart. Hope you had a good Christmas.
Of course, talking about motion necessarily implies the specification of a reference frame with respect to which that motion is measured. So it is always motion of some thing with respect to an other thing.
So Moon and earth rotate with respect of a reference frame formed by the sun and distant stars.
Whether it’s this way and not the other way around namely the latter “fixed stars” frame rotating about a reference frame tied to the moon is decided by experiment.
It’s not just left to any drunk crackpot’s guess and arbitrary choice.
The moon’s rotating frame can be detected by a measurement performed on moon surface “without ever looking outside to distant stars” because there is something called inertial forces in a rotating frame. Coriolis’s is such a force as pointed out upthread by Tim Folkerts.
The relevant experiment is the famous Foucault pendulum. The plane of swinging of such a pendulum on earth or moon slowly rotates at a rate that depends on latitude and that readily measures the angular velocity of rotation.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foucault_pendulum
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fictitious_force
gummy, here you are trying to gum up the works again. The Coriolis Effect and the pendulum are distractions. Both effects would be evident on the Moon. They are much weaker than on Earth, but still evident. They are caused by the angular momentum of Moon’s orbital motion.
I would the Foucault pendulum won’t measure the year rotation of Earth, nor year or month rotation of the Moon.
I would predict the Foucault pendulum will not measure the year rotation of Earth around the sun, nor year rotation of the Moon around the sun or month rotation of the Moon around the Earth.
Though I think it would work at all of Earth’s L-points [which fixed points relative to Earth or Moon] and perhaps also in any Earth orbit.
Nonsense.
The Foucault pendulum on Moon (Earth) measures of course nothing else but the rotation or own spin of the body referred to the “fixed stars” on celestial sphere, that is the sidereal lunar (terrestrial) day
Sidereal lunar day = 27 mean Earth days, 7 hours, 43 minutes, and 12 seconds
Sidereal terrestrial day = 0.99726958 mean Earth days.
It would, if we could only make a frictionless, perfectly rigid hinge to swing it on. The SNR is tiny, and utterly swamped by disturbances.
Which is to say, it would detect the difference between a solar day and a sidereal day.
g*e*r*a*n
This should end your lunacy (but probably will not). Satellites including the ISS have to have spin added to their axis to keep them facing the Earth. They are rotating on their axis at the same rate it takes them to complete an orbit. These are induced rotations around their axis. Get it out of your head, a gravity field is not a rod or rope or any connection to the orbital axis. The gravity acts to curve the motion but it does not hold on to them.
Maybe you will not learn but I hope J Halp-less will investigate and realize this is a stupid idea and it is unfounded. Hope rises, we will see. I have zero hope intelligence can rise up in your dim mind.
https://space.stackexchange.com/questions/12835/why-is-iss-spinning-even-though-stabilized-by-gyroscopes
Where g*e*r*a*n gets his physics wrong is he is making an orbital axis into an axis of rotation. He is making gravity into a rod that holds the moon in place and it no longer orbits but rotates around this gravity latch.
G*e*r*a*n does not understand what the word orbit means. He can see the Earth orbits the Sun but rotates on its axis. But when it comes to the Moon and Earth, he makes the Moon latched to the gravity so it is no longer orbiting the Earth but rotating around Earth in a fixed way.
Con-man declares: “He is making gravity into a rod that holds the moon in place and it no longer orbits but rotates around this gravity latch.”
Con-man, NASA tells us that the Moon is held, gravity-locked, to Earth. They even have a term for the “latching”. Look up “tidally locked”.
Your shallowness of understanding works well with your delusion, both combining to produce some outstanding comedy.
Please continue.
Con-man, you are getting so far over your head I’m not even going to tell you what is wrong with this. You see only what you want to see. If you believe a horse running around an oval track is “rotating on his axis”, that just adds to your hilarity.
Put a compass on the horse through its axis, and have an arrow point in the horse’s direction of travel through its axis. From above, you will see the arrow on the horse rotate about the north arrow of the compass as the horse orbits the track. Relative to the non-rotating reference frame, the horse does rotate on its axis, one revolution for every one orbit, just like the moon does.
Have you called up NASA yet? Please report back to us on how the conversation goes, and when they plan on issuing correction notices regarding their error.
I am still waiting for you to present your lectures on Postma’s blog. I have lots of popcorn for the entertainment.
PGW, see conclusive evidence here:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/12/uah-global-temperature-update-for-november-20170-36-deg-c/#comment-277084
More hand-waving. Science involves performing experiments, not “thought experiments”
Sorry PGW, but diagrams and illustrations of things you can easily verify at home are not “thought experiments”. You’re just upset because your “lint roller” demonstration was just as easily shot down.
You’ll have to get used to being shot down a lot, in your new chosen field of pseudoscience.
Turnip boy does not follow the scientific method, but just gives us charts and graphs which are meaningless.
He won’t perform any of the experiments cuz they will confuse him and upset his precariously balanced sanity.
He avoids crank handles because they confuse him too. “The nerve of that crank handle to perform two motions at the same time!”. So he carries superglue with him at all times to glue any handle he sees, so it will not rotate.
What a sad little turnip.
PGW, EVERY sentence is incorrect!
Do you purposely try to be egregiously WRONG, or does it just come naturally?
Poor turnip boy thinks Newton is the inventor of the Fig Newton cookie. That’s the only Newton he is familiar with, which is why he is in a total state of confusion, babbling incessant nonsense.
He’s obviously never seen the inside of a physics classroom…….oh wait…..he has…….when he mops the floor at the local university.
He dreams he’s the Good Will Hunting film character, solving complex mathematical proofs while he is mopping the university floors, but he is just playing tic-tac-toe on the whiteboard, and losing bigly every time.
I guess it just comes naturally.
” SkepticGoneWild says:
December 23, 2017 at 1:16 AM
Put a compass on the horse through its axis, and have an arrow point in the horses direction of travel through its axis. From above, you will see the arrow on the horse rotate about the north arrow of the compass as the horse orbits the track. Relative to the non-rotating reference frame, the horse does rotate on its axis, one revolution for every one orbit, just like the moon does.”
The moon is traveling in a straight line. All things in space are traveling in straight lines, and require force to change direction.
A horse going around a track, requires force to change it’s direction. Though a horse could rotate by going straight.
A dead horse is rotating because it’s on Earth and Earth rotates, a live horse can add to the rotation speed by going straight in the direction that Earth is rotating- or horse can move at a rotation speed of 1000 mph.
A rocket can use the Earth rotational speed in order to get into orbit- they do this when they launch towards the East.
Stuff in space will continue to spin if spinning, and to make something spin requires force, and to make something stop spinning requires force. And a rocket launches East it gains energy from Earth rotation [Earth loses rotational speed]. One can add or subtract rotational speed of things spinning in space.
Now if the Moon spins, then one could use this energy.
Is that possible?
Yes, but you are better off using the earth as your base, rather than the moon, despite the escape velocity being larger for the earth by a factor of 5.
The initial velocity of a rocket launched in the direction of the moon’s rotation would be smaller, due to the moon’s smaller angular velocity ( a factor of 30 smaller) times the ratio of the radii (a factor of 0.27).
g*e*r*a*n
You do not understand the concept of orbit. Did you look at my link at all before you spouted your nonsense? Or do you just respond on autopilot with not thought behind your posts?
The horse is turning itself with each step it takes around a curve. You can’t see it but when you drive a car and go into a curve you turn your tires so that they will rotate your car at the same rate as you are moving into the curve so you don’t crash. Yes the car and horse are rotating on their axis of rotation.
You are still confused. You are making an orbital axis into a rotational axis (as the person in the cork and string video did). They are not the same thing. As long as you persist in this delusion believing they are one you will not grasp the flaw in your thought process.
The horse and car are doing what you could do with an object in your home. Have it moving around a center point (it is now orbiting the center point, not rotating around it as you believe) and keep its same face pointed toward the center. Observe what your hands must do as you orbit around the center. You have to turn you object to keep the face pointing toward the center. If you connected a rod to the center and your object face and rotated it then you do not turn the face. You have eliminated the orbital axis. Now you just have an axis of rotation. The object is connected to the axis. This has nothing to do with orbits at all. Some day you might wake up and see this reality.
Con-man, I’m enjoying your confusion.
There are TWO motions being discussed here. There are TWO axes.
One motion is “orbiting” Here the object is turning around the center of the orbit, as a race car on a race track.
The other motion is “rotating on an axis”. Here the object is spinning around its own axis.
TWO completely different, distinct, independent motions. Yet, you continue to confuse them.
It’s fun to watch.
g*e*r*a*n
You still have not read about the ISS rotating on its axis to keep the same face pointed at Earth as it orbits around the planet.
Again you show your confusion and your unwilling nature to intentionally work not to understand a poster’s point.
Moving around a central object may be an orbit and then again it may not be. Basically in physics an orbit is defined as an object in space that is bent toward a gravitational body into a circular or elliptical path around the gravitational body.
Moving around an object may be an orbit or just a rotation. A car on a racetrack is not actually an orbit since the center is not bending the car’s path. The tires are what are causing the spin around the track.
Again you fail to distinguish between an axis of rotation and an orbit. The ISS has to rotate on its axis to face the Earth. If it was tethered to the Earth’s surface by a super cable, it would not need to rotate on its axis to always face the Earth but it would no longer be orbiting the Earth, it would be rotating around with the planet. Big difference that you just don’t like to think about. Look up the rotation of the ISS on its axis to maintain its orientation to the Earth. This will prove to you that you really do not understand even the simplest of physics concepts. Sad but true!
The horse continues running around the track. The horse is NOT rotating on its axis. The horse knows this. Norm does not.
Maybe the con-man could use some “horse sense”?
g*e*r*a*n
Walk around an object and see what your fee do. You have to twist your foot to properly move around an object (which is similar to what an orbit is). After you twist your foot in the right direction you pivot the rest of your body, you are rotating your body. If you do not rotate your body to move away from the center of the object in a straight line.
Now if you are on a merry-go-round standing at the edge, you do not have to move your feet to go around the center. You are no longer orbiting the center you are rotating around the center.
Walk around a merry-go-round and see how your feet must turn toward the merry-go-round to go around it. Just like the wheels of a car. As you walk around the merry-go-round you will observe your axis is rotating and you walk around it, your belly is turning inward. If you get on the merry-go-round you are no longer orbiting it, you are rotating with it. Your delusional mistake is that you think that orbiting an object is the same as rotating around an object but they are not. You are just delusional.
I challenge you to walk around the merry-go-round and then you will see you are rotating around your fixed axis in order to do this. Your delusion is deep but we are trying to help you get out of it.
Con-man, it’s funny you should mention a merry-go-round. That’s just one more BUST for “Spinners”.
Clear everything off the deck of the merry-go-round, for this experiment. Now, cut a piece of cardboard to the shape of an arrow. Nail the center of the arrow to one edge of the merry-go-round deck, so that it cannot move. The arrow points away from the merry-go-round center.
Start the merry-go-round.
OMG, the arrow appears to be rotating about its axis, when viewed from off the merry-go-round. But, on the merry-go-round, it is NOT rotating on its axis. It is NAILED to the deck!
Same motion as the race car, horse, and Moon.
Hilarious.
g*e*r*a*n
No you stupid goofball. It is not the same!
Here would be a better way to put it than your idiot way. Man you are one incredible dumb dude! Unbelievable, I suggest you tell Postma what you think on this and see how he responds to you.
Your wife is in the middle of the merry-go-round. You are at the edge, holding on with your side to her. Now your brother is walking around the merry-go-round (which is rotating slowly) along with you. He is orbiting the merry-go-round, you are not. Your axis of rotation is rotating with the merry-go-round. To your wife she sees the same side from you or your brother. You are not rotating on your axis because your axis is also rotating (the line going through your center along the vertical is rotating with you). Your brother, on the other hand, must rotate around his axis to keep his side to your wife. If he does not rotate on his axis as he orbits the merry-go-round he walks off in a straight line away for all of you. It can’t be any easier than this. Your stupid mind has the axis of rotation rotating around the axis of rotation. It is not orbiting.
Now walk around an object and tell me you don’t have to rotate your body to go around it. You are just so dumb that it defies all expectations. Just do it dunce! Walk around an object (which mimics an orbit) and tell me you don’t have to pivot your foot to accomplish this task and once your foot is no longer mobile your leg rotates to align with your foot. Don’t be stupid, do the walk.
Well, you’re now pounding on the keyboard more, with still no substance. Funny. And now, you’re mentioning your obsession with Postma. That’s even funnier!
Please continue. Even the horse is laughing at you.
g*e*r*a*n
You are still a blithering idiot in all phases of science.
Have you tried to walk around an object without rotating your feet? And with your feet the rest of your body? I didn’t think so.
You silly con-man. Walking in circles would be “orbiting”. Spinning in place would be “rotating on your axis”.
You should know something about going in circles!
The horse also thinks you’re funny.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZQOYOuSWywA
g*e*r*a*n says, December 22, 2017 at 5:54 PM:
And by that you have finally confirmed to yourself that the Moon actually does rotate on its axis. It appears to be rotating on its axis because it IS rotating on its axis, when seen from an outside, FIXED reference frame. (The Earth also won’t appear to rotate on its axis, after all, from the perspective of one standing on it. You have to see it from the outside, from a fixed position somewhere in space.)
No, it APPEARS not to be rotating on its axis, because when on the merry-go-round, your reference frame is NOT fixed.
This is all you need to understand. And now it seems you do …
Kris, it is impossible for the Moon to both rotate on its axis and orbit the Earth, without the rotation being visible from Earth. The link below shows both CW and CCW axial rotations of the Moon, which would be seen from Earth.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/12/uah-global-temperature-update-for-november-20170-36-deg-c/#comment-277084
g*e*r*a*n says, December 23, 2017 at 2:34 PM:
Sorry, g*, but you’re just wrong on this topic. It’s not impossible for the Moon to both rotate on its axis and orbit the Earth, because that is exactly what it does. We just can’t SEE its rotation from the Earth, because its period of rotation matches its period of revolution – tidal-locked, synchronous rotation. The Moon simply APPEARS not to rotate, from the Earth, when in fact it does. All you have to do is place yourself – very much hypothetically! – on the face of the SUN instead of the Earth, and you will see the Moon 1) orbit the Earth, AND 2) rotate on its own axis. All at the same time …!
Kris, that’s just blatant pseudoscience.
I say it is impossible. I linked you to the two possibilities, CW and CCW. Both rotations would be visible from Earth.
Do you not understand vector rotation?
g*e*r*a*n says, December 23, 2017 at 6:02 PM:
Hehe, no, sorry. It’s standard physics. Pretty much as standard as it comes. You simply seem not to understand it. Different thing altogether.
Or – always a possibility – you’re just pulling our common leg on this one. Because, frankly, your insistent slowless on this topic seems almost too unfathomable to be real …
Most folks that comment here haven’t figured out you are a female. I see some using pronouns such as “he”, “him”, etc.
Are you purposely trying to hide your felinity?
“femininity”!
Stupid auto-spell!
Kristian,
You cannot reason with G*. All your arguments have been concise and logically crystal clear.
So I tried to approach the problem from the practical side by giving him hands-on experiments that I performed where this rotation about an axis can be observed.
I gave him a hands on experiment where I put a toothpick through an eraser, and then orbited the eraser about a coffee can. With a CCW orbit, in order to keep the left side of the eraser facing the center of orbit, you have to keep twirling the toothpick CCW in your fingers. You can visually see the eraser rotating about its axis.
He said no, and that I had to tape the eraser to the coffee can, and then rotate the can for a true representation. I performed that experiment as well, taping the eraser to the outside of the coffee can, and placing a nail through the center on the eraser. I rotated the can with my left hand and held onto the nail with my right hand, and the eraser rotated about the nail as I rotated the can, once again demonstrating that an object like a horse running around a track is rotating on its axis one time as it makes one orbit.
All to no avail. He sees no spin because, 1. he refuses to perform these simple experiments, and 2. like you say, he is viewing the horse from the rotating reference frame and sees no spin, and more likely, 3. He apparently “can be this dull minded”.
g*e*r*a*n says, December 23, 2017 at 8:20 PM:
You’re right. I’m a cat. What gave me away …?
Our troll g*e*r*a*n throws out terms like “vector rotation” and “vector algebra” hoping they will impress someone, when he really has no clue what he is talking about.
He stated earlier:
“snake, as I expected you have not had vector algebra. There are 8 positions in the diagram. Each position is 45 degrees farther around the orbit. A 45 degree CW orbit change is cancelled by a 45 degree CCW axial rotation. Consequently, the car does not change its orientation.”
What the %$#$? Does he properly define any vectors? No. Does he provide any proper vector calculations. No. Does he even know how to sum two vectors? He just babbles some gibberish, and presto, he claims some imaginary solution.
Later G* queries Kristian if he understands vector rotation, implying that G* is an expert in it. Does turnip boy [aka G*] know what “vector rotation” is? Does turnip boy provide any proper calculations so he can demonstrate that he knows what the &%$ he is talking about? No. Nada. Zip.
G* is just a troll who is a monumental bull****er, name dropping sciency and mathematical terms to make himself look intelligent, when in fact, from his bonehead comments, he’s one of the stupidest people I’ve run across in a long time.
SGW,
More than anything, he’s an attention seeker. That’s why we should all just give this silliness a rest. DFTT.
Good idea.
As of now, this is also my method of dealing with him.
The degree of collateral damage he does to the denial movement with his comments is embarrassing enough. No need for me to rub it in.
The horse continues running around the track, lads and lasses. He is NOT rotating on his axis. He is in “orbit”. Outside the orbit, one would see all sides of the horse. That is because his orbit is circular. He is NOT rotating on his axis.
But, I enjoy the hilarity of your imaginations.
Aah tis the festive season when one gets two Looney Tune’s subjects in comments to one post. First Eli Wabbit and his plates in the sky which on analysis could be made to show whatever one wished (with range limits) but in particular that a smaller back radiation would result in a higher T increase of the blue plate. Now we have G*
But the G* case is much richer with greater variation. No matter which example he refuses to budge. Some G* examples of the many follow.
Is Norman’s original car (left) rotating on axis? Nope can’t see all sides and nose is always pointing in the direction of travel (orbit).
Is the still car (right design always pointing roughly N) rotating. Yes, get to see all sides.
Is the boat rotating? Nope can’t see all sides etc and besides it can’t cos not enough room to rotate (:))
G* says: In the ballpoint pen experiment, someone in the center of the circle would see the all sides of the pen,
(so he is saying he does SEE it rotate correcto!)
BUT THEN HE SAYS: The pen is not rotating on its axis.
So now he has decided to jump out of the centre of the orbit. He has temporarily abandoned his shifting reference frame and joined ours (relatively fixed) for a fleeting second as he then still denies the moon spin by jumping back to the centre of the orbit.
This is one helluva confused guy. G* get those worms out of your head. It is likely to give you headaches at the very least.
G*, would it help if we let u also see a compass fixed on board these objects? Nope! No way, I judge by my nose and eyes.
It just would invite more colourful argument from G*.
Tis the season to be jolly and as we share the same planet best wishes to all for a very happy, safe season and that includes G* and anyone else where we may differ in viewpoint.
A particular cheerio to Dr Roy, who is a most generous host and giving us all some special insights all these years. Thank you.
More blah, blah, blah from tonym, but the horse does not “rotate on his axis” as he rounds the race track. And, the Moon does not rotate on its axis, as it orbits the Earth.
Some things just never change.
G*,
Everyone is waiting with bated breath for Lecture #3.
What will we learn next? Let me guess:
1. 911 was an inside job?
2. Lizard People aka Reptilians Are Running the World.
3. The moon landing was faked.
4. Elvis faked his own death.
Don’t keep us in suspense!
Inquiring minds want to know.
I’m glad you’re practicing your comedy, PGW. If you try for a career in science, you’ll end up washing dishes.
I already have a career in science in which I am well paid, turnip boy.
Does your “career in science” involve dish soap?
Turnip boy confuses “soaps” with “detergents”. Most dish “soaps” are actually detergents.
Turnip boy fails again.
Okay, that’s what I was asking. Only dishwashers know that kind of in-depth stuff.
Or people like me who have taken a year of chemistry at university know that kind of stuff.
Yes Tony M, I think we are almost all (with only one exception) in agreement regarding g*’s lunacy.
I also agree with your statement re Eli’s thought experiment that tbere are infinite range of possible solutions. However due to the boundary conditions (the boundary between ignorance and understanding) only one of them is correct.
All the best for the festive season.
MikeR: However due to the boundary conditions (the boundary between ignorance and understanding) only one of them is correct.
J Halp: Agreed.
Hint: it isnt the solution where the two plates are at the same temperature when pushed together, then miraculously at two different temperatures when separated by 1 mm vacuum.
J Halp-less
You maybe need to study some physics. I do not understand you can’t see a difference between the two conditions of a plate touching another and being separated in a vacuum. When together conduction moves energy throughout both plates. The 400 watt input energy is uniformly distributed. When you separate them the conduction stops and now you have the plate that is not receiving direct energy can only receive the energy from one side of the plate which would only be 200 watts. When this plate was in contact it received the full 400 watts, all the same system. Wow you and g*e*r*a*n.
Con-man separating the plates does not stop energy flow. Maybe you haven’t ever heard of radiative heat transfer. The 200 Watts leaving the blue plate has no place to go. Think “homeless”. It must move to the green plate. But, the green plate can only emit in one direction, because “cold” can not warm “hot”. So, the green plate must warm so that it can emit the 200 Watts.
But, don’t let that stop you. Your grasping desperation is hilarious.
More please.
And I dont understand how you cant see how stupid it to think that the plates would be at the same temperature when pushed together, but at two different temperatures when separated by 1mm vacuum.
Read up on the difference between conduction and radiation. Google is your friend.
g*e*r*a*n the jester posts some more garbage. This is very stupid but not as stupid as your inability to grasp rotation.
YOU: “It must move to the green plate. But, the green plate can only emit in one direction, because cold can not warm hot. So, the green plate must warm so that it can emit the 200 Watts.”
Where do you get your s*it from? I think the best approach to you is just to laugh. You are too stupid to understand anything and you just make up stuff.
You are hilarious. A truly funny clown. Keep us entertained. I will enjoy your hilarious posts. It is good for the Christmas cheer. Make up some more of your funny physics so we can all get a good laugh.
Con-man, your solution to the plates violates 2LoT. Your Moon, in “synchronous rotation” is impossible.
Impossible and impossible. Classic pseudoscience.
(And, I noticed you used the word “hilarious” twice. You must have a GREAT teacher.)
So when does the magic happen? Is it when the plates have been separated by one-thousandth of a mm? One-hundredth of a mm? One-tenth of a mm? Or does the magic wait until the plates have been separated by the full mm?
MikeR says, December 22, 2017 at 7:45 PM:
When it comes to heat transfer (which is what we’re talking about here), what difference is that exactly?
Norman says, December 22, 2017 at 6:52 PM:
It appears you don’t quite understand how real heat transfer works. There’s no difference between conductive and radiative heat transfer in principle. The only difference of any real significance is that the former can’t occur in a vacuum, while the latter one can.
The thing to bear in mind is that the two-body system we’re dealing with here is effectively never able to reach a proper equilibrium, just like the surface-troposphere system. This is because there is always heat coming IN at the one end and heat going OUT at the other. Which establishes and maintains a natural temperature gradient through the system, from the warmer end closest to the heat source, to the cooler end closest to the heat sink.
This will be the consequence whether the main method of heat transport is conductive, convective or radiative. It will look like this: heat source – surface 1 (plate 1), warm – surface 2 (plate 1), less warm – surface 1 (plate 2), cool – surface 2 (plate 2), cooler – heat sink.
Oh yes. Kristian who professes to be a stickler for describing thermodynamic processes should understand the difference between the the transfer of energy by the two processes. If not I think he needs to go back and reread the Dummies Guide to Thermodynamics
He could also just Google it. For instance –
https://study.com/academy/lesson/mechanisms-of-heat-transfer-conduction-convection-radiation.html.
I guess Kristian might actually be trying to be abstruse and suggest, because the laws of thermodynamics apply to both cases, they are identical. He should know better.
No, MikeR, I said STOP being weird.
MikeR says, December 23, 2017 at 10:39 PM:
I do. I’m wondering if YOU do. That’s why I’m asking. You’re still not answering.
From the wiki-
“In conduction, the heat flow is within and through the body itself. In contrast, in heat transfer by thermal radiation, the transfer is often between bodies, which may be separated spatially. ”
Kristian, I know you are a proponent of photon gas (or gases) to explain radiative transfer. Do you believe photon gases are also involved in conduction?
Another Nobel Prize winner in waiting. Once he figures out how to use Excel.
Halp”December 23, 2017 at 6:23 AM
So when does the magic happen? Is it when the plates have been separated by one-thousandth of a mm? One-hundredth of a mm? One-tenth of a mm? Or does the magic ”
Is magic required when you remove the wire .1 mm from the positive terminal of the battery, an suddenly a potential difference appears across the gap?
Switching analogies to ones that do not relate to what is being discussed, is a common tactic among the PLs and PBCCs. We saw it from Bart, below, as well.
Kristian
The following comment should have been here rather than below –
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/12/uah-global-temperature-update-for-november-20170-36-deg-c/#comment-277611.
I must add the following to the above.
I suspect, but let me know if I am wrong, that our only differences are that you reject back radiation as a description of the radiation emitted by the green plate back towards the blue plate. This is despite your agreement that it provides sensible calculations of the temperatures of both plates and relevant fluxes.
I don’t know if your philosophicsl objections to calling it back radiation has any relevance at all, as the practical result is the same. Call it insulation, or whatever, instead of back radiation, it makes stuff all difference.
i can see which side of the boundary is the one you prefer.
Plates, together same temp, separate 1mm vac different temp, nonsense.
: )
Plates; together one plate same temp., separate 1mm vac. two plates, one in shade, different temp.s, perfect sense.
: )
No no. Plates, together same temp, separate 1mm vac different temp, nonsense.
: )
(1mm of vacuum doesnt suddenly make the green plate in the *shade*, if you want to call it that; it already has the blue plate inbetween it and the sun when pushed right next to the blue plate, so was already in the *shade*; and two objects pushed together are still two objects, not one; and conduction and radiation both operate under the exact same laws of physics)
Hapless,
Are you trying to outstupid g*? You have made an impressive attempt with your remarkable inability to understand the difference between conduction and radiation, but even at this early stage, I am calling it.
The maestro of madness is going to win “crackpot of the month”.
Last month’s winner, Gordon is nowhere to be seen so your belated efforts will earn you the runners up award. Coming second is nothing to be sneezed at and next month is just around the corner.
Thank you for your contribution.
miker, all you have are false accusations, attempted insults, and other nonsense. You cannot come up with one responsible criticism of the two lessons. You just ramble.
(Can you imitate a yelping chihuahua, yet?)
Plate, all same temp. at equilibrium, two separate plates 1mm vac. different temp.s, observed from test.
: )
P, TSP, S1mmVDT, N
: )
J Halp-less @ December 23, 2017 at 5:43 AM
“Plates, together same temp, separate 1mm vac different temp, nonsense.”
Incorrect. If you have ever used a Thermos, you have benefited from this piece of “nonsense”.
The Thermos bottle consists of an inner wall separated from the outer wall by a vacuum. This arrangement prevents heat transfer by conduction or convection except at the very top where the walls come together.
By preventing anything but radiant heat flow, the Thermos bottle sharply attenuates heat exchange between the material within the inner wall and the outer wall, and hence the surrounding thermal environment. That is how it keeps your cold drinks cold, and your hot drinks hot.
It works. And, it has worked since the original concept was developed by Sir James Dewar in 1892. Again, old hat, well known.
Ball4 says, December 23, 2017 at 10:42 AM:
Why would the system become isothermal as soon as you put the plates in direct thermal contact?
The system won’t reach equilibrium as long as heat keeps coming in and going out. So the plates won’t become isothermal in this setup whether together or separated. Different temps all over.
Bart tries again: “By preventing anything but radiant heat flow, the Thermos bottle sharply attenuates heat exchange between the material within the inner wall and the outer wall, and hence the surrounding thermal environment.”
Bart, you are comparing apples to oranges. The plates are high emissivity, the “mirrored” Thermos bottle is very low emissivity.
You’re not embarrassing yourself again, are you?
Bart says, December 23, 2017 at 12:38 PM:
Sure. But ALL insulation works like this. Make the conductivity of your insulating material as low as possible (air is a good candidate), and the insulating effect will be large. Somehow prevent convection and the insulating effect will likewise be large. Make surface emissivity as low as possible and you will also be able to create a pretty decent insulating effect.
So why would heat transport by conduction (or convection) necessarily create isothermal conditions even when NOT in a state of thermodynamic equilibrium? In a state of thermodynamic equilibrium, would there even BE transport of heat – of any kind – going on?
“Make the conductivity of your insulating material as low as possible (air is a good candidate), and the insulating effect will be large.”
And, the conductivity of a vacuum is what?
“So why would heat transport by conduction (or convection) necessarily create isothermal conditions even when NOT in a state of thermodynamic equilibrium?”
I never said it would. As long as there is a heat source and sink, there will be a temperature gradient from source to sink. It is not, however, necessarily a particularly smooth gradient, depending on the material composition between source and sink.
This is all beside the point, though. For the Earth, there is no vacuum between the surface and the effective radiating layer of the atmosphere. That is why the children’s explanation of how the greenhouse effect works is inadequate. Terrestrial heat transfers are not by radiation alone until you reach the edge of space.
“Why would the system become isothermal as soon as you put the plates in direct thermal contact?”
There is only one black body plate in that case; when put 2 plates together the 2 become 1 BB emissivity=1.0, sort of a bluish green plate with sun shining on it, there is no 2nd plate in its shade anymore separated by vacuum i.e. back to the beginning before the pure green plate is introduced as a third object.
anger is the commenter embarrassed, debunked & wrong yet again. Where is James Dewar’ “mirrored” surface? Nowhere. That device was discovered later & added.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Dewar#/media/File:Ri_2014_-_Thermos_flask_-_James_Dewar_(27).jpg
Hapless and G*,
Hapless It was a great pleasure to provide feedback. You should use it wisely.
G* maybe you could advise, with your amazing expertise in the field of thermodynamics, whether you believe there is a difference between conduction and radiation
Maybe he will listen to you?
trick, Bart mentioned the Thermos, two comments above mine.
Glad to help you get the fact right.
anger: the mentioned Dewar AFTER your “mirrored” surface is added became a Thermos bottle. Glad to set you straight. Apples are apples, Dewars are Dewars, Thermos is a Thermos, never forget this synchronously rotating while jockeying your horse around a track. It’s why they call the corners: turns.
You can’t count. You can’t communicate clearly. You have no knowledge of physics. But, your cabbages glow in the dark.
At least you have something going for you.
Bart says, December 23, 2017 at 2:00 PM:
A vacuum is not an insulating material, Bart. I wasn’t comparing the insulative properties of air to those of a vacuum.
You kind of did. Here’s your exact quote from J Halp-less:
“Plates, together same temp, separate 1mm vac different temp, nonsense.”
And here’s your immediate response:
“Incorrect.”
My point exactly.
On this we agree.
I made a typo, before. No-one noticed, but thats OK:
P, TST, S1mmVDT, N
: )
Ball4 says, December 23, 2017 at 2:56 PM:
Irrelevant. It won’t become isothermal simply because it’s one body. THAT’S not what determines the temperature distribution. There is no state of thermodynamic equilibrium here. Heat comes IN to and heat goes OUT of the thermodynamic system.
If you turned off the heat source with the plates separated by a vacuum, the two would also THEN become of equal temp eventually. Thermodynamic equilibrium. No heat flow.
M: whether you believe there is a difference between conduction and radiation
J: Keep bashing those ridiculous strawmen, MikeR.
“It won’t become isothermal simply because it’s one body.”
Sure if the discussion were for a REAL body but this particular situation being discussed is for an object defined as a black body: the single blue (or bluish green) plate of emissivity 1.0 over the entire object no matter the illumination.
Thus the emission spectrum of the plate (a blackbody) at temperature T is the Planck spectrum; the spectrum of radiation in equilibrium with matter. The total rates of absorbing and emitting must be equal. This is sufficient to ensure that the plate (blackbody) is in thermal equilibrium. Absorbing and emitting are also inverse processes. That is, if time were to reverse, absorbed photons would become emitted photons and vice versa.
There is no change of thermodynamic variables, no gradients and no dependence on the system history.
Ball4 says, December 23, 2017 at 6:57 PM:
The heat only comes in from one side and only goes out the other. The energy then has to pass through the plate from the heating side to the cooling side. This takes conduction. It doesn’t matter if the plate has an emissivity of 1, it will still only emit according to its temperature, and so, if its temperature is lower at its cooling end than at its heating end (it will be), then it won’t be isothermal. And it won’t be in a state of equilibrium.
J Halp-less
If you have a blue plate facing an energy source that provides 400 watts to its surface and it is in physical contact with a similar material green plate (touching) the two will reach an equilibrium temperature where both are radiating 200 watts from their surfaces.
What happens when you move the green plate away is it doubles its radiating surface (as does the blue plate). If each plate was one square meter, in the first case you had a radiating surface of 2 m^2. After you separate them (millimeters would be enough, I think you would have to be in the micron range to create quantum effects) the green plate (initially at temp of 243.7 K if it is close to a blackbody) starts to cool since it is now losing energy at a rate of 400 watts instead of the previous 200 watts (its radiating surface area is double from previous). It is gaining 200 watts from the blue plate but losing energy at the rate of 400 watts so its internal energy will drop.
The blue plate is receiving 400 watts from an external source. When first separated it also doubles its radiating surface so it radiates 200 watts from each of its surface.
Blue plate, energy inputs: 400 watts from external source. 200 watts received from green plate. In the first moments of separation it is receiving 600 watts of energy and losing 400 so it will warm. The green plate is receiving 200 but losing 400 so it will cool. When it was touching the blue plate it received 200 watts total and emitted 200 watts total. You double the emitting surface when you separate the plates.
“if its temperature is lower at its cooling end than at its heating end (it will be)”
Not in the ideal situation being discussed. The plate (black body) temperature is not lower at its cooling end than at its heating end as the surface always and everywhere emits at the Planck spectrum, defined as radiation in equilibrium with matter.
Sure a REAL object will have a temperature gradient because one side has illumination of the sun and its dark side is illuminated presumably by deep space. Thus a real object will have emissivity on one side different than its emissivity on the other side due the difference in illumination.
Refer to “emissivity 1.0 over the entire object no matter the illumination.”
J Halp-less
If the above post does not work for you think of this one.
The blue plate is heated by a 400 watt heating coil inside it. When the green plate is in contact with it, conduction distributes the heat throughout both plates (has to be a reasonable conducting material).
Now you move the green plate on top of the blue plate, consider that thickness of the plates is enough so that conduction still occurs rapidly enough to distribute the power equally throughout the plates. What happens? You have doubled the emitting surface area even though both are still in contact and the overall arrangement will be cooler than when the plates faces touch each other.
With 400 watts, each surface 1 m^2 and consider black body for ease of calculation. You get a temperature of 243.7 K for the blue and green plate. If you move the green plate on top (but still in contact to allow conduction from the powered blue plate) you now have a 4 m^2 radiating surface instead of 2 and you temperature will drop to 204.9 K. If you separate the green plate while it is on top of the blue plate so no energy conducts through it from the powered blue plate it will cool to very low temperatures (very small radiant field of view with this configuration) and the blue plate will warm back to 243.7 K.
If you consider that the radiating surface is changing size all will make perfect sense to you and you will see what people are talking about. If you do not see this it may not make any sense to you.
J Halp-less
Also when you initially separate the plates they will be at the same temperature. The final equilibrium temperature will change, the green plate will cool and the blue plate will warm.
Ive heard it all before, Norman. If you want to think my lack of a proper response means you are correct, please do.
J Halp-less
It is not that I need your approval to know I am correct. My confidence comes from my understanding of established physics and also considerable evidence that the science of heat transfer is correct and works in real world situations and is used in multiple engineering applications.
If you don’t want to accept reality but prefer the make believe made up science of Joe Postma or any of the PSI contributors, that is your loss. You could learn real science here. There are lots of posters who actually know the real material. Your hero is not one of them. He is a really repugnant human who contributes nothing to science. I can see how you and g*e*r*a*n think to know he is poison to rational thought process. He is a vicious cult leader (like we really need another one of these, he is sole possessor of the Truth, all scientists are deluded and have no clue of what they are talking about, even it they have years of actual study on the material. Follow his, it is your loss. You will not find your understanding working at all in real world applications… fairy tale physics works well on blogs especially when you never ever have to prove you are right, just make the claim and you are good).
N: It is not that I need your approval to know I am correct
J: Good to know. Though, I didnt suggest that you did.
By the way, my comment to MikeR:
Hint: it isnt the solution where the two plates are at the same temperature when pushed together, then miraculously at two different temperatures when separated by 1 mm vacuum.
Is simply about the absurdity of the *end-point* of E-Lies silly plates in a vacuum argument generator. Mentioning it doesnt mean I then want to undergo another enormous debate from the very beginning, again.
Re your obsession with Postma, I only link to comments/posts from that site since this has been discussed over there as well, and its easier and quicker than writing out relevant points from scratch. At this stage, entire discussions could be had from start to finish just by each person linking to comments already made either here, or there. I know he is a figure that often seems to haunt your thoughts, but you really shouldnt let him bother you so much.
Hapless,
Do I take it from your comment, in response to mine, that you recognise that conduction and radiation are different mechanisms? Has g* explained the difference?
That makes your statements about what occurs when separating the plates even more mysterious.
I am also so not sure about your reference to straw men. Isn’t a scarecrow typically made of straw? You seem to fit the bill –
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/If_I_Only_Had_a_Brain .
MikeR, Kristian asked you a question:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/12/uah-global-temperature-update-for-november-20170-36-deg-c/#comment-277407
Why dont you stop being weird, down here, and scroll back up there, to answer?
Sorry Hapless,
I missed your last comment addressed to myself which was just a repeat of your initial claims. I think Norman and the others. have done a more than adequate demolition job.
My only comment is why 1 mm? Do you actually believe the temperatures of both plates would remain the same irrespective of the distance between them, be it 1 micron or 1 km apart.
In reality the separation relative to the size of the plates is important. You have to adjust for the relevant view factor when you change the separation, as the first plate shields the second plate from the source of energy. But you knew this anyway ( /sarc off).
Norm spouts: “In the first moments of separation it is receiving 600 watts of energy and losing 400 so it will warm.”
Norm, your pseudoscience entertains us again.
Someday maybe you will get some real education where you learn the 2LoT.
Until then, keep the hilarity coming.
The con-man continues his spew: “Also when you initially separate the plates they will be at the same temperature. The final equilibrium temperature will change, the green plate will cool and the blue plate will warm.”
Con-man, not a chance.
Hilarious.
The con-man works his con: “It is not that I need your approval to know I am correct. My confidence comes from my understanding of established physics and also considerable evidence that the science of heat transfer is correct and works in real world situations and is used in multiple engineering applications.”
The yelping chihuahua claims that established heat transfer physics now verifies his fantasy world.
Hilarious.
Thanks Hapless I missed Kristin’s comment. I have now replied above.
By the way, on a previous occasion he agreed that the plates were at different temperatures at steady state (which was the way the problem was formulated) . Has he changed his mind?
Hapless,
Does g* agree with your thesis about separating the plates? I would hate to think this would cause a dust up between the two of you.
Poor g* seems to have no other friends at all leaping to his defence. Your attempts to help him out were touching. I did however suggest that he seeks some professional advice about his lack of social skills.
Also with absence of Gordon, Tony etc. there seems to be a sudden shortage of wack jobs. Despite this, I hope g* still has a nice festive season with his family.
As G* has a mind that only a mother could love, I am sure his mum will love being regaled by his theses as they carve the turkey.
Kristian @ December 23, 2017 at 5:19 PM
“You kind of did.”
Well, he did, anyway. I was saying he was wrong in his conclusion, not necessarily saying the other conclusion was right. But, yeah, ok, you got me.
My main point was simply that a gap can make a lot of difference. But, I agree with you, if a thermal mass is heated on one side and cooled on the other, there is going to be a temperature gradient. That is the solution one would get solving the heat equation.
Bart, Kristian
To keep things simple, Eli’s diagram shows both sides of each plate radiating at the same rate. This implies no temperature gradient from one side to the other. So in keeping with this premise, if the two plates were pressed together there would likewise be no gradient.
miker, you don’t realize it but you are slipping more and more into depravity. Have you tortured or killed any of your neighbors’ pets yet?
Please seek professional help.
Bart is back again.
Bart, do you want to explain how a horse running around a race track is also spinning on its axis?
I’m all ears.
G*e*r*a*”n
My comment was addressed to Hapless, but since you have commented I must say that the projection of your fantasies are quite disturbing.
My offer of a free ticket to Belleview still stands.
g*e*r*a*n
Has it ever occurred to you to read actual physics? I didn’t think so. Your fantasy world you dwell in is so much more fun and real. Everything you think is true and correct and only fools dare not see this. You might really be a nutjob. MikeR might be correct. You are definitely not rational. When people give you clear and easy to understand examples of your flawed thinking you are not able to process them.
You are clueless of the REAL Second Law of Thermodynamics but you have your made up version that you use to make declarations that are absurd.
Here is what the REAL 2nd Law states: “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.”
Established science clearly proves you are delusional and wrong but you are not able to understand your own flaws. I think you might need professional help. We have all tried our best to teach you real physics and show your errors. You are too far gone in fantasy land to be able to accept reality. You live in a made up dreamworld and live in la, la land.
Such unpleasantness during the season of goodwill. What a shame. And, its *still* nonsense to claim that with the plates together they would be the same temperature, but if you separated them by just 1mm, they would somehow miraculously change to be different temperatures. But, I guess its that time of year, maybe magic is in the air for you guys. I really hope you can make the impossible, possible, one day.
And nobody has answered my question:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/12/uah-global-temperature-update-for-november-20170-36-deg-c/#comment-277377
Halp
The magic happens when radiative heat transfer is replaced by conduction. Maybe a physicist could give you an exact distance.
Maybe your question could be rephrased: how close can two objects get without actually touching?
Snape says, December 24, 2017 at 12:30 AM:
Exactly. And this is where the analogy fails. It tries to assert the result of ‘heat source -> warmer -> cooler -> heat sink’ as one exclusive to radiative heat transfer, when in fact it is a simple result of ALL heat transfer processes. The cooling end will always be cooler than the heating end. It’s all to do with the direction in which the heat moves.
Kristian says: “It tries to assert the result of heat source -> warmer -> cooler -> heat sink as one exclusive to radiative heat transfer…….”
It asserts no such thing! The diagrams explicitly keep conduction/convection out of the calculations and makes no claim about either one.
Kristian
I should backtrack a little. It might have been a good idea if Eli had explained, for example, that when the blue plate radiates equally in both directions, this is an idealized set up not be taken literally.
MikeR says, December 23, 2017 at 10:47 PM:
Of course not. MikeR, you have a bad habit of ‘misreading’ what I write …
Ball4 says, December 23, 2017 at 7:16 PM:
But if the analogy is not meant to portray reality, then everything goes, and I could just as well stipulate that the plate furthest away from the heat source will have the same temperature as the one closest to it. Yes, that is making up one’s own physics, but so is positing that the plates will both be isothermal even with heat solely coming IN on one side and going OUT on the other in both cases.
Yes, we’re trying to isolate the radiative effect here, I do understand that. But in doing so, one ends up insinuating that radiation ALONE will create the effect of lower temps further away from the heat source; that conduction (and convection?) won’t.
Yup. Which is my point. So why aren’t we discussing REAL objects?
Er, no. The emissivity is 1 on either side. Only the TEMPERATURE is different. In a situation where an object’s emissivity is 1, that object will emit less only if its temperature is lower.
It appears you’re confusing “emissivity” with “radiant emittance”. Two different phenomena …
con-man, inserting a statement of the 2LoT in your rambling comment does mean that you understand it.
You most certainly do NOT understand it.
g*e*e*a*n
Yes indeed I do understand the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics.
You have a Merry Christmas, if that be part of your Faith, or Happy Holidays if not.
G* and Halp. You guys ever soldered? The you may know that with the soldering iron held 1mm away, it dont work. Could it be that contact delivers much heat?
Ever iron clothes? Does it work well hovering the iron over the surface?
much more heat
Kristian 5:42am, we aren’t discussing real objects because of the original setup.
In the language of antenna engineers (radiometric) and in the language used in optics (photometric) dimensional quantities radiance, irradiance, luminance et. al. “-ances” are in the same spirit as emittance being the emissivity times the Planck function. In the set up being discussed, emissivity is 1.0 so emittance of the blue plate is 1.0 * Planck function i.e. the Planck function. From all of its surfaces meaning radiation in equilibrium with matter. In this ideal setup, find true classical equilibrium.
The blue plate emittance is the same towards space as it is toward the sun and its temperature is 244K (no green plate) isothermal, there is no internal plate T gradient in this ideal setup. Classic equilibrium is obtained. If the green plate is merged to the blue plate for a blueish green plate, then temperature remains 244K when radiation becomes in equilibrium with matter.
It is instructive to discuss what happens in a real plate. For that case on each side with much different illumination the emittance = emissivity * Planck function also. However, the emissivity(freq.) and thus emittance of each side has to be found from test.
Typically test labs measure reflectivity and use (1.0-reflectivity) = emissivity for opaque objects. In the real setup, true classical equilibrium will not be obtained only steady state as there will be a temperature gradient in the blue (and green) plates because the emittance from each side is different due the difference in illumination.
On reflection, I like reflectivity and emissivity terms: further reading Wolfe 1982 Applied Optics, Vol. 21, p. 1 “A proclivity for emissivity”
Kristian,
Your comment above ” Of course not. MikeR, you have a bad habit of misreading what I write..” suggests that your memory must be slipping.
Perhaps there is another Kristian commenting here?
From http://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/11/uah-global-temperature-update-for-october-2017-0-63-deg-c/#comment-273592
Miker – Kristian can you calculate for the blue and green plate system, the temperatures of both plates and the radiation emitted by both plates?
Kristian – Why? It would be no different from yours.
Reminder my calculations are here –
https://s20.postimg.org/fxekakdnh/Rabbet_Excel2.jpg.
Have you changed your tune? if you have you are way off key,
However all is forgiven if you can produce your own set of calculations, the. challenge which you tried to avoid. So Kristian if you are up to it show us the full extent of your capabilities.
MikeR says, December 24, 2017 at 4:19 PM:
What on earth are you babbling about!?
No. Again, what are you babbling about!?
Again, what is this fundamental difference between conductive and radiative heat transfer that leads to such different results according to you? (And no, I am not talking about the fact that conduction can’t occur in a vacuum.)
Kristian,
Where did you learn your avoidance mechanisms? I hate to think. Is your use of “babbling” equivalent to g*’s”hilarious”?
So you appear to incapable of performing the basic calculations involving the two plates. I can help you out. You can download a spreadsheet and use it as a template for your calculations from here
https://drive.google.com/file/d/11JnLJn1Mgh-eBteiGNPT__q7dVeTaidm/view?usp=sharing.
I will not comment on the differences between the mechanisms of energy transfer via conduction and via radiation as they can be found in any high school text book but if you require explanation I can oblige. I need to reiterate both mechanisms satisfy the laws of thermodynamics.
However I do not want to distract you unnecessarily from your calculations. I hope I don’t get the same response as I got from the deranged one when I made the same request. You wouldn’t, want be in the same boat. I thought you might have been much smarter than that.
Kristian @ December 24, 2017 at 5:42 AM
“But if the analogy is not meant to portray reality, then everything goes, and I could just as well stipulate that the plate furthest away from the heat source will have the same temperature as the one closest to it.”
Yes, one can get into real trouble trying to extrapolate a non-physical thought experiment to an actual, real-world situation.
I’m not sure what Eli’s thought experiment says – I found no original link anywhere above. I would guess it involves asserting that a colder plate on the sink side separated by a vacuum from the warmer plate on the source side can produce a warmer temperature on the warmer plate than it otherwise would have.
That is undoubtedly true, to some extent. But, again, I see little relevance to the climate debate because there is no vacuum between the Earth’s surface and the effective radiating level of the atmosphere.
You could make the same argument and “prove” that the radiator in your car, by blocking free radiation from the engine, makes the engine run hotter than it otherwise would. That, of course, is ridiculous, because it totally ignores the coolant flow from the engine to the radiator.
Bart ,
With respect to the car analogy, the radiator has fins to increase the surface area that is cooling the car via radiation and convection.
You are of course totally correct with your statement that the plates thought experiment is not supposed to be a direct analog of the atmospheric GHE.
It is clear that its purpose was to address the zombie argument regarding the 2nd law of thermodynamics,with respect to hot and cold objects, that is still prevalent in some circles.
MikeR says, December 24, 2017 at 7:18 PM:
First:
Then, just a couple of paragraphs later:
I asked you a question, MikeR. A pretty straightforward one. You’re still refusing to answer it. Now I’m “avoiding”, even though I’ve just made it all too clear that I simply don’t get what you’re referring to when writing things like this: “Your comment above ” Of course not. MikeR, you have a bad habit of misreading what I write..” suggests that your memory must be slipping. Perhaps there is another Kristian commenting here?” or “Have you changed your tune? if you have you are way off key,” …! But rather than explaining yourself, you accuse me of “avoiding” the very thing I’m asking you to explain.
Again, why are you asking me to do calculations, when I’m telling you they would be equal to yours …!?
Snape says, December 24, 2017 at 10:24 AM:
Above (and just below your comment) I wrote, in a response to Ball4:
“Yes, we’re trying to isolate the radiative effect here, I do understand that. But in doing so, one ends up insinuating that radiation ALONE will create the effect of lower temps further away from the heat source; that conduction (and convection?) won’t.”
(So “assert” might be a strong word. Using “insinuate” or “imply” is probably more appropriate.)
I also pointed out to you specifically:
“(…) it is a simple result of ALL heat transfer processes. The cooling end will always be cooler than the heating end. It’s all to do with the direction in which the heat moves.”
Did you miss that one …?
What Eli is effectively suggesting, when ignoring conductive heat transfer through each individual plate, simply positing that they’ll be isothermal, even when together, in one block, is that radiative heat transfer is somehow this special kind of heat transfer, creating higher temps closer to the heat source and lower temps further away from it. When it clearly isn’t …
Kristian is a master of trying to confuse , and he is usually succesful in this endeavour. I hav been a victim of his success.
Eli Rabbett’s thought experiment clearly involved steady state conditions.
Conductivity would be then obviously be irrelevant as both sides of each plate would have arrived at the same temperature i.e after sufficient time to achieve thermal equilibrium) in this scenario. Additionally a black body is supposed to be a perfect thermal conductor!
If howver, despite this you think there is a thermal gradient across the plates then do the calculations and give us what the temperatures of each side of the plates are.
In the absence of such calculations then you are just generating copius amounts of hot air.
Kristian
I agree with you now. The diagrams are misleading WRT conduction. Eli probably should have explained the figures (e.g. 200 watts radiating each direction) are idealized.
Merry Christmas
Snape (and Kristian),
I am not sure why Kristian wants to complicate matters other than to confuse, which is his usual modus operandi.
Gedanken (thought) experiments have a long history in physics and the aim is to provide a simple (not complex) illustration that provides insight into problems that otherwise be relatively intractable or may be difficult to perform experimentally These thought experiments always use simplifying assumptions, in this case to treat the plates as black bodies which by definition emit equal energies per square metre from every surface. Consequently from the S-B law, as they emit identical energy per square metre for each side, these sides have to be at the same temperature.
Kristian wants to produce a more complex thought experiment which includes plates thick enough and thermally resistive enought to produce a thermal gradient at steady state. If this is his desire, then he needs to be able calculate temperature and energy transfers for his version. Otherwise the inescapable conclusion is that he is just an intelligent version of g* which is sad.
Aditionally he needs to show that his version is capable of disproving the thesis that a colder plate can reduce the cooling of a warmer plate, but crucially, without any back radiation from the cooler plate.
I await his calculations. Hopefully he can produce a general solution, so that any assumptions with regard to thickness, separation between the plates and thermal conductivity can be tested for asymptotic behaviour (i.e plate thickness approaching zero, plate length approaching infinity, separation approaching zero or infinity and conductivity approaching zero or infinity) . One of the asymptomatic solutions will correspond to a set of infinitely thin, infinitely long plates that are both blackbodies with a separation approaching zero.
This site may have useful information for Kristian –
https://www.engineersedge.com/heat_transfer/radiant_heat_parallel_plates_13946.htm .
I hope Kristian can do these calculations.
To provide some further help for Kristian here is a spreadsheet with calculations of view factors. You can’t say I am not a nice guy.
http://www.faculty.virginia.edu/ribando/modules/xls/viewfactors/ .
One thing to note is that all these calculations rely on the radiation emitted from one surface being absorbed by the other surface, irrespective of the temperatures of each surface.
Hard to reconcile with the absence of back radiation and the associated claim that a warmer object cannot absorb radiation from a cooler object.
Hi Kristian,
Have you recovered from the festive season? Your absence is noted but i hope it isn’t something i have said.
Any sign of your calculations?
I am really having problems with the indentations of this ridiculously long thread!
That’s the problem with commenting via a mobile phone when you have senile dementia! I think I will do better when I am not travelling and can use a PC instead. Apologies to all.
MikeR says, December 25, 2017 at 7:20 AM:
So, a “steady state” automatically means isothermal conditions to you!?
You know, of course, that the surface-troposphere system is also considered to be in a relative “steady state” of dynamic equilibrium. And, as far as I remember, there’s a distinct temperature gradient from surface to tropopause.
Personally I would say that YOU (and Rabbett himself) are the confusion artist(s) here, MikeR.
“Eli Rabbett’s thought experiment clearly involved steady state conditions.”
Yes, and it also satisfies the conditions for strict thermodynamic equilibrium: no thermodynamic variable changes with time, no gradients of these variables and no dependence of the system on its history.
As Kristian points out, the troposphere only satisfies the conditions for steady state since there is obviously a gradient in thermodynamic variables T(z), P(z).
And, for Kristian’s benefit, I’ll point out that by no change with time is meant no macro change since at the micro level change is rapid and incessant.
Lol.
P, TST, S1mmVDT, N
🙂
Sorry Kristian I apologise. I misunderstood your “not” was a double negative and you were actually agreeing that the two plates were at different temperatures.
My silly mistake. You are a lot smarter than either of the two clowns who think that the plates are at the same temperatures.
However we still need to clarify your statement in light of the above.
“Again, what is this fundamental difference between conductive and radiative heat transfer that leads to such different results according to you? (And no, I am not talking about the fact that conduction cant occur in a vacuum.)”
The radiative transfer is via emission from the surface and consequently the S-B equation is the relevant equation that can be used to calculate the temperature of the emitting surface and the energy being emitted.
This is not the case for conduction for which the appropriate equations involve the temperature difference between regions and the bulk properties of the material.
So different results are inevitable consequences of the different underlying mechanisms and the equations that describe these mechanisms.
This is why Hapless’s understanding of what happens when the plates are separated is so badly flawed.
Kristian do you have a different opinion?
MikeR says, December 25, 2017 at 4:59 AM:
Sure. But I wouldn’t consider this a fundamental difference. In principle, the transfer of heat occurs in the same way whether the method of transfer is conduction or radiation (or convection, for that matter). And if the heat comes IN from one side only, as is the case in our particular plate setup, then the thermal mass situated closest to the heat source will naturally be warmer and the thermal mass furthest from it naturally be cooler, no matter which mode of heat transfer’s in operation.
And this is where I have to ask: What “different underlying mechanisms” are you talking about exactly? We’re talking about heat transfer here, MikeR. We’re not talking about photons vs. phonons, bosons vs. fermions. Just the way the HEAT moves away from the heat source and towards the heat sink, setting up a natural temperature gradient on its way (well, not through the vacuum, of course, but you get my drift – I hope).
Well, yeah, sort of. I would rather say that the problem with his/her understanding of what happens has to do with thinking that everything will become isothermal, be it through conduction OR radiation. It won’t become isothermal in either case, after all. As long as the heat is on, and coming in from one side only.
In conclusion, yes, Hapless is wrong in assuming that the further plate won’t be cooler than the closer one …
“It won’t become isothermal in either case”
Show this by using any law of your choosing with the ideal math Kristian, until then all you have is assertion. I do not expect you will be able to prove this invoking any natural law. As currently shown the ideal plates are isothermal & you need to prove an error in the work.
“Hapless is wrong in assuming that the further plate won’t be cooler than the closer one…”
Yes. Halp-less assertion is indeed wrong as is currently shown by invoking known laws of nature with proper theory & math along with proper, reasonable, replicable confirming tests of the situation in the real world.
Ball4
Again I find myself agreeing with you.
Even if you use real world items such as two graphite plates an inch think (2.54 centimeters) and 1 square meter surface area the temperature would be isothermal in a practical sense.
I used this online tool to calculate conduction for a graphite plate 1 meter square surface area and a thickness of 2.54 cm.
Using MikeR’s calculation for the blue plate surface temperature of 262 K or -11.15 C, he has the opposing side emitting 267 Watts. The greatest temperature difference that could develop would be around 0.04 C. I would think most people would consider the hot side and cold side to be isothermal. You need a very sensitive temperature device to tell a difference.
https://thermtest.com/thermal-resources/conduction-calculator/
I think Kristian’s point is technically correct but in the real world, extremely small differences can be ignored. They will not be enough to change the overall concept. The green plate will be just a wee bit cooler than what the ideal calculation is. There is some loss at the edges of the plates as well but it would be fairly small. If the blue and green plate are really close to each other the view factor approaches 1. I think the rest is nit-picking and taking away from the actual point.
A blue plate heated by a source on one side will reach a higher temperature if you put an object on its backside, even one that has no power source of its own.
“Using MikeR’s calculation for the blue plate surface temperature of 262 K or -11.15 C, he has the opposing side emitting 267 Watts.”
MikeR 10:08pm wrote the green plate at 267W not the blue plate:
“The green plate is at a lower temperature of 222 K and therefore radiating 267 W..”
Kristian is correct in the real world there will be a difference in T for each of the blue plate sides (a T gradient) because each surface has a different emissivity given much different illumination.
Kristian has yet to prove in the ideal world that there is a T gradient, as the current work out shows isothermal conditions in each plate (both sides same T). Kristian has yet to find an error which is not apparent in the current solution.
Ball4, Norman
I agree 100% with Kristian on this. It’s my understanding that matter conducts energy in every direction, including from colder to warmer (the net, of coarse, is always warm to cold).
Therefore, if we look at the blue plate at a steady state, but prior to the green plate being introduced:
the sunny side of the plate receives 400 watts from the left….. as well as energy conducted from the right. OTOH, the shaded side receives 400 watts from the left, but receives NO energy from space. This would cause the sunny side to have a higher temperature and thus emit more radiation.
The same concept would apply when both plates are pressed together.
I forgot to wish you both a merry Christmas!
“This would cause the sunny side to have a higher temperature and thus emit more radiation.”
Show your ideal work then Snape. Point out where the Planck and 1LOT eqn.s in the balance are wrong.
The only way for a T gradient to exist in the ideal plate(s) is the emissivity of the dark side being defined less than 1.0 but it is defined 1.0 ideally. The blue plate dark side emittance is the integrated Planck function (200W/m^2) same as the lit side (200W/m^2) for an object entirely at equilibrium T=244K.
Yes, in reality (a different proposition) what you write is correct as the unlit side will have a lower emissivity but not correct for the ideal situation stated in the initial proposition.
Ball4
Yes. Sorry. I was referring to real objects rather than the idealized set up in Eli’s diagram. Here is what I wrote upthread:
“To keep things simple, Eli’s diagram shows both sides of each plate radiating at the same rate. This implies no temperature gradient from one side to the other. So in keeping with this premise, if the two plates were pressed together there would likewise be no gradient.”
So then Snape “doesn’t” 100% agree with Kristian; only 50% (1for2) agrees for the (different than original) real proposition of Kristian’s.
Ball4
I think Kristian and I are in 100% agreement, other than he will not like my explanation regarding real plates.
Ball4
Here was Kristian’s response to my comment above: “Exactly…….”
You can follow our conversation starting here:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/12/uah-global-temperature-update-for-november-20170-36-deg-c/?replytocom=277545#respond
Ball4
I think the quote you took from a post by MikeR is a misprint. I went to his actual calculations and the blue plate is shown as emitting 267 watts from both sides with the green plate emitting 133 Watts.
Here is his link I used.
https://postimg.org/image/6pmbtv6l5/
Snape
Merry Christmas to you as well. I think there would be a slight temperature differential but it could be very slight depending upon the material you are using for plates.
Norman
As I mentioned earlier, I think Eli wanted to keep things simple and keep conduction out of the calculations. That’s why the plates only have only two dimensions…..no “thickness”. So if you pressed two plates with no thickness together? I think you would get one plate with no thickness (Lol).
IOW, you would be back to the situation where the blue plate was all by itself, except maybe now it would be a different color (teal?)’
“I think the quote you took from a post by MikeR is a misprint.”
I copied verbatim, found by searching 267 & his link does indicate “both directions” hence isothermal in ideal case. Kristians “exactly” is for the real object case not the ideal object case.
Neither you nor Kristian has shown anything wrong with Planck Law and 1LOT balance for the original ideal case where the plates are isothermal meaning emittance the same “both directions” for each plate being at one temperature both sides (emissivity=1.0).
Ball4
I just went back to your comment:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/12/uah-global-temperature-update-for-november-20170-36-deg-c/?replytocom=277623#respond
I see I misread it…….and caused some unnecessary confusion. You and I agree about the plates. I think if you asked Kristian again he would agree as well.
Yes , for the green plate it is 133 W for each side, giving 267 W for both sides ( rounding to 3 significant figures).
There will always be a gradient in the real world. This throws a monkey wrench into the calculations, because even though the gradient may be small, the putative temperature increase also is small.
Let me pose the problem to you in a different way. Suppose, instead of two plates, you have many of them, and you start with them all packed together, and then separate them slightly. What happens to the temperature distribution?
You can treat both cases as though they are solid bodies, but the thermal conductivity slightly decreases in the separated case.
Decreasing thermal conductivity increases the gradient, so the difference between the two sides increases. So, all things being equal, the temperature on the sink side decreases.
But, all things are not equal, because in steady state, the total amount radiated out has to equal that received. So, the sink side gets colder, but the source side gets warmer.
What happens on average? I’ll let you guys chew on that for a while. Besides which, I think I will withhold drawing a conclusion until I am sure I have the problem setup correctly, as I do not have the link to the original problem.
Also, keep in mind, this is different from the atmospheric problem, because in that problem, you effectively have the heat source between the two plates, instead of on one side.
Bart, whenever you feel the need to just ramble in circles, we’re here for you.
There are several that have the same issues as you.
Ah, I see MikeRs confusion. From his link in this comment:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/12/uah-global-temperature-update-for-november-20170-36-deg-c/#comment-277663
Looking at the view factors for parallel rectangles, MikeR is getting F12 = 0.2859. According to E-Lie, from the second page of comments at his original blog post, here:
http://rabett.blogspot.co.uk/2017/10/an-evergreen-of-denial-is-that-colder.html?commentPage=2
On 19/10/17 at 5:13 am, EliRabett says:
Just to concentrate minds. The problem assumes infinitely thin, infinitely large, perfectly conducting, flat plates with two sides.
J-Halp: For infinite parallel plates, F12 = 1. So, the temperature of the plates will be the same. As Ball4 and Tim Folkerts have clarified, the plates when pushed together will be at the same temperature throughout, 244 K. Pulled apart, F12 = 1, still same temperature. Its not like the blue plate is magically going to raise in temperature to 262 K, whilst the green cools to 220 K. That would just be silly.
Yes Hapless, the view factor is the same for both plates. The view factors only involve the solid angles subtended by one plate as seen from the other plate. For each side it is relevant to the amount of energy absorbed by each plate from the radiation emitted by the other plate
It says nothing directly about the temperatures of the plates which requires calculation via the Stefan Boltzmann equation plus the laws of thermodynamics.
Pulled apart, F12 = 1, not still same temperature. It’s ideally true the blue plate is going to raise in temperature to 262 K from 244K whence being also illuminated by the green plate. That would just be good science since corroborated by test.
Or Halp-less needs to point out the error in Planck Law and 1LOT balance for the blue plate illuminated by both the sun and green plate and the proper test corroborating his assertion.
None of you are actually doing the math. It’s all feelz.
Ball4 dribbles out some spiel. Halp-less is amused.
Blue plate not magnify, no amp. Green not able. Back-radiation hoax. Tests verify. Physics preserved.
(I had to translate to “cabbage head” language.)
Well Bart, show us “your” math. Don’t be shy.
Bart?
For infinite parallel plates, see page 29 of this text:
https://climateofsophistry.files.wordpress.com/2015/01/heat_4e_chap13-radiation_ht_lecture-pdf.pdf
And yes equation 13:38 on page 29 , which is a restatement of S-B equation, explains exactly why two identical plates, despite having the same view factor, do not have to be at the same temperature.
It is a nice summary however.
I wonder whether the supreme leader Kim ill Joe got permission from McGraw Hill and the university to allow the link on his site?
Yes, that’s an exhaustive derivation that includes view factors. Thanks for sharing.
The problem remains that certain assumptions must be made, for even this detailed study. And, any time there are assumptions, the Warmists are going to put “the fix” in.
For example, in this simple blue/green plate scenario, they say that the “back-radiation” from the green plate warms the blue plate. But, they say that is not a violation of 2LoT, because the “net” heat transfer is from blue to green. So, as always, they’re trying to have it both ways.
The green plate can NOT warm the blue plate. That violates 2LoT.
That’s why I use my simple graphic, which assumes perfectly flat surfaces, and nearly perfect view factors.
G* seems ok that his ‘solution’ disagrees with Halps ‘solution’ that he incessantly quotes from JP scripture.
G* thinks delQ (blue to green) = 200 W/m^2. JP/Halp thinks delQ (blue to green) = 0.
All very confusing.
Yes Nate,
Even the moderately deranged understands from equation 13.38 that if T1 = T2 then the net energy transferred is zero.
Unfortunately the totally deranged is incapable of this basic insight.
Flat tires, if you’re still confused, then you have no one to blame other than yourself.
OK so G* you agree with Halp/JP that the heat flow from blue to green is 0 ?
Not what you said in 47 other comments.
When Q12 = 0 (at equilibrium) T1=T2.
T1=T2, Yet somehow if we filled the vacuum with copper, T1>T2. So vacuum miraculously better at transfering energy than copper!
So; plates pushed together, same temperature, 244 K. Separate the plates 1mm, and they each remain the same temperature, 244 K. Funnily enough, the blue plate doesnt randomly decide to raise in temperature to 262 K whilst the green lowers to 220 K, just because a 1mm vacuum is present inbetween them.
“Randomly decide to raise in ” not random -just follows physics.
Go other way. Start with solid iron 1 m thick. With 200W/m2 flowing thru, the temp drops 4 K from one side to the other.
Now remove 998 mm of iron from the center, leaving two plates 1m apart. You say the 4K drops to 0? Thats just weird.
Why 1 mm? Why not 1 micron, 2 mm or 10 km? What difference does the separation make for infinite plates in a vacuum?
Do you actually understand the difference between a conductor and a vacuum?(rhetorical question).
“When Q12 = 0 (at equilibrium) T1=T2.”
Your attempt at being stupid succeeded since when Q12=0, T1^4=2*T2^4
Don’t be embarrassed Halp-less, missing the factor of 2 is a common mistake; Halp-less should only be embarrassed at having missed the factor of 2 previously.
Funnily enough, the blue plate doesnt randomly decide to raise in temperature to 262 K whilst the green stabilizes at 220 K since they simply obey the ideal laws of physics when 1mm vacuum is present in between them.
Well, g*e*r*a*n, your diagram correctly shows both plates at 244 K, with 400 W coming in to the two plate system, and 400 W leaving. Personally, I would not show the additional green arrow at the top; but then again, not showing it would no doubt cause just as many complaints as showing it, from those who feel that radiative heat transfer somehow gets a magic free pass from the 2LoT. Maybe more complaints!
The actual answer is that Eli’s example is valid for infinitely thermally conductive plates. However, the blue plate actually gets cooler for thermal conductivity below a threshold value.
M: Why 1 mm? Why not 1 micron, 2 mm or 10 km? What difference does the separation make for infinite plates in a vacuum?
J: MikeR finally gets it. Had to happen eventually.
And, that when Q12 = 0, T1=T2 is simply a basic insight, in MikeRs own words. Sorry Ball4, youll have to argue it out with MikeR. Bart promises math but then only comes out with an argument by assertion. Some other PL or PBCC is rabbiting on about a complete diversion from the original setup. How funny.
Looks like g*e*r*a*n wins another major debate. How will the others live it down?
Oh Hopeless.
Yes you certainly live up to your name. If there was no radiation (400 W) entering the system incident upon only 1 plate, certainly T1 and T2 would be equal and yes, despite the protestations of the totally deranged, the net energy transfer between the plates would be zero.
However there is 400 W entering from the left, represented by the yellow arrow. I have heard of red /green colour blindness but never of yellow colour blindness. You need to get your vision checked urgently by a competent ophthalmologist.
I also did ask a rhetorical question regarding the difference between conduction and radiation.
I will now ask you (non rhetorically ), in your own words, what the difference is between the two? You can also refer to the relevant equations for each process.
I eagerly await your response.
Halp has no answers to all the absurdities his ‘solution’ creates, just rhetoric.
Maybe he should start selling his solid steel coffee mugs, and his irons that work better hovering over clothes etc
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/12/uah-global-temperature-update-for-november-20170-36-deg-c/#comment-277855
Hapless or Hopeless, whatever is more appropriate.
Your response is to a link to a ramble that does not mention the terms conduction, radiation or anything else relevant.
How do you expect anyone to take you seriously if you are incapable of understanding the difference between conduction and radiation?
Maybe consult a junior high school science textbook. Do you have a family member who you can borrow the book from?
Alternatively just Google it.
When you have finished with the same straw man you raised last time…
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/12/uah-global-temperature-update-for-november-20170-36-deg-c/#comment-277855
Hapless seems to be stuck in an infinite loop.
Someone hit the reset button so that he can move on and answer a very, very simple question about conduction and radiation.
“Sorry Ball4, youll have to argue it out with MikeR.”
No need. MikeR is arguing it out with Halp-less also showing Halp-less’ embarrassing mistakes: missing the applied power 400.
Halp you avoid facing up to genuine contradictions by changing the subject.
Do you honestly think filling-in the vacuum jacket on your mug with solid metal will keep your coffee hot longer?
That is one of the many oddities your solution requires.
Halp “Personally, I would not show the additional green arrow at the top”
Indeed, because Halp is perfectly fine with 0 W/m2 input and 200 W/m2 output from green plate, a 1LOT violation.
Whereas, G*, to his credit, thinks 1LOT violation is not ok.
G* thinks rad. heat transfer law does not apply between blue and green. Thus 200W/m^2 can flow with little or no temp difference.
Halp, to his credit, thinks rad heat transfer law is valid between blue and green.
Perhaps you two should hash this out so that NO laws of physics are violated. (hint: Eli’s solution can do that)
Flat Tires imagines: “OK so G* you agree with Halp/JP that the heat flow from blue to green is 0 ? Not what you said in 47 other comments.”
ft, if you would stop making up things, maybe you would not be so confused.
flat tires confuses himself even further: “Whereas, G*, to his credit, thinks 1LOT violation is not ok. G* thinks rad. heat transfer law does not apply between blue and green. Thus 200W/m^2 can flow with little or no temp difference.”
ft, do you know why you always have to twist reality? It might be because there is something seriously amiss in your life.
G* and I may have a slightly different take on the journey, but we still arrive at the same place. Nothing to froth at the mouth about. Please at least try to keep it cool.
G* Which part do you no longer agree with? We have the quotes.
Whereas, G*, to his credit, thinks 1LOT violation is not ok. G* thinks rad. heat transfer law does not apply between blue and green. Thus 200W/m^2 can flow with little or no temp difference.
And you guys think the blue plate can emit more power than it receives from the sun. But lets gloss over that because you think second-hand, recycled energy is as good as a raw energy source,
These zombie arguments are terribly tiresome. The possibility of a surface, reflective or otherwise, increasing the energy of another surface that is being directly illuminated, is well known.
If you conduct an experiment and take a shaving mirror and reflects sunlight onto your hand, that is also illuminated by sunlight , then you might change your mind.
Particularly if the mirror’s surface is concave and you position your hand appropriately. Try it and report back whether you still believe the temperature of an object is only affected by direct solar radiation and unaffected by redirected solar radiation.
Remember to use your non dominant hand as you mave trouble posting comments.
“slightly different take”
Yes 200 and 0 are slightly different. At least one of you isnt right.
“Nothing to froth at the mouth about”
No, but Im a little concerned about you casually creating energy from nothing.
“And you guys think the blue plate can emit more power than it receives from the sun.”
Are you saying the Blue plate is violating 1LOT?
In any case, +400 -267 +133 = 0 So Nope.
Whoops!,
Its
400-267-267+133 = 0
No no, Ball4. Nobody is *missing the applied power 400*. But some are evading that when they accuse others of making a *common mistake* of missing a factor of 2, and then others (supposedly on the same *side* as Ball4) make the exact same *mistake*; maybe it is actually Ball4 that is making the mistake. Could it be that Ball4 is simply lying about the result of some pretty straightforward math, and has now disgraced himself; credibility now shot?
To whom it may concern:
Blue plate receives 400 W from the sun.
Emits 267 + 267 W, according to E-Lies magic-fun solution.
No, you cant count the energy from the green plate as an input to the blue, since that energy *came* from the blue in the first place.
“No, you cant count the energy from the green plate as an input to the blue, since that energy *came* from the blue in the first place.”
Statement is Not consistent with your version of the G* drawing showing 200 coming from GREEN to BLUE and 200 from BLUE to GREEN giving a net = 0.
Not consistent with your application of rad. heat transfer law which has T1 and T2 in it.
Its crazy when PLs/PBCCs *STILL* dont understand the difference between heat and energy.
no mistake, Halp. Any Net energy transfer is heat or work, in 1LOT.
All the energy transfers are described by rad heat transfer eqn, and the arrows in the diagram. Are there missing arrows.
?
Or, at least, thats what they pretend.
Yes, you must count the energy from the green plate as an input to the blue by 1LOT, since that energy *came* from the sun in the first place.
Came from the sun, went to the blue, then to the green. If theres some energy coming back to the blue from the green, it makes no difference in the long run; there will always be more energy going from blue to green than from green to blue, at all points, up until equilibrium.
“…there will always be more energy going from blue to green than from green to blue, at all points, up until equilibrium.”
Yes, great improvement in assertions as Halp-less makes progress understanding linked textbook science with that comment because the two plates always ideally emit radiative energy at different temperatures.
trick tries another trick: “Yes, you must count the energy from the green plate as an input to the blue by 1LOT, since that energy *came* from the sun in the first place.”
NOPE! Green plate can NOT warm blue plate.
Sorry.
“NOPE! Green plate can NOT warm blue plate.”
It’s the sun doing the warming anger.
Another trick, by trick “Its the sun doing the warming anger.”
The “sun” can only warm to the S/B temperature of 244K. To get a higher temperature, you must rely on your pseudoscience.
That’s when it gets hilarious.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/12/uah-global-temperature-update-for-november-20170-36-deg-c/#comment-277912
Therefore the maximum temperature the green can reach, at equilibrium, is the same as the blue. As per the linked text, and as limited to the max. temperature of the blue plate of 244 K (244 K for the reasons already discussed).
1LOT, 2LOT and Planck law (S-B) are not pseudoscience anger, they are experimentally verified. It is pseudoscience to write: “The “sun” can only warm to the S/B temperature of 244K.” which isnt experimentally verified as the sun is radiating at around 5700K and various planets have median surface T higher than 244K including Earth.
“Therefore the maximum temperature the green can reach, at equilibrium, is the same as the blue.”
A correct commenter posted up per the linked text ref. “there will always be more energy going from blue to green than from green to blue” and the text is correct since is verified experimentally thru proper use of 1LOT, 2LOT and Planck Law.
trick must now use more tricks. He’s pointing out that the real Sun can raise temperatures of some planets above 244K.
Hilarious!
Back to the reality of the problem, which is limited to only 400 Watts, IOW, 244K.
(The pseudoscience clowns are sooooooo desperate.)
“Back to the reality of the problem, which is limited to only 400 Watts, IOW, 244K.”
anger is so desperate has to neglect the added green plate. Added green plate isn’t to be neglected anger. Try another act of hilarious! desperation. Maybe try again your pseudoscience black bodies reflect all incident radiation, that was especially funny.
trick, your ship is sinking, and it’s fun to watch.
“Therefore the maximum temperature the green can reach, at equilibrium, is the same as the blue”
You guys are fond of saying there are limits like this. But your arguments are hand-waving, not quantitative.
The simplest approach is to look at the diagram and add up the various flows like vectors. All energy flows must be drawn and counted.
So Halp, in your approved diagram, there are clearly two arrows (200W/m2) leaving the GREEN and one entering (200W/m2). Summing arrows for the GREEN is therefore 200 -2(200) = -200.
This is not 0 as 1LOT requires. Therefore this is not the correct solution.
You keep saying there are other energy flows, but what are these? I dont see any others in your diagram?
Nate rambles, desperately: “there are clearly two arrows (200W/m2) leaving the GREEN and one entering (200W/m2).”
Poor Nate cannot count. That’s why he’s a climate clown.
Nate, there are two arrows leaving, and TWO arrows entering, the green plate.
You clowns are so desperate.
https://postimg.org/image/y9etf4d8p/
Hilarious.
Ball4 quote mines: there will always be more energy going from blue to green than from green to blue
Neglecting to complete the quote:
at all points up until equilibrium.
Other commenters ramble on about different analogies etc (as I mentioned before, they like to bring up irrelevant analogies, to distract, wherever possible). Some think it should just be a simple case of adding up arrows, showing that they have no understanding of the view factors involved.
The energy from the green plate cannot raise the temperature of the blue, because the green is gaining its energy *from* the blue plate in the first place. Due to the fact that the blue plate is inbetween the green and the sun, and due to the fact that the view factors are reciprocal between the blue and the green (thus the green plates energy can only be lost, ultimately, on the other side of the green, facing space; it cant be lost *to the blue plate*).
Some may find this easier to understand when there is an additional green arrow from the blue, back to the green. This solves their *adding up arrows* problem, but then they get confused because they no longer think Q = 0, at equilibrium, between the plates. Those genuinely confused about heat transfer will never be satisfied, so they will argue about this indefinitely. Those who arent honest, will pretend to be confused about it, *just so* they can argue about this indefinitely; rather than publically accept they are incorrect.
And still, absolutely the simplest way to *get it* is just to think, why on Earth would the plates be the same temperature when pushed together, then different temperatures when separated by even a 1mm vacuum!? Their only recourse when confronted with this is to either take everything right back to the start of the argument, yet again, or to bring up irrelevant/inapt analogies.
“why on Earth would the plates be the same temperature when pushed together”
Because then there is only one plate not two plates Halp-less. Pushed together get one plate radiating the same amount from both sides at equilibrium thus at a single temperature 244K.
“Neglecting to complete the quote: at all points up until equilibrium.”
Your always does mean always Halp-less: “there will always be more energy going from blue to green than from green to blue”
Always includes at equilibrium as you correctly write according to 1LOT, 2LOT and Planck Law: “there will always be more energy going from blue to green than from green to blue at all points up until equilibrium.”
B4: Because then there is only one plate not two plates Halp-less.
J: No. One plus one equals two. One plus one does not equal one. Should we argue about this too?
B4: Your always does mean always Halp-less
J: Now B4 instructs me on what I meant by what I said. I should not have used the word, always. However, my meaning was clear enough, from the full quote.
Heres a longer explanation for the simple way of *getting it*. Ball4 said:
[quote mine of J Halp]: why on Earth would the plates be the same temperature when pushed together
B4: Because then there is only one plate not two plates Halp-less. Pushed together get one plate radiating the same amount from both sides at equilibrium thus at a single temperature 244K.
J Halp: to be clear, my full [rhetorical] question was:
why on Earth would the plates be the same temperature when pushed together, then different temperatures when separated by even a 1mm vacuum!?
And, I *do* think the temperature of the two plates will be the same when pushed together, *and* when separated by a 1mm vacuum.
Simple way of understanding why: B4s *same amount from both sides* refers to the side of the green plate facing space, and the side of the blue plate facing the sun, when the plates are pushed together. These are the sides from which each plate loses energy. The blue plate loses energy on that sun-facing side, in the hemisphere of all possible directions besides that one direction which directly meets an opposing flow of energy *from* the sun. The green plate loses energy in all directions, facing space. The key to understanding, overall, is that this situation doesnt change, when the plates are separated. Those are still the sides from which the plates *lose energy*. The side of each plate facing inwards (towards each other), which have the reciprocal view factors, simply exchange energy. The same as they did, through conduction and not radiation, when pushed together.
Hapless
The equation that describes the steady state solution for conduction through a plate is given by
http://web.mit.edu/16.unified/www/FALL/thermodynamics/notes/node117.html
In contrast, the equation for radiation for*infinite plates separated by any distance in a vacuum was given previously by yourself see pages 29 (blackbody) and 32
(greybody) at
https://tinyurl.com/yd422eoc
Notice that the equations used to calculate the temperatures of a single plate or two plates in contact are totally different from the radiation equations used for plates that are separated
As the underlying mechanisms are different and the equations that describe the situation are different, you still assert that the result will be the same?
I think you should reconsider your position otherwise the following statenent is totally applicable to yourself.
You can lead a fool in the direction of knowledge and rationality but you can’t make him think.
On 30 Dec. 2017 10:52, “Michael Reich” wrote:
Hapless
The equation that describes the steady state solution for conduction through a plate is given by
http://web.mit.edu/16.unified/www/FALL/thermodynamics/notes/node117.html
In contrast, the equation for radiation for infinite plates separated by any distance in a vacuum was given previously by yourself see pages 29 (blackbody) and 32
(greybody) at
https://tinyurl.com/yd422eoc
Notice that the equations used to calculate the temperatures of a single plate or two plates in contact are totally different from the radiation equations used for plates that are separated
As the underlying mechanisms are different and the equations that describe the situation are different, you still assert that the result will be the same?
I think you should reconsider your position otherwise the following statement is totally applicable to yourself.
You can lead a fool in the direction of knowledge and rationality but you can’t make him think.
Sorry for the repetition but maybe if Hopeless reads it twice it might sink in.
You can always hope.
Halp asserts that an object cannot reemit energy back towards the source. Is this a previously unknown 4th law of thermodynamics?
If so we have another unrecognised genius on our hands. What are the odds that we could have so many of them commenting here? I would have thought astronomical. We must have really lucked out.
“Some may find this easier to understand when there is an additional green arrow from the blue, back to the green. This solves their *adding up arrows* problem, but then they get confused because they no longer think Q = 0, at equilibrium, between the plates.”
Since the arrows represent actual flows of energy, Halp, you casually adding another one, or not, means that you are confused, and unsure about what the actual flows of energy are.
Why should you be unsure? Because you claimed there is an additional flow of energy that is ‘not heat’, that you can’t exactly pin down and identify what it is.
The diagram removing G* 3rd arrow on the top between B and G is the correct one, as you previously stated. (G* is confused here). It contains all flows of energy.
If theres anyone honest out there, *still* somehow not getting it: I would recommend they just keep reading through this little segment of the discussion:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/12/uah-global-temperature-update-for-november-20170-36-deg-c/#comment-277965
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/12/uah-global-temperature-update-for-november-20170-36-deg-c/#comment-277967
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/12/uah-global-temperature-update-for-november-20170-36-deg-c/#comment-277969
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/12/uah-global-temperature-update-for-november-20170-36-deg-c/#comment-277977
Again and again, until it clicks.
You’ve made it clear that when the system establishes equilibrium, Halp, that Q(B-G) = 0. Any additional flow of energy between them is not really consistent with equilibrium, is it?
Those that are determined not to understand, for whatever reason, will always be able to find an excuse not to do so, with this sort of problem. Thats the trouble. If anyone genuine, out there, still requires help in understanding, it may help them to look back at previous comments and to think about whether they are referring to conditions pre-equilibrium, or *at* equilibrium. Or, which *parts* of which comments might refer to conditions pre-equilibrium, or *at* equilibrium. There can be an awful lot of confusion if this has not been understood, throughout.
Halp, if you can’t identify what your imaginary extra flows of energy are, just say so, and we can put that issue to bed.
G*,
“Poor Nate cannot count. Thats why hes a climate clown.
Nate, there are two arrows leaving, and TWO arrows entering, the green plate.”
Halp already removed your top arrow, dotard! You havent followed the discussion!
Since Ive been clear from the beginning that *I* would not personally draw in an additional green arrow, but that *some* people might find it helps with their misunderstanding over their *adding up arrows* activity (which in and of itself only indicates they do not understand the view factors involved and the difference they make), I dont think theres much else left to say. I think anyone honest will have got it by now, overall. If any PLs or PBCCs keep commenting I can just keep dropping links to previous comments, up until such time as this discussion closes for comments. I wouldnt want it to be left in any sort of misleading way, such that any honest readers might be left with the impression that a PL/PBCC had raised a point which hadnt already been dealt with somewhere by their exposer/educator.
“(which in and of itself only indicates they do not understand the view factors involved and the difference they make)”
No view factors appeared in any equations you or JP wrote to ‘solve’ this problem with infinite parallel plates. So bringing them up now is just a distraction.
Halp can repeat posts if he likes but that wont solve his problems or get him out of jail for violating 1LOT.
If he can’t identify what the mysterious extra energy and arrow (or not) is, then we have to conclude that he has no clue what it is and that it is just made up.
https://climateofsophistry.com/2017/10/06/slayers-vindicated-by-additional-independent-researchers/#comment-31333
https://climateofsophistry.com/2017/10/06/slayers-vindicated-by-additional-independent-researchers/#comment-31395
‘No view factors appeared in any equations” in these posts. Read your own posts, Halp!
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/12/uah-global-temperature-update-for-november-20170-36-deg-c/#comment-277725
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/12/uah-global-temperature-update-for-november-20170-36-deg-c/#comment-277789
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/12/uah-global-temperature-update-for-november-20170-36-deg-c/#comment-277833
https://climateofsophistry.com/2017/10/06/slayers-vindicated-by-additional-independent-researchers/#comment-31333
https://climateofsophistry.com/2017/10/06/slayers-vindicated-by-additional-independent-researchers/#comment-31395
Halp,
Noone is reading incessantly reposted junk with no context. Just wasting space.
If you have a legitimate point to make, make it!
Im sure that anyone reading who has a genuine interest in trying to understand, wont mind following a few links in order to try to do so. And, although most people reading through all this, with a genuine interest in trying to understand, would have likely read all those comments (in their full context) already; its worth putting the links in, just in case there are any late-comers who have no idea where to start.
Thats *if* they dont understand already, of course…which seems increasingly unlikely. But if PLs/PBCCs want to keep going on and on, we can always keep making things clearer and clearer…
…just thought I should write this one out, for future linking.
Halp-less backslides: “I should not have used the word, always.”
Then Halp-less would have been incorrect according to 1LOT, 2LOT and Planck Law but as Halp-less writes: “only recourse when confronted with this is to either take everything right back to the start of the argument yet again, or to bring up irrelevant/inapt (sic) analogies.”
“J: No. One plus one equals two. One plus one does not equal one. Should we argue about this too?”
No need “to bring up irrelevant/inapt (sic) analogies.”
“And, I *do* think the temperature of the two plates will be the same when pushed together”
Then conduction is nil as delta T is nil. Only radiative transfer operates in the vacuum with the delta T between sun and the “pushed together” single T plate.
The key to understanding, overall, is that this situation does change, when the plates are separated as now there are two plates, not one pushed together plate. A system of 2 eqn.s and 2 unknowns develops.
“The same as they did, through conduction..”
Halp-less admits the pushed together plates are at same temperature so as already pointed out conductive energy transfer is nil with no delta T.
Anyone honest will have got it by now, Halp-less continues to display a struggle to understand 1LOT, 2LOT, Planck Law and even disagrees with the given linked text.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/12/uah-global-temperature-update-for-november-20170-36-deg-c/#comment-277982
The only other thing I would add is that you cannot *back-slide from what you meant all along. If Ball4 misunderstands a sentence (however understandable it may be that he did) and is corrected, by the person who wrote the sentence, then that is that. But if Ball4 wants to continue to display his dishonesty, then long may he can continue to do so. He might also want to look up the meaning and spelling of the word inapt. Other than that he just needs to read through the comments linked to until he understands; or, receive repeated links to those comments until such time as he gives up trying to pretend that he doesnt understand. Whichever happens first.
“is corrected, by the person who wrote the sentence, then that is that.”
Embarrassingly changed to a 1LOT, 2LOT, Planck’s Law proven incorrect meaning so inept is the proper word use.
The key to debunking any claim by Halp-less is proper experimental evidence as Halp-less presents no experiment supporting his sophistry because at least Halp-less is honest within and knows there is no such experiment. There are several internet posted experiments easily replicable that Halp-less could use on his own to discover the claimed sophistry & discover the true meaning of 1LOT, 2LOT, and Planck’s Law.
100% guaranteed that Halp-less will not do so & that is also the reason there are no experiments on the sophistry blog to which Halp-Less embarrassingly links.
Flustered, Ball4 lapses into barely intelligible ranting.
“Im sure that anyone reading who has a genuine interest in trying to understand, wont mind following a few links in order to try to do so.”
Halp fails to understand humans and how to effectively communicate with them.
Halp fails to understand that qualitative arguments are not persuasive in science.
Halp fails to understand that when he has no more legitimate defense for his position, then he needs to retreat from it.
The PLs/PBCCs need to understand that it is *their* position that needs defending.
They also need to understand that every single thing they actively *misunderstand* about the correct solution has been explained in great detail numerous times. Including, of course, the view factors involved. These were discussed at great length over two months ago, when E-Lie first dribbled out his thought-wrong.
They need to understand that blatantly lying, and pretending that discussing view factors is a recent thing, or a *distraction*, makes them look *terribly* dishonest.
They need to understand that endlessly twisting peoples words, putting words in other peoples mouths, taking sentences out of context, attacking straw man arguments, etc etc, are all strategies that are *very* transparent in this age of endless internet debates. They wont convince many people with these tactics.
“They need to understand that blatantly lying, and pretending that discussing view factors ”
View factors were not in the eqns used, Halp. Was not a lie.
Sometimes a suspected PL might reveal themselves to be more of a PBCC, when they make a rookie mistake. Such as not understanding how to get from the equation for infinite parallel plates, in the linked text (which includes view factors F12 = 1) to, as MikeR puts it, the *basic insight* that Q12 = 0, when T1=T2. Even when they are repeatedly directed to a linked comment where JP does most of that work for them. Also seems strange that they can only consider view factors as a number in an equation, and not what it actually means in real, physical terms.
But, you should never get complacent. The minute you think they are just a PBCC (i.e. simply confused, or lacking knowledge) they may turn around and try and use that to their advantage. They can be tricky like that, these PLs (if thats what they really are).
“every single thing they actively *misunderstand* about the correct solution has been explained in great detail numerous times”
And yet has not convinced any of the knowledgeable people here. Why is that? Because the explanations are full of holes.
And you guys dont even try to fill the holes.
By the time they start wittering on with their own opinions about who is knowledgeable and who isnt, you know things are getting really desperate. Best to just move on and not even bother with making an example of them any more. Just perhaps try to remake some points in an even simpler way than before, get it more and more concise, that sort of thing.
My suggestion is to deal with critiques head on, point by point. Quote people and point to what you agree and disagree with.
So, with all the *objections-from-the-PLs/PBCCs-that-have-already-been-made-and-refuted-in-previous-conversations* once again re-made and re-refuted, lets get on with what I mentioned in my last comment; getting things more concise.
Back to this comment:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/12/uah-global-temperature-update-for-november-20170-36-deg-c/#comment-277977
I will state the *simple way of understanding why* section, in even simpler terms:
Plates, pressed together, same temperature. Conductive *heat* transfer nil between plates. Plates, separated by 1 mm vacuum, still same temperature. Radiative *heat* transfer nil between plates (i.e, Q12 = 0).
Ah, I see above that MikeR is still bashing the same straw man. His comments dont post in the right place for some reason. Yes MikeR, conduction and radiation are different. No MikeR, that doesnt affect the point being made in any way. You see, despite being quite different processes, conduction and radiation both have to abide by the same laws of thermodynamics. Then, I see you go on to raise yet another straw man. MikeR, what did I already say about these sorts of tactics?
I seem to be not following my advice to others regarding the inadvisability of giving oxygen to the demented duo I also made a news years resolution to avoid further correspondence with those that display online sociopathic tendencies , but I still have a small window of opportunity to reply to the above.
I am glad that, Halp agrees that conduction and radiation are distinct processes. As for strawmen I have said, on more than one occasion, that both processes obey the law of thermodynamics (with possible exception of the newly discovered Hapless’s fourth law) .
However there are other requirements for the calculation of temperatures that need to be satisfied. For conduction, which involves the internal transfer of energy for a solid (or two surfaces in thermal contact), this naturally does not involve the S-B equation which refers to radiation leaving the surface. Simarly radiative processes do not directly require the use of equations that relate to conduction.
I hope this finally clears up any confusion on Halp’s behalf (but I somehow suspect it won’t and the zombie assertions will reappear in the new year).
“Plates, pressed together, same temperature. Conductive *heat* transfer nil between plates. Plates, separated by 1 mm vacuum, still same temperature. Radiative *heat* transfer nil between plates (i.e, Q12 = 0).”
You promised ‘understanding why’.
I agree that “same temperature” leads to ‘radiative heat transfer nil’ because that’s what SB law says.
But ‘still same temperature.’ is just an assertion, not proven.
And,
We have given given real world examples that don’t agree with the assertion ‘still same temperature’.
Such as, soldering with the iron in contact with the part, the solder will melt onto the part. Remove the iron 1 mm away, the temperature of the part reduces, and the solder no longer melts on it.
Thus contact between metals is much more effective at transferring heat than radiation or convection.
Oh, and I see barry has teamed up with the yelping chihuahua.
It’s going to be a great new year in climate comedy!
Nope, nothing new raised here…
“Nope, nothing new raised here”
” all the *objections-from-the-PLs/PBCCs-that-have-already-been-made-and-refuted-in-previous-conversations* once again re-made and re-refuted,”
Nope, FALSE, you never refuted this.
I guess you have no experience with real world heat transfer, soldering, ironing clothes, cooking. So you just evade.
Bart, here’s the original link:
https://tinyurl.com/ybzanyw8
All those who worry about plate thickness, just halve it until the temperature difference is negligible.
The thermal conductivity of pure copper is 400 W/(m*K).
And, here’s the correct solution;
https://postimg.org/image/y9etf4d8p/
G – that is bizarre.
Bizarre is not having anything substantive to counter, Bart.
Bart?
Yes, your problem is you either dont understand, or play a part where you act like you dont understand, radiative heat transfer…at all. You dont understand the heat transfer equation. You dont understand the concept of thermal equilibrium. You dont even seem to understand my name is a play on J Halpern. But, you do understand how to keep repeating the same mistakes over and over again, perhaps in the hope you can fool those who dont know any better. Unsurprisingly, you now want to take it right back to the beginning again, discussing the heat transfer between the sun and the blue plate. Thats already been done, though. Many times before. The entire discussion has now been completed numerous times. Those on your side of the debate lose every time. Then, instead of admitting it, you just start it all up again. This will apparently repeat until the end of time.
Hapless has disclosed the putative origins of his pseudonym. I think a more likely scenario is that he is the alter ego of the deranged one or even a sock puppet of the glorious leader of the dragon slayer cult, Kim mentally ill Joe.
The evidence for the former is his sudden arrival on the scene just as the deranged one alienated all his colleagues with his even more bizarre theories. The evidence against this theory is that he tends to post at times when the deranged one is fast asleep.
The latter theory is perhaps more plausible as Hapless continually links to mad Joe P’s sophistry Web site . Recall that Joe was banned from commenting on this (Roy Spencer’s) site on the grounds of abusive language, so his reappearance in the guise of the Hapless sock puppet would fit the theory.
It seems J Halp-less is ignorant of valid established physics and like g*e*r*a*n and Gordon Robertson prefer to make up their own physics.
Good news is that the two Postma disciples are not the worst of his cult. I found this super long deranged post with random Capital word and others with periods between the letters. I could not follow the incoherent thought process of this individual.
Hopefully this person never finds the Roy Spencer blog.
https://climateofsophistry.com/2017/11/03/the-alarmist-radiative-greenhouse-effects-final-end/#comment-32131
miker and con-man, just to help you out, the actual solution is here.
https://postimg.org/image/y9etf4d8p/
Glad to help.
Norman says Im ignorant of established physics…yet Im probably the only one to have linked to a physics text to make my case. But dont let that stop Norm having his fun. He hasnt backed up a word hes said, but whatever. Im sure hes right.
Whenever the con-man tells someone they “don’t know physics”, that is a compliment. He knows so little physics, that when someone tries to teach him, he just gets confused.
Then, he spouts “You don’t know physics”!
Then, he starts yelping like a castrated chihuahua.
It’s fun to watch.
Oh, I see. Thanks g*e*r*a*n. I will look forward to the yelping.
J Halp-less
You are not very knowledgeable in physics. You linked to a page but you don’t have the slightest understanding of heat transfer or orbital physics. You are as delusional as g*e*r*a*n. I was hoping that was not the case but you are weak on physics as he is. You are clueless and it becomes obvious that you also reject empirical physics in favor of your own made up version. There are a few of you that haunt this blog peddling your made up reality and hoping the rest of us are too ignorant to see through the crap.
Hey con-man, to add to your hilarity, why don’t you tell us about your lack of formal education in physics?
Or, better yet, why not link us to your hilarious “teaching”, such as the units of “Q”?
That’s some real comedy.
Ah, theres the yelping.
Fake physics is never going to ‘click’ with those of us with a solid understanding of the real physics, Halp.
Why would we ever agree to violations of conservation of energy? Why would we ever agree to violate established heat transfer laws?
Ah, theres the yelping.
You guys are as deluded about people as you are about science.
Ah, theres the yelping.
Halp has a ‘last word’ hangup, and just keeps repeating himself.
An idea for someone who likes to make stop action videos:
Set up a small racetrack on the floor. From directly above, photograph a toy car at incremental locations around the track. The car should completely fill each frame, and the camera should be kept facing one direction.
When animated, we will see the car has spun like a top about it’s axis.
The car has “orbited” about the center of the orbit. That is NOT its axis.
BTW snake, “its”, as a possessive, does not have an apostrophe.
So many thing to learn, huh?
G*
The car has orbited around a center point within the track. The axis of rotation is a straight line running through the car. They are not the same!
Poor snake.
Snape,
You are arguing with a turnip.
PGW, shhhh! snake believes that turnip is his brain.
At least he understands what the axis of rotation for the car is in contrast to its orbit. You don’t. This is basic stuff junior high students would get.
NASA even has simple field experiments suited for ages as young as 7 that demonstrate the moon rotation:
https://tinyurl.com/ycuxxr7r
What these student as young a 7 will observe is that they have to rotate the moon-ball about its axis in order for the toothpick in the moon-ball to be always pointing towards earth as they make an orbit of the earth. They can see the moon rotating about its axis relative to the ground below. Yet YOU can’t seem to get it. Wow! You must be 6 then.
So every time you open your mouth you are just making a complete and utter fool of yourself.
PGW, as I’ve indicated several times, I originated this discussion by providing a link to a NASA video, promoting the Moon-rotation nonsense. So, you’re just confirming my point.
If you still don’t understand, start here:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/12/uah-global-temperature-update-for-november-20170-36-deg-c/#comment-277084
Pretending you haven’t seen the evidence against the nonsense is just making you a complete and utter fool.
More hand-waving. Science involves performing experiments, just like the one mentioned above, and others you have been referred to. All you have done is supply thought experiments. I don’t need to read your brainless lectures.
Sorry PGW, but detailed illustrations are not just “thought experiments”. Without responsible and valid objections, the two lessons stand solidly debunking the Moon “rotating on its axis”.
But, thanks for verifying that you refuse to examine the lessons. That leaves you floundering in your pseudoscience, closed-minded and uninformed.
It appears our wonderboy is afraid of crank handles. He will not operate them because they confuse him. He has to glue the handle to the handle axis so the handle won’t won’t rotate about its axis. LMAO.
Hello! McFly!
snape…”The car has orbited around a center point within the track. The axis of rotation is a straight line running through the car”.
The car will not ‘orbit’ anything if it is not constrained to follow the track. It will fly off into space at the first bend if not constrained.
You have not specified what is holding the car on the track.
G*,
The car has an orbit. It also has an axis of rotation. You can’t seem to understand the difference. You also cannot understand how rotation is measured.
You have been provided with a multitude of practical hands-on experiments where the “satellite’s” rotation about its axis can CLEARLY be observed while the object proceeds on its orbit. No guesswork. No thought experiment.
Yet you continue with your hand-waving. You have provided nothing to refute the well established fact that the moon does rotate on its axis. Your only argument is, “No it does not”.
This is the definition of a delusion:
“A delusion is a mistaken belief that is held with strong conviction even when presented with superior evidence to the contrary”
I suggest you seek psychiatric help.
PGW, if you ever get tired of clowning around, study the lessons and see if you have some responsible questions.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/12/uah-global-temperature-update-for-november-20170-36-deg-c/#comment-276941
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/12/uah-global-temperature-update-for-november-20170-36-deg-c/#comment-277084
“You have been provided with a multitude of practical hands-on experiments where the satellites rotation about its axis can CLEARLY be observed while the object proceeds on its orbit.”
Satellites generally use gyroscopes to measure the rate of rotation. Due to Newton’s laws, a gyroscope measures rotation with respect to inertial space.
The gyroscope on a satellite that maintains an Earth pointing attitude will measure the orbital rate. That is because the satellite is rotating with respect to inertial space.
Denialism is an extremely interesting phenomenon.
The same people who show you a Wikipedia page concerning Archimedes’ principle (in order to deny any correlation of sea level rise with warming) refuse evidence shown by the same Wikipedia:
– https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orbit_of_the_Moon#Rotation
– https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lune#Orbite
and (showing that the moon’s bound rotation modus isn’t restricted at all to our satellite)
– https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gebundene_Rotation
Well, merry Christmas to all the commenters, these pretty deniers of course included :-))
Anything rotating can create artificial gravity, wiki:
“For example, to produce standard gravity, ɡ0 = 9.80665 m/s2 with an orbital period of 15 s, the radius of rotation would have to be 56 m (184 ft), while an orbital period of 30 s would require it to be 224 m (735 ft).”
60 seconds : 448 meters
2 min : 896 meters
4 min : 1.792 km
8 min : 3.3584 km
16 min : 7.168 km
32 min : 14.336 km
64 min : 28.678 km
128 min : 57.344 km radius
If you want artificial gravity, of 1 gee, one could spin it faster than this and not need such a radius, though making a city in space it could larger radius than this. Ie:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L5_Society
So in low earth orbit it’s takes about 90 mins to orbit Earth.
Let’s have pole/pipe 100 km long or “50 km radius”.
So if spin it, the end will be 50 km from middle axis and if
spin so rotates every 120 min, the force will be close to 1 gee. Or put rope at one end, one hang from it and it would like hanging from rope on Earth. Or if inside the pipe and had floor, it like standing on Earth.
So going to put the 100 km pipe in LEO and have middle of pipe be 500 km above earth surface. And put one end so it’s 450 km above earth, and the other end 550 km above earth.
And have one always pointing at Earth.
And if rotating on it’s axis every orbit, it will produce artificial gravity at both ends of around 1 gee.
And if not rotating it’s will not produce this artificial gravity.
Or put it at Earth/Moon L-5 and rotate it every 100 mins
and it will have about 1 gee of artificial gravity.
gbaikie…”If you want artificial gravity, of 1 gee, one could spin it faster than this and not need such a radius…”
The force is caused by a body rotating at an angular velocity when it is constrained to move in a circular direction, since it’s mass wants to fly off tangentially. At each instant of time, the mass is trying to move in a straight line tangentially. The force required to move the mass away from the tangential direction into a circular directly is what you call artificial gravity.
People can use the force to emulate gravity but it’s proper name is centripetal force. At one time it was called centrifugal force because people presumed there was a force moving radially outward, as when a weight attached to a rope is swung around one’s head in a circular path. They thought the weight moving in a circular orbit was pulling on the rope but it was actually the rope pulling the mass into a circular path when it wanted to move in a straight line.
As you increase the angular velocity, the inward force on the body will increase. If it’s a human body being rotated, the body will experience the centripetal force as a g-force, as you claimed.
I don’t think it’s right to call it artificial gravity, however, gravity and centripetal force work in very different ways. You might call it an emulation of gravitational force.
Thanks, Bin. Back to you.
Hopefully, all the hilarious practitioners of pseudoscience will be even funnier in 2018.
binny…”Denialism is an extremely interesting phenomenon”.
It’s almost up there with arrogance. You know, when people set themselves up as authorities and look down their noses at the ideas of others without providing a meaningful rebuttal.
Denial is a two-edged sword. There are those who deny evidence that CO2 is not warming the atmosphere.
g*e*r*a*n
I guess you will get everyone laughing after the 1st. You are single handily the biggest practitioner of pseudoscience. I can’t see any other poster that can even attempt to put out more pseudoscience at a faster rate than you. I know good old Gordon tries to keep up with you but you orbit circles around his non rotating world view.
Boy we should all get good laughs from you next year. At least you give explanation for your never ending made up science.
No proof, no evidence, no support, no experiment. Just you and your declarative statements.
Norman, you forgot about his idiotic repetition of the “hilarious ” catch phrase.
My recommendation is to ignore him and treat him like a bad case of the clap,. He might eventually go away.
If not we can always continue to mercilessly puncture his pretensions.
MikeR
Merry Christmas or Happy Holidays!
g*e*e*a*n’s online personality is what I saw many years ago in Grade-School. His/Her taunts, His/Her reasoning ability, His/Her endless repetition. I do not see any adult behavior in this poster.
It would be really sad if this poster was an older adult who has not given up the personality of a 10 year-old.
I have ignored him/her in the past but they don’t like that and will jump in with their unwelcome posts.
You’ve ignored me in the past, con-man?
Hilarious!
You can hardly make one comment without mentioning me. You must be thinking about me constantly.
But, that’s a good thing.
Merry Christmas!
To all the naughty and nice boys and girls {and to those wanting to something else].
I decided to look at green plate thing, and googled it:
http://rabett.blogspot.com/2017/10/an-evergreen-of-denial-is-that-colder.html
It says:
“We start with a simple case, imagine the Earth is just a plate in space with sunlight shining on it. Maybe 400 W/m^2”
How is that simple?
Sunlight at earth distance is about 1360 watts per square meter.
Are we suppose to imagine Earth being further away from the sun?
“The relationship can be expressed most simply as: 1/d^2 (one over the distance squared) where d = distance as compared to Earth’s distance from the Sun (for our first examples).
Let’s start with sunlight as an example. At 1 AU, Earth receives 1 unit of sunlight; what we generally might associate with a bright sunny day at noon. How much sunlight would a spacecraft receive if it were twice as far from the Sun as Earth? Your first guess might be that, since it is twice as far it will only receive half as much (not twice as much since it is farther away).
The distance from the Sun to the spacecraft would be 2 AUs so… d = 2. If we plug that into the equation 1/d^2 = 1/2^2 = 1/4 = 25% The spacecraft is getting only one quarter of the amount of sunlight that would reach it if it were near Earth. This is because the light is being radiated from the Sun in a sphere. As the distance from the Sun increases the surface area of the sphere grows by the square of the distance. That means that there is only 1/d^2 energy falling on any similar area on the expanding sphere.”
https://www.nasa.gov/audience/foreducators/9-12/features/F_How_Far_How_Faint.html
So 25% of say 1367 watts is 341.75 watts per square meter.
And 1.8 AU is 1367 / 3.24 is 421.91 watts per square meter
And 1.85 AU is 399.4 watts
Anyhow, well beyond Mars.
Or we could assume one is changing the sun- making it smaller and/or cooler- and that quickly gets complicated.
So go with greater distance, cause it seems more simple.
At earth distance of 1 AU: 1367 watts has temperature of Sun: 394 K [about 120 C]. At a distance where sunlight is
400 watts the temperature of sunlight is 289.81 K [about 16 C]. So sunlight will heat a blackbody to about 16 C.
And Mars surface can be heat by sunlight warmer than 20 C, but it’s closer.
Next [from rabbit]:
“The sun warms the plate, but as the plate warms it radiates until the radiated heat matches the heat being absorbed from the sun”
It absorbs 400 watts and radiates 400 watts.
Rabbit indicates it radiates 200 watts towards the sun and away from sun.
And that would indicate 200 watts from surface and if blackbody: 243.7 K [about -29 K].
So this indicates 200 watts is conducted through the plate.
If both side of plate is same temperature, no heat can be conducted.
It depends upon how thick the plate is and how conductive the material is. If it was atom thick, sunlight would go thru it- it would be 400 watts on one side and 400 watts on the other side- it would be temperature of sunlight at that distance and same applies if say 10 atoms thick- still transparent to sunlight. And 1 mm thick is still transparent [and how many millions of atoms is that?]
And heat conduction is relate to a meter thickness- though a lot watts can go thru metal or diamond when it’s 1 mm thick or even a 1 cm thickness- normally one doesn’t do atom thickness.
So I would say the surface of plate is radiating 400 watts, and could radiating 200 watts on other side of plate- depending on material and thickness.
Or if plate was insulated except side facing sun, the plate
would be 16 C and be at equilibrium temperature with sun at
1.85 AU distance.
What else from rabbit:
“Now lets add another plate. We’ll color this plate green for greenhouse. It is heated by the first at a rate of 200 W/m2”
So rabbit is adding some insulation. If one adds enough insulation, the plate will not absorb any more energy of sunlight and be 16 C [the temperature of the sun at 1.85 AU distance] and it will at the equilibrium temperature.
Rabbit:
But after a while, it too has to heat up and reach an equilibrium temperature. . . so as a first guess something like:
It’s wrong, the the very top surface in term atoms thick of plate in sunlight immediately gets to equilibrium temperature and radiate 400 watts and the difference in temperature of surface is related to how much heat can be conducted thru the material- and you have things like heat capacity and thermal conductivity of the material to allow for. Anyhow he says it’s wrong:
“That’s wrong though because there are 400 W/m^2 going into the two plate system and 300 coming out. At equilibrium an equal amount of energy has to be going in as coming out So what happens??”
No there always 400 watts going out- and wrong diagram showing 100 watts going back to the sun is related to slowing down the amount which is absorbed- when reaches 400 watts- the plate is not absorbing any energy from the sunlight- it’s at equilibrium.
when reaches 400 watts- the plate is not absorbing any energy from the sunlight- its at equilibrium.
It is constantly absorbing and emitting energy. This does not change when the plate is in equilibrium with the sun, just that the energy being emitted is equal to the energy being received.
Sunlight at earth distance is about 1360 watts per square meter.
Are we suppose to imagine Earth being further away from the sun?
We’re supposed to realize that this is a thought experiment about radiative transfer and the second law. The numbers are simplified for ease of comprehension.
Well it’s wrong, so rabbit should give it more thought.
gbaikie,
1) 400 W/m^2 is not actually a bad number, since it is just a round number that is intended to be close to the AVERAGE surface solar power. So 340 W/m^2 would be the appropriate number for comparision, not 1360.
2) Thermal conduction is Q = kA ΔT/t. For copper 1 cm thick this would give ΔT = Qt/kA = 200*0.01 / (400)*1 = 0.005 K. I thnk we can dispense with any objections about the two sides being the same temperature. The close side will be about 0.005K warmer than the far side.
3) your last couple paragraphs just seem confused and/or not explained well.
“the the very top surface in term atoms thick of plate in sunlight immediately gets to equilibrium temperature and radiate 400 watts …”
It sounds like oyu are claiming that all absorbed radiation must be immediately radiated in equal amounts — it that is what you are saying you are wrong. Some energy gets radiated; some goes into warming the plate; some gets conducted through to the other side.
“No there always 400 watts going out-”
In that diagram, the system of the two plates has 400 going in (sunlight) and 300 going out (200 to the left and 100 to the right). This is correct — exactly as Eli says.
“wrong diagram showing 100 watts going back to the sun ..”
No diagram shows energy going back to the sun. There is energy going to empty space toward the left (200) and energy going to empty space to the right (100). I don’t know what you are objecting to here!
Tim, you never answered my question about our moon. You believe it is rotating on its axis as it is orbiting around Earth. I asked if it were rotating CW or CCW. Do you have an answer yet? (This is an “open-book” question. Feel free to consult any reference source before answering.)
The Moon has axis tilt to the Sun of about 1 1/2 degrees.
And from north pole of Moon it’s CCW, and from South pole
it’s CW. But that a one year rotation of axles and Moon is tidally locked with Earth.
But Moon doesn’t spin in relationship to Earth nor the Sun- it’s traveling straight in bent/curved space time of gravity.
It appears to spin.
gbaikie states: “..its traveling straight in bent/curved space time of gravity..”
Exactly.
Tim?
— Tim Folkerts says:
December 25, 2017 at 8:26 PM
gbaikie,
1) 400 W/m^2 is not actually a bad number, since it is just a round number that is intended to be close to the AVERAGE surface solar power. So 340 W/m^2 would be the appropriate number for comparision, not 1360.
2) Thermal conduction is Q = kA ΔT/t. For copper 1 cm thick this would give ΔT = Qt/kA = 200*0.01 / (400)*1 = 0.005 K. I thnk we can dispense with any objections about the two sides being the same temperature. The close side will be about 0.005K warmer than the far side.
3) your last couple paragraphs just seem confused and/or not explained well.–
I will give it a longer go:
1 square meter 1 cm thick copper plate has mass of 89.6 kg.
1 mm thick is 8.96 kg
100 micron thick is .896 kg
10 micron thick is .0896 kg
Specific heat of copper is 385 joules per K per kg:
10 microns depth of 1 meter square copper
requires 385 times .0896 which is 34.496 joules of heat per K
Assume this 1 cm thick plate begins at 0 C
In one second sunlight at 1367 watts with plate at 0 C
the will absorb 1367 joules.
At depth of 10 microns: 1367 / 34.496 is 39.6 K
And within this second it will be conducting this heat [cooling the top 10 mircon surface. If conducted to depth of 100 microns the average temperature increase would be 3.496 K.
And conducted to depth of 1 mm [1000 microns] the average temperature would be .3496 K
and we know there will be higher temperature than average temperature at the surface and at 1 mm depth it will be lower than the .3496 K temperature.
It will be a small difference because copper is highly conductive material. But in term conducting heat to next 1 mm in depth there is small difference of temperature- less than .3496 C to 0 C.
And it gets less at 3, 4, and 5 mm depth. Or at some point even highly conductive material will conduct heat very close to zero.
Now go to other side of plate, and in first second it’s not being heated by sunlight.
But it’s 0 C and as long as it’s 0 C the black body surface radiate 315 watts.
In top 10 microns: 315 / 34.496 is 9.1 K
And at average depth of 100 mircon: .91 K
And 1 mm: .091 K.
So average temperature of 1 mm depth is -.091 and coldest at surface and warmer than -.091 at 1 mm depth.
Or in first second of sunlight the 1 cm plate at 0 C has increased it’s average temperature.
The middle of plate hasn’t changed, but side facing the sun is more than .3496 C and other side is less than -.091 C.
Lets go to 400 watts per square meter sunlight. One can see that it likewise
would be warmer after 1 second [slightly].
Now, when will plate stop warming.
It seems that when plate absorbs less sunlight:
If sunlight is 1367 watts when surface is 120 C [and not cooling] it will absorb no energy from the sun.
So can’t get to 120 C- because back side will have increased
in temperature and be radiating more than 315 watts,
With the 400 watts per square meter sunlight, if the surface in sunlight is 16 C will not absorb any energy. Plus the back side would be radiating more than 315 watts.
But we should know that the average temperature of plate which is getting 1367 watts or 400 watts of sunlight should have average temperature warmer than 0 C. And with 1367 watts can’t have the surface in sunlight be 120 C, and with 400 watts of sunlight can’t be a warm as 16 C and surface facing te sunlight will be warmer than 0 C.
So say somewhere range of 1 C to 15 C of surface temperature in sunlight.
Now 200 watts emitted from blackbody is 243.7 K [-29.45 C].
That would like starting plate at -30 C rather than 0 C or we should know it will have average plate temperature warmer than 0 C and copper is very conductive.
Instead of writing such lengthy, useless comments: what about starting to read?
http://tinyurl.com/yakyxfaf
Bin, that link is pretty basic, but you have to be careful. About page 15, they veer off into pseudoscience, discussing the GHE. Use caution.
But, until page 15, they have it mostly correct. Combine that with an understanding of thermo and quantum physics, and you will arrive at this:
https://postimg.org/image/y9etf4d8p/
(Graphic prepared by miker, with much guidance by moi.)
You forgot to add your 2LOT quick fix:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/12/uah-global-temperature-update-for-november-20170-36-deg-c/#comment-274636
Yeah, that sometimes helps the un-educated to understand.
Do you still not understand?
I understand that you make it up as you go along. Hilarious!
No, you have demonstrated you have no understanding. Therefore, you must parrot whatever your tribe is parroting.
It’s fun to watch.
g*e*r*a*n says:
1) Think of the green plate as always at a slightly lower temperature, maybe one tenth of a degree, or
2) Realize that the energy flow is due to the forcing from the source. Energy out must equal energy in.
Is that an exclusive “or” between quick fix 1) and 2)?
Due to wave/particle duality?
svante, is your mis-representation of my comment due to your stupidity or your dishonesty?
Your plot has energy transfer between plates of the same temperature.
You offered two explanations:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/12/uah-global-temperature-update-for-november-20170-36-deg-c/#comment-274636
They seem mutually exclusive. Are they?
svante, the two explanations were to help the other commenter to understand. Either one is sufficient.
But, trying to confuse the issue, just because you can’t accept, is just making you look stupid, or dishonest.
Which is it?
g*e*r*a*n says:
2) “Realize that the energy flow is due to the forcing from the source”.
How do you explain the “forcing” at the quantum level?
svante queries: “How do you explain the forcing at the quantum level?”
That’s the way the problem is set up–400 Watts/m^2 to the blue plate! Photons are “accepted” and emitted at quantum levels.
It’s not that hard, unless you are trying to confuse the issue.
But how is the energy flow “forced” between the plates when there is no temperature difference?
Svante,
A more relevant question to ask the deranged, is in which direction the NET radiation is flowing if the temperatures of the plates are identical. Who decides and on what basis?
Do blue plates out rank green plates or vice versa?
svante is so scientifically illiterate that he asks: “But how is the energy flow forced between the plates when there is no temperature difference?”
svante, photon emission is independent of a “temperature difference”.
But you have net energy transfer between plates of the same temperature. 2x200W to the right, and 1x200W to left.
Plates of the same temperature should emit the same amount of photons.
svante, are you even trying to understand?
Your questions indicate you haven’t even studied the graphic.
Once more:
https://postimg.org/image/y9etf4d8p/
G*e*r*a*n, count the arrows between the plates.
Why is it an odd number when photon emission depends on temperature, and the plates have the same temperature?
P 15-19, ordinary optics and radiation physics. So of course G* thinks its pseudoscience.
Page 19, read it and weep, poor Nate. It’s all over!
“What happens if the windows are closed?”
Hilarious.
G*s definition of pseudoscience is any science he doesnt understand, which is ever expanding.
Although he sees no evidence for an expanding universe.
ft and svante, have you bought one of my T-shirts yet? Doing so will make you feel much better about yourselves.
Roughly, I agree.
But. Why does a black body at 244 K [-29 C], not absorb most of the energy from sunlight which is 400 watts per square meter?
Or way I read it, it’s only absorbing 200 of the 400 watts of direct sunlight [which from an energy source +5000 K]
Is blue plate reflecting 200 watts?
Or if blue was reflecting 200 watts how would it be different than your diagram?
gbaikie: But. Why does a black body at 244 K [-29 C], not absorb most of the energy from sunlight which is 400 watts per square meter?
g: In this hypothetical scenario, the blue plate is absorbing all of the 400 Watts. That is why it reaches the S/B temp of 244K. At that temp, it is both absorbing and emitting. It is absorbing 400 Watts, and emitting 200 Watts each side. At that equilibrium state, its temperature is no longer increasing.
gbaikie: Or way I read it, its only absorbing 200 of the 400 watts of direct sunlight [which from an energy source +5000 K]
g: Don’t be confused by the “sun” in the diagram. The 400 W/m^2 is the incoming flux. That is the energy source for the scenario. The +5000K is not part of this thought experiment.
gbaikie: Is blue plate reflecting 200 watts? Or if blue was reflecting 200 watts how would it be different than your diagram?
g: No, the blue plate is emitting 200 Watts (both sides). It absorbs all of the incoming energy from the “sun” (source). It is reflecting the 200 Watts from the green plate.
PS Good responsible questions.
g: No, the blue plate is emitting 200 Watts (both sides). It absorbs all of the incoming energy from the sun (source). It is reflecting the 200 Watts from the green plate.
Blackbodies – by definition – absorb radiation of all wavelengths. They do not reflect.
barry “contributes”: “Blackbodies by definition absorb radiation of all wavelengths. They do not reflect.”
barry, a black body changes its spectrum with temperature.
That’s just one of the ways they have fooled you.
–g: Dont be confused by the sun in the diagram. The 400 W/m^2 is the incoming flux. That is the energy source for the scenario. The +5000K is not part of this thought experiment.–
Ok.
If don’t know the heat source [temperature, distance, etc]
Then can’t know. But one could accept what rabbit says it starts with: 200 watts going either direction which could be right depending on details of heat source.
And in that case, then I guess, I agree with your diagram.
barry, a black body changes its spectrum with temperature.
It emits at different wavelengths depending on its temperature.
Black bodies – by definition – absorb incoming radiation of all frequencies regardless of black body temperature. Black bodies do not reflect.
barry, a “cold” black body can NOT raise the temperature of a “hot” black body. Is that clear enough?
They have you so confused.
But, I’m here to help.
g*e*r*a*n
Again you show your lack of ability to comprehend simple heat transfer concepts and go to your own made up version.
A cold black body that has temperature and is emitting EMR to a hotter black body will cause a POWERED (note that word, I do not think you know what it means) hotter black body to reach a higher equilibrium temperature with the cold black body present vs the state without the cold black body present. It will be a relative warmer black body. Your inability to comprehend this simple physics or that the Moon indeed rotates on its own axis suggests you are just a stupid human wasting time with much more intelligent people than yourself. Face it g*e*r*a*n, look in a mirror and you will see a clown, a dunce a low IQ that thinks they are a genius but their thought process shows how dumb they actually are.
In his desperation, the con-man willingly throws out the LoTs and laws of motion.
He throws everything overboard to save the sinking ship.
Hilarious.
g*e*r*a*n
In order to keep your pseudoscience you throw out all valid science, empirical evidence, factual experiments. It must be fun for you to live in our La La Land of imagination where reality stays away and you know it all.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2016/08/experiment-results-show-a-cool-object-can-make-a-warm-object-warmer-still/
Roy’s experiment here refutes your pseudoscience you are so fond of.
Like others have stated correctly, you view established science as pseudoscience, the only valid science for you is the material you make up. Wonderful!
The sinking con-man grasps at a life-preserver. (Problem is the “life-preserver” was made of lead.)
Hilarious.
g*e*r*a*n
What no pseudoscience from you? Just a bit of nonsense? You really do like making up your own version of science don’t you?
I think it is funny that when you are confronted with real science, factual experiment (that you can’t understand which clearly shows you are wrong and don’t understand real science) and valid evidence you post some mindless nonsense that you think is hilarious about a life preserver. Real science is not sinking, only your delusions. You are the one floating in a life boat with many holes but you can’t cope with the reality that you are a moron. You are hoping that you really might be the smart one and the entire body of science is the one that is wrong.
Sorry, I can’t help you. Your world-view is the only thing collapsing. Sing La La La. It works well for you.
The yelping chihuahua does not understand 2LoT. He believes “cold” can warm “hot”. He does not understand the laws of motion. He believes a horse running around a race track is also “rotating on its axis”.
With no background in physics, and the inability to learn, he remains a science infant.
It’s fun to watch.
con-man, here’s the correct solution to the plates:
https://postimg.org/image/y9etf4d8p/
And here’s the proof the Moon is NOT rotating on its axis:
December 21, 2017 at 6:18 AM
g*e*r*a*n
One time is all I ask. Give valid science (not your made up pseudoscience) that agrees with your make believe version of the 2nd Law.
What part of the real 2nd Law of Thermodynamics makes the claim that a powered object will stay the same temperature regardless of the temperature of the surroundings. All physics says the surrounding temperature and the amount of energy going into the powered object will be part of the determination of its temperature.
If you do not provide actual valid physics then shut up! Your pseudoscience is unwelcome and your taunts are not acceptable.
You do not aid the cause of Skepticism with false and phony made up physics. Just makes you look stupid. Your taunts make you look childish (which you are).
Also you are really stupid, you think that if you don’t see a horse twirling in circles it is not rotating on its axis around a track. I appealed to your reason but forgot you have none. I asked you to walk around an object and watch your feet. They pivot, you rotate on the axis that runs through your body. You are a dunce.
Only your the fact that you are extremely stupid is valid here. Nothing else. Why so dumb? Why? Really sad!
con-man, I’ve explained this to you several times. You just don’t have the background to understand. Your lack of education, combined with your closed-mind, renders you un-teachable. That’s why you get so frustrated and resort to personal attacks and false accusations.
The 400 Watts/m^2 incoming only provides for 244K, maximum temperature. That’s it. You keep imagining you can “re-use” the energy to increase the temperature. You keep believing that temperatures add. You once tried to explain that something at 20 degrees and something at 40 degrees could result in something at 60 degrees.
It’s okay to not understand thermodynamics. Very few people do. But, to try to claim that a horse is rotating on its axis, as it runs an oval track, is just really stupid.
But, stupid is as stupid does.
G,
Black bodies by definition absorb incoming radiation of all frequencies regardless of black body temperature. Black bodies do not reflect.
Do you not know this basic of thermodynamics?
barry, “defining” something that they can then use to violate the laws of physics is called “pseudoscience”.
That’s just one of the ways they can confuse you.
Be very cautious.
g*e*r*a*n
Once again you prove yourself a clod. A real dunce. You know so little about physics it is really sad but you pretend like you are some sort of expert. I know so much more about physics than you are able to learn that it is not hilarious but sad.
Your dumbass statement: “The 400 Watts/m^2 incoming only provides for 244K, maximum temperature. Thats it”
As dumb as you don’t know what rotate on an axis means. Really a stupid person.
The temperature can be many different readings depending upon many things. You are too stupid to grasp this simple physics yet you pretend to be this “expert”. You are a dunce!
The yelping, toothless, castrated chihuahua emerges from the bushes. You almost feel sorry for his whiny desperation.
But then you realize how predictably hilarious he is.
barry, “defining” something that they can then use to violate the laws of physics is called “pseudoscience”.
Who the hell is “they?” The definition of a black body is 150 years old and is a basic standard of thermodynamics.
Kirchoff: “the supposition that bodies can be imagined which, for infinitely small thicknesses, completely absorb all incident rays, and neither reflect nor transmit any. I shall call such bodies perfectly black, or, more briefly, black bodies”
This definition is consistent throughout the intervening decades, in all physics text books that discuss them, and with all physicists. It’s as standard as you can get.
The 2-plate set-up – even your version of it – utilizes black body thermodynamics. The green plate is a blackbody, or it would not absorb 200 W/m2 from the blue plate. It would instead reflect some.
In the entire field of thermodynamics, only your “version” of a black body reflects radiation – the blue plate.
This is pseudoscience, G, and you’re committing it. Espousing that black bodies reflect radiation completely wipes you out of any sober discussion of physics.
barry inquires: “Who the hell is ‘they’?
barry, “they” refers to those that try relentlessly to shove their pseudoscience down your throat. Doubtless you’ve noticed several on this very blog.
Yes, the concept of a “black body” has been around a long time. But, you must remember, it is a concept. A “black body” does not exist in reality.
So, in thought experiments using a black body, don’t let them avoid the laws of physics. That’s how they trick you.
In the two-plate system, the temperature of the blue plate can never get above 244K. Conceptual “black bodies” do NOT get to arbitrarily ignore the laws of physics.
Otherwise, it’s just pseudoscience.
BTW, Kirchhoff spelled his name with two h’s.
Espousing that black bodies can violate the established laws completely wipes out any sober discussion of physics, so be careful.
The green plate in even your conception of the 2-plate set up is a perfect black body. They do not exist in nature, but you accept the premise, as every other physicist does, for the green plate.
Where you depart from every other physicist is in conceiving that the blue plate (a perfect black body also) reflects radiation.
Thus, your ‘model’ of the 2-plate physics is irretrievable flawed, and no amount of side-stepping this specific matter is going to change that.
barry, accepting the premise of a black body does not mean we can ignore the laws of physics. Get a grip.
The blue plate is reflecting radiation from a “colder” black body. Get a grip.
So, your model of the 2-plate physics is irretrievable flawed, and no amount of side-stepping this specific matter is going to change that.
“Cold” can NOT warm “hot”.
Sorry.
g*e*r*a*n
YOU: “You almost feel sorry for his whiny desperation.”
Actually I feel more sorry for you total lack of any physics knowledge, complete distortion of reality and this intense desire on your part to make up this fake unreal physics. The most sorry is that you in some dream you believe you actually studied some real physics and think you know what you are talking about. You are a dense human, dumber than most, no ability to learn.
Another one of your make up pseudoscience.
YOU: “The blue plate is reflecting radiation from a colder black body. Get a grip.”
Completely stupid. Not based on rational physics. Made up garbage. You are to dense to understand that it not real physics. It is your La La Land science that you make up. No basis for this statement, no proof, goes against all established physics. Really really sad.
The blue plate is reflecting radiation from a “colder” black body.
Black bodies do not reflect radiation.
Physics 101.
Boiler-plate, stock standard, freshman physics.
As long as you espouse they do, your take on the 2-plate set up is pseudoscience.
Look at what the desperate, yelping chihuahua brings:
you[r] total lack of any physics knowledge
complete distortion of reality
this intense desire on your part to make up this fake unreal physics
you believe you actually studied some real physics
You are a dense human
dumber than most
no ability to learn.
Completely stupid.
Not based on rational physics.
Made up garbage.
You are to dense to understand that it not real physics.
It is your La La Land science that you make up.
No basis for this statement
no proof
goes against all established physics
Hilarious!
(2018 is going to be a great year. The climate clowns have wrapped themselves around their axles and are over-heating. It’s fun to watch.)
barry, a cold black body can NOT raise the temperature of a hotter black body.
Physics 101.
Boiler-plate, stock standard, freshman physics.
As long as you espouse such nonsense, your take on the 2-plate set up is pseudoscience.
This plate thing really has them rattled. Its not surprising. E-Lie found a way of simplifying the whole thing to such an extent (due to his colossal ego and arrogance, and his assumption that the general public are too stupid to ever understand the science involved) that hes shot himself, and all his allies, in the foot. Actually, people *are* getting it, and this has sent them into panic mode. The PLs are ramping up the obfuscation, outright lies, misrepresentations, misdirections, insults etc, to an absurd degree. The PBCCs follow on, blindly, of course…but even they must be sensing somewhere (deep, deep down) that something is up. Which seems to be resulting in an enormous amount of yelping and point-missing.
And its all, as you say, fun to watch.
g*e*r*a*n
You and J Halp-less seem to make the claim that your ideas are established physics 101.
So show this physics. Where do you get it from?
All the things I stated about you are unfortunately true. You make up physics. You can’t learn. I think J is about the same level of intellect as you. You two can support each other but it just drives you to this make believe physics. Show your material.
And on another issue. Do you have a square table at your home? If you do I would like you to explain how you can walk around it without rotating on your axis. First walk counterclockwise along one side of the table, go a step past the end. Now how do you continue around the table? If you do not rotate a quarter turn counter clockwise but remain straight you will walk away from the table. I stand correct on all the things I say about you.
The list you created from my posts is a good assessment of the state of your mental ability.
you[r] total lack of any physics knowledge
complete distortion of reality
this intense desire on your part to make up this fake unreal physics
you believe you actually studied some real physics
You are a dense human
dumber than most
no ability to learn.
Completely stupid.
Not based on rational physics.
Made up garbage.
You are to dense to understand that it not real physics.
It is your La La Land science that you make up.
No basis for this statement
no proof
goes against all established physics
All fits you to a tee. I am sad to see you have a deluded follower. If you were alone in your mindless state it would be better than to infect another with your mental dysfunction.
J Halp-less
YOU do not have it correct: YOU: “This plate thing really has them rattled.”
The only thing that has scientific minded people (something you seem devoid of like your partner here) rattled is to see the ignorant posts by pretenders like you and g*e*r*a*n. You are the arrogant one that has no clue of heat transfer.
This blog already has one pretender. You make it two. Go learn what rotate on an axis means since you are as ignorant as the other one.
If you were an honest person you would clearly state you have no physics knowledge and get all your twisted information of heat transfer from the demented crackpot Joseph Postma. His ideas are really cringe. No basis in science at all just made up junk that works on people like you that have no scientific discipline. You can’t see how poor his science is, he impresses you with his BS because you do not have enough scientific background to see how flawed his reasoning is.
Oh, Norman. I understand completely *why* you consider that to be rotating on your axis. This was all discussed with Bart, already. You see it as a rotation on your axis with respect to inertial space. Your mistake (everyones mistake) is to repeatedly assume thats it. All you think you need to do is to find some other way to explain, to put across in some way that you think I will understand, something that I already understand. The thing is that *you* dont understand the way we are looking at it. This seems to drive you crazy, so you just keep repeating the bit that is already understood, and then throwing insults. You never get beyond that little bit you get, though. You never open your mind. You never accept that it is *you* who needs to think deeper, and look further.
And yes, thats another perfect way this is analogous to the GHE debate…
G,
Black bodies do not reflect radiation – period.
You’re avoiding this fact. And it’s central to your 2-plate conception.
I challenge you to cite one proper, standard reference that corroborates your loony tunes notion that a black body (at any temperature) reflects radiation.
You simply can’t. There isn’t any. And when next you reply with more side-stepping blather on the 2nd Law, and no substantiation on this premise of yours, as you inevitably will, you’ll only be confirming that your physics is your own invented perversion. In other words, pseudoscience.
Wriggle and dodge, rinse repeat. It’s hilarious.
You see, Norman, this *rotation on your axis with respect to inertial space*, as you see it, has a much simpler name. Its called *orbiting*, and it is one of two possible motions the bodies can make. Rotating on their axis being the other motion. The moon does the former, not the latter. The reason? It is tidally locked.
Norman.
These two are classic examples of Folie deluxe. Their shared delusions means, the more they are confronted, the more they retreat into their mutual world of alternative physics.
I think the best that can be done is exercise some restraint and ignore their goading, irrespective of the egregious stupidity of their ravings. I am trying to dothis (rather unsuccessfully at this stage, but I am getting there).
Let them rave on and we can just sit back and laugh. That’s my recommendation.
Damn spell check –
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Folie__deux .
Best wishes for the new year to all. May this be the year all sufferers of the Dunning-Kruger syndrome gain some insight into their condition.
A recommendation that is rather undone by the fact that you are completely incapable of doing it yourself.
As Confucius once said “Real knowledge is to know the extent of one’s ignorance”.
I certainly know the full extent of my ignorance and try to comment accordingly.
Unfortunately we all know there are others who appear to be totally unaware of there own incompetence and also comment accordingly.
Fortunately there are still 365 days left in 2018.
Barry,
In my humble opinion it is futile to try and argue rationally with the two “oxygen thieves”. They just regurgitate the same old nonsensical assertions.
As I said to Norman, let them indulge their fantasies. The collateral damage they do to their ideological colleagues, despite the best efforts of SKW, Bart etc to rein them in, is worth the price of admission.
Oh, bless! All that it needed was another comment from MikeR. He actually did it! Great stuff MikeR, you really help me prove my points. I was actually slightly worried for a minute that you might leave me hanging.
Halp,
I hope that I can restrain myself and not comment further.
My new years resolution is to avoid, as much as possible, interacting with those who display online sociopathic tendencies.
So your New Years resolution is to avoid talking to yourself. This is a wise move, MikeR.
You do an awful lot of goading and baiting, you know. Its quite shameless.
So Aloha to Halp and his accomplice.
As “Tempus fugit”, I am off to do something more useful with my time. Remember no one gets out of here alive.
Its unpleasant to have to lower myself to the sort of tactics that are MikeRs and the likes bread and butter, but it sure does bring out their true nature. I think g*e*r*a*n gets that too. And boy, is it hilarious. Pathos, of course.
anger writes 4:06am: “barry, a cold black body can NOT raise the temperature of a hotter black body. Physics 101.”
This is true however it is a strawman changing the original proposition wherein anger & Halp-less make the mistake that the sun being a hotter ~black body CAN raise the temperature of both of the plates. To cover that mistake, anger & Halp-less introduce another mistake introducing their false claim that black bodies can reflect.
The dynamic duo is so embarrassed over their obvious pseudoscience they become quite hilarious in their attempts to cover up mistake after mistake. It is only necessary to experimentally debunk their claims once however the ensuing silly comments from the dynamic duo are very entertaining. More please.
And, also, the dynamic duo should please continue to refrain from doing any proper experiments which always bring them back to earth unpleasantly while increasing their hilarity.
barry clings to his belief system: “Black bodies do not reflect radiation period.”
No barry, it is NOT “period”. You want it to be “period”. You want the game to be over, in your favor, but that’s not reality.
The reality is a black body is an imaginary concept. They do not exist. They are used for instruction, but the “user” has to be careful not to “break any laws”. In your plates problem, you use the black body concept, and violate 2LoT, and violate 1LoT, and violate radiative heat transfer law.
Then, you conveniently ignore all of your assumptions and violations, to declare your pseudoscience is reality.
The very fact that the spectra of two black bodies, at different temperatures, are different should tell you something. But, you just ignore that fact also.
It’s fun to watch.
“In your plates problem, you use the black body concept, and violate 2LoT, and violate 1LoT, and violate radiative heat transfer law.”
Baseless assertions. Hilarious! entertainment though because neither anger nor the dynamic duo provide experimental evidence to support these false assertions. And never will.
T-ball arrives to declare “baseless assertions’, and talk about “experiments”!
This from a guy that claims cabbages glow in the dark. He wouldn’t know a real experiment from cake crumbs.
Hilarious.
(This is going to be a great new year in climate comedy. I can already tell.)
“This from a guy that claims cabbages glow in the dark.”
They do! When illuminated by BB radiation. Unless anger has a counter-experiment showing they do not glow in the dark. Never happen as all cabbages have a temperature & anger has no counter-experiment. Never will.
HNY anger and keep up the hilarious! mistakes of science, anger’s entertainment never ends. More please.
trick tries more tricks: “They do! When illuminated by BB radiation.”
No tricky, you stated that the cabbages glowed in total darkness. You did not specify a light source. I was very careful to pin you down on that fact, because you were trying to be so tricky.
Now, you are saying they must be illuminated by a visible-light source. You’ve been caught again, in your tricks. Maybe you are trying to compete with the con-man for best con?
Hilarious.
“you stated that the cabbages glowed in total darkness.”
Ha, no anger I wrote even cabbages glow in your closet. Which of course is total darkness in the normal closet, maybe not anger’s closet. Just specify the illumination in your closed door closet then anger. I will guess at room temperature but it is possible anger can’t afford to pay his NH heating (or SH cooling) bill being wrong so often.
No reference to support your notion of a black body reflecting, G? No ladder to climb out of your hole?
No, G, the 2LoT is not violated in Eli’s construct, because at all times the NET flow of heat is from hot to cold. The 1LoT is not violated because no energy has been created. The radiative exchange balances. All that has happened is that the cooling rate of the blue plate constantly warmed by the sun is reduced by the green plate. Ergo, blue plate temperature rises. Insulation works on this principle.
I’m describing a black body properly – no reflection or transmission of radiation occurs with a black body.
“…the supposition that bodies can be imagined which, for infinitely small thicknesses, completely absorb all incident rays, and neither reflect nor transmit any. I shall call such bodies perfectly black, or, more briefly, black bodies” – Kirchoff 1860
“…a body which has the property of allowing all incident rays to enter without surface reflection…” – Planck 1914
“Blackbody is an object which absorbs all the incident energy…” – Infrared Training Institute
“… it absorbs all energies incident on it from all directions and all wavelengths.” – Massoud (2005)
“To begin analyzing heat radiation, we need to be specific about the body doing the radiating: the simplest possible case is an idealized body which is a perfect absorber, and therefore also (from the above argument) a perfect emitter. For obvious reasons, this is called a ‘black body’.” – University of Virginia lecture notes
I could go on all day quoting and listing sources to unburden you of your misconception about black bodies. If you’re going to use theoretical constructs, you should know how they operate.
You cannot come up with one source that corroborates your view of a reflecting black body.
That is why you have not and will not.
Mike is right. It’s better to leave you with your misconceptions. It has been some entertainment to watch you reject basic physics, though.
Sorry barry, but you’re still very confused.
You seem to avoid certain facts and logic, because they ruin your belief system.
1) Black body is an imaginary concept.
2) Blue plate warming above 244K violates 1LoT.
3) Blue plate warming above 244K violates 2LoT.
4) Blue plate warming above 244K violates radiative heat transfer law.
No amount of evidence will convince you you’re wrong. You don’t want truth. You want to believe your false beliefs. If you were at all inquisitive, the horse running around the race track should have opened your eyes. But, you want to believe the horse is also rotating on its axis, so that’s all you see.
So, don’t get mad if some people think you’re hilarious.
J Halp-less
I wish you would take your own advice.
YOU: “You never get beyond that little bit you get, though. You never open your mind. You never accept that it is *you* who needs to think deeper, and look further.”
Yes you need to think not just deeper but more rationally. It is amazing you use an open mind appeal to justify your terrible and unsupportable physics. You make up physics and demand people open their minds’ to accept your ludicrous version of reality. You have no supporting evidence, no experiment. Just endless stupid declarations that go directly against established physics. It is you, my friend, who has the totally closed mind deluded by false ideas and notions that are not supportable or logical. Just dreams of your twisted imagination. No I don’t think I need to open my mind to accept the vomit you spew from the darkness of an empty thoughtless mind. Sorry, but if you find some real physics to support even one of your irrational ideas, I will certainly listen at that point.
You seem to avoid certain facts and logic, because they ruin your belief system.
My ‘belief system’ is standard physics. Only you have invented a black body that reflects radiation – something you still haven’t even attempted to corroborate.
Because you can’t. You don’t understand the theoretical construct you’re using.
1) Black body is an imaginary concept.
Yep, as I’ve said in numerous posts, including this one. Does your belief system provide you with poor eyesight, or a deficient cognitive function? In any case, you’re relying on black body principles while you discuss the 2-plate set up, but you have the principle wrong. It’s funny because it’s so obvious, and so obvious that you’re side-stepping the issue and blathering about anything but.
2) Blue plate warming above 244K violates 1LoT.
Nope. Insulation doesn’t violate 1LoT. If you have a heater providing heat in your living room, the room air temp will be warmer with pink batts than without. Batts slow the rate of heat loss, resulting in a warmer room. In your physics-defying house, the batts (green plate) would warm up to the same temperature as the room, but the room would get no warmer. Hopefully, you live in a warm climate, or you may suffer needlessly from your disbelief in insulation.
3) Blue plate warming above 244K violates 2LoT.
Nope, the blue plate is receiving an external input of energy from the sun and the green plate slows its rate of cooling – ergo, blue plate temperature increases. Same principle as insulation. At all times, NET flow of heat energy is hot to cold.
4) Blue plate warming above 244K violates radiative heat transfer law.
Nope, the equations balance when both green plate and blue temperature equilibrate at higher level than when green plate is first introduce to the system. Insulation works, whether heat energy is transferred by conduction, convection or radiation. No energy is created or destroyed, just that the rate of heat loss from the blue plate is reduced. Insulation again.
At all times, the NET flow of heat energy is from hot to cold.
So as well as failing to understand the properties of a black body – something you still haven’t directly responded to after umpteen posts (slippery little G) – you make up stories about what I’ve said and don’t know how insulation works.
You are providing some entertainment. Keep it coming, G.
Got a formal cite to corroborate the idea of a black body reflecting radiation? That’s what your 2-plate conception hinges on.
No cite? No textbook reference? Now why would that be?
g*e*r*a*n
You describe your own delusional mind perfectly. I guess it is not hard for you to do this since you live daily with a deluded thought process.
HERE: “You seem to avoid certain facts and logic, because they ruin your belief system. (This perfectly describes you!)
1) Black body is an imaginary concept.
2) Blue plate warming above 244K violates 1LoT.
3) Blue plate warming above 244K violates 2LoT.
4) Blue plate warming above 244K violates radiative heat transfer law.
No amount of evidence will convince you youre wrong. You dont want truth. You want to believe your false beliefs. If you were at all inquisitive, the horse running around the race track should have opened your eyes. But, you want to believe the horse is also rotating on its axis, so thats all you see.
(Once again you describe your own mind perfectly)
Big difference between barry’s posts and yours is he is using well established physics to support what he claims. You offer nothing but your own deluded declarations based upon nothing. No evidence, no support, in complete violation of established laws of physics.
Now for your numbers.
1) Doesn’t really matter since they have the emissivity term in place to have any real world object obey the Stefan-Boltzmann Law
2) This is a demonstration you can’t think and you don’t have even slight physics understanding. The 244 K temp is not the warmest temperature the blue plate can achieve, it is the coldest, it is the temperature it reaches when it is radiating away energy at the highest rate. If you put heavy insulation on the back side so it would lose only a small amount of energy the blue plate would get much warmer (all I can do at this point is call you a dunce that should not post, you embarrass yourself with your ignorance).
Your 3) and 4) both made up foolish crap. You don’t have enough reasoning ability in the dull mind of yours to grasp that the blue plate is receiving a constant input of energy 400 joules/sec-m^2. If this energy is not lost at the same rate the blue plate warms. How dumb are you?
barry, the comedy continues.
Your pseudoscience fails in light of the laws of physics, so now, your imaginary “black body” is also an imaginary “insulator”.
Wrapped around your own axle, much?
Hilarious.
barry
You have threads that ask posters to predict what next month’s UAH global temperature anomaly will be. A fun game.
Now maybe you could ask the posters how many posts will g*e*r*a*n post without showing proof of his make believe declaration that a hotter black body reflects incident energy coming from a colder blackbody. He says it many times. Now how many more posts will he make before he shows evidence for this? My guess is he will post and never provide evidence. He knows he is making it up but thinks we are all too stupid to notice so he goes on in a different direction.
I agree, if you don’t let him anger you he is really funny with his goofy tactics and made up physics and his belief that he is a really smart person. All funny, something we can enjoy.
“1) Black body is an imaginary concept.
2) Blue plate warming above 244K violates 1LoT.
3) Blue plate warming above 244K violates 2LoT.
4) Blue plate warming above 244K violates radiative heat transfer law.”
Love to see new logic on any of these, G*, that is not a primer on hand-waving, and has not been rebutted dozens of times.
Barry summed it well.
The thing is G* and Halp, the correct solution is actually much simpler than yours.
Just apply the laws, solve equations. No hand-waving needed. Get an answer that agrees with both common experience and known technology.
There is need to tie oneself into knots, inventing imaginary energy flow between objects at the same temperature.
No need for inventing magical reflecting black plates to get around violating thermo laws.
Avoid the dicey subject of photon temperature.
Avoid the difficult task of explaining to your mom why an object in the shade is no cooler than one in the sun.
Avoid having to explain to your kids how thermos bottles are no better than a solid metal cup.
No need to make 2LOT do way more than its job description.
Simplify your world and let heat flow the way it wants in 2018!
con-man, teaching you physics is not my goal here. That would be an impossible task. You just don’t have the background. And, then there are the worms in your head.
No, my purpose here is to expose pseudoscience. And, I’m really good at it.
The comedy routines you provide are just an added benefit.
g*e*r*a*n
Yes you have stated your goal very correctly, to expose pseudoscience by posting it nearly everyone of your posts.
Since you do not know the actual meaning of the word you use so often I will show it to you again. Not that it will do any good with a dunce like you. one must have a basic learning ability to grasp simple concepts. You do not have such ability.
Here: “Pseudoscience consists of statements, beliefs, or practices that are claimed to be scientific and factual, in the absence of evidence gathered and constrained by appropriate scientific methods”
You do this all the time. You claim hot plates will only reflect energy from cooler plates around them. This fits the word pseudoscience exactly. It is only your belief and statement that tries to make this crap science. You have zero evidence, you do not use the scientific method to derive your ridiculous statements. I present actual experimental evidence that clearly shows you are mistaken but it does not change your stupid belief.
Yes I guess you are exposing to posters what pseudoscience is because it is what you do, you are one of the Masters of pseudoscience. I think your follower J Halp-less is trying hard to be as good at you at the false science. You have more experience but in time he might become as funny as you are.
so now, your imaginary “black body”
It’s not mine, it belongs to physics.
You are making use of black body principles in the 2-plate set up.
G: “In this hypothetical scenario, the blue plate is absorbing all of the 400 Watts.”
Yep, only black bodies do that. But today you are trying to disown a hypothetical construct you have been using all along. Tying yourself up in knots much?
A black body can be a heat source or sink. Yep, it can be an insulator.
Some formal corroboration of your notion that black bodies reflect radiation would turn your fanciful idea into more than just the raving of an idiot. You only have 2 options here: cite or babble.
Google didn’t help you, did it?
Eli used black bodies since there was no emissivity factor.
Emissivity changes the numbers but not the relationships (unless it is zero).
barry says, December 30, 2017 at 4:16 PM:
Hahaha! No, barry. This is just you displaying your utter confusion on this subject once again.
You simply have no intention of getting this, have you? No intention of even trying …
“Eli’s construct” isn’t violating the 2nd Law because it simply isn’t a THERMODYNAMIC setup!
It is based on a (greatly simplified) QUANTUM model of what looks like two perfectly collimated light beams from two laser guns shooting at each other. It shows single PHOTONS travelling through each other along a single, perfectly straight ‘highway’ connecting the guns, and nothing else.
And so, by its very nature, it operates distinctly OUTSIDE the thermodynamic limit. Which means there can be no thermal – only quantum – effects resulting from the things it describes. It is a MICRO setup describing something that, no matter what it’s meant to be, most assuredly isn’t (and couldn’t be) thermal radiation!
And yet, this is still exactly what Eli professes; that the two opposing assembly lines of collimated photons portrayed are really the equivalent of discrete thermodynamic fluxes of energy, each of them thus independently and directly generating a thermal effect on the opposing ‘gun’.
But if this were in fact the case, it WOULD violate the 2nd Law, barry. Because there IS no ‘net’ flux to be found in this particular setup. No ‘average’ movement. The ‘net’ dissipated into thin air as soon as TWO separate, independent (macroscopic) fluxes were claimed to exist in its place. Each with its own independent and direct thermal effect on the opposing object.
As I’ve told you so many times now, you can’t have it both ways! You can’t have the cake AND eat it.
EITHER you have the net/average movement of radiative energy of one and the same radiative thermal process between two bodies/regions – the macroscopic transfer of energy, the (thermodynamic) flux.
OR you have TWO such transfers occurring at the same time, producing direct, independent thermal effects at either end. Which really means you have TWO thermal processes working simultaneously, not one. TWO separate heat transfers, not one.
What you CAN’T have is both at the same time! In one. You can’t have the latter really BEING the former!
Again: You can’t use the description of a QUANTUM process to explain a THERMO effect. The micro and the macro aspects of reality don’t mix well. They’re like oil and water. Unrelatable. Connectable, yes. But not relatable. They don’t describe the same physical phenomena. Mixing them up like you do, will thus make you forever confused when it comes to this particular topic, barry.
And I bet you STILL can’t understand why? You’ll STILL object and say: ‘But a radiative flux is just a bunch of photons.’
Yes, the radiative flux is ALL (!!!) photons within the radiation field at once. Their AVERAGE intensity and their AVERAGE direction. Not the average of just the ones that YOU have chosen to include, barry! This is what you apparently fail to comprehend.
Macroscopic reality doesn’t look like this:
https://okulaer.files.wordpress.com/2017/11/hulromsstrc3a5ling-2.png
https://okulaer.files.wordpress.com/2017/11/radiation-sfc-atm.png
It looks like this:
https://okulaer.files.wordpress.com/2016/11/radiation-sfc-atm.png
That final one is what statistical mechanics teaches us – ALL the microscopic movements/actions average out to ONE bulk movement/property. Not two. One.
You get two only when YOU – in your mind – decide to distinguish between two general DIRECTIONS in space …
g*e*r*a*n says, December 30, 2017 at 6:33 PM:
1) Sure. Irrelevant, though.
2) Nope.*
3) Nope.*
4) Nope.*
*There’s a separate heat source, g. TWO separate heat transfers working at the same time. That’s why.
All the others are correct. They only fail in how they try to EXPLAIN the effect.
Norman, you never actually respond with anything substantive. It is just reams of endless yelping about what you imagine my thought processes to be, etc. Which does nothing to further the conversation. I wrote you a simple and concise summary of my viewpoint on the rotation/orbiting issue. Ive received nothing to counter any of it. Just letting you know, thats how it stands. Im sure your emotional ranting makes you feel better, but it doesnt really do anything else of merit.
The con-man looked up the word “pseudoscience”, since he had never heard of it. But, even with the definition, he cannot recognize it. The imaginary black body transforms, as needed, from perfect emitter/absorber to “insulation” to “heat source”!
No pseudoscience here, folks, move along.
Hilarious.
And the real humor is that the climate clowns are confused by the two green arrows between the plates. The green arrows effectively cancel. This is a well known phenomenon in physics, which none of the climate clowns have ever heard of. They do a quick internet search, then pretend that they are experts on the subject. It’s fun to watch.
Here’s the correct solution:
https://postimg.org/image/y9etf4d8p/
This is going to be a great new year in climate comedy.
Im not sure why anyone is still arguing about the plates. That was settled, above. It was agreed that when Q12 = 0, T1 = T2. Only Ball4 seemed to understand the significance of this, since he briefly tried to lie about the math, but it was too late for that since MikeR and others had already seen and agreed to it. In fact it was, apparently, a *basic insight*. So, there it is. At equilibrium, the plates will be the same temperature; confirmed by textbook.
G*e*r*a*ns diagram has caused some confusion, and predictably the same people are trying to jump all over that and pretend theres something left to discuss. The fact is, there is no diagram that will make these people happy but E-Lies. Despite the fact that the two plates are at a different temperature in that diagram, and are therefore *not* at equilibrium, by their own admission.
Let the yelping commence.
barry, you’re all tangled up again: “But today you are trying to disown a hypothetical construct you have been using all along.”
No barry, I’m not trying to disown anything. I’m trying to teach you how to approach a hypothetical experiment. The use of the “black body” is appropriate, but it does NOT give you a license to violate the laws of physics.
barry offers more confusion: A black body can be a heat source or sink. Yep, it can be an insulator.”
barry, can a “black body” also heal the sick, cook your dinner, and ward off zombies?
barry goes full bonkers: “Some formal corroboration of your notion that black bodies reflect radiation would turn your fanciful idea into more than just the raving of an idiot.”
barry, when you find that source that indicates an imaginary black body will do all the mythical things you claim, then please include us. You know me, I would be the last person to laugh at you. ..
barry goes full bonkers: Some formal corroboration of your notion that black bodies reflect radiation would turn your fanciful idea into more than just the raving of an idiot.”
Nothing bonkers about asking for a citation. Shall we count down how many posts you’ve been avoiding this? I think we’re at about 6 now.
We have one myth in this thread – that black bodies reflect.
All you need to do is reference a reputable source saying otherwise to turn myth onto fact.
Or, you could get honest and just say that black bodies don’t reflect radiation.
Avoiding the issue is slimy.
Kristian,
I replied to your posts with long cites here.
A few shortish posts responding to those, culminating in this.
“Either statistical mechanics or classic thermo will give the same answer for a change in temperature. So this notion of the two-way exchange having no “thermal” effects is about formalism of language, not reality.”
You are trying way too hard to keep separate two disciplines which are complementary and which both yield results about temperature change. All to argue against a term – back radiation – which is nothing more than downwelling radiation from the atmosphere to surface – a two-way exchange. The author you cited speaks of two-way radiative exchange, not just for mathematical convenience but also because it describes (statistically) a real phenomenon. I’ve given you the benefit of the doubt, but it’s time for you to recognize the difference between reasonable argument and overweening pedantry.
Halp,
“It was agreed that when Q12 = 0, T1 = T2.”
Indeed that is true in any heat transfer problem when ALL heat flows have stopped.
But it does NOT give the solution when there IS heat flow going on in the problem, as is the case here. 400W/m2 is input. 400W/m2 is flowing out.
The idea of just setting Q=0 to find a heat transfer solution is quite dumb.
It is analogous to trying to learn what a circuit does with no power source, you will find I=0, V=0, true but useless.
barry claims: “All you need to do is reference a reputable source saying otherwise to turn myth onto fact.”
No barry, we’ve already been there, done that. You refuse facts. You only want pseudoscience. You want imaginary hot black bodies to magically be heated by imaginary colder black bodies. It’s very important to you to establish the false concept that “cold” can warm “hot”.
Having a hidden agenda is what’s slimy.
What, did you expose yourself again?
Hilarious.
(2018 is going to be a great year in climate comedy. I can just tell.)
Kristian,
Merry Christmas.
Referring to your posts with the long quotes starting here, a few things stuck out.
We often separate the flux into two parts, an ingoing and an outgoing part. F = F^+ F^-.
That’s not just mathematical formalism, that is what is happening. Radiation is absorbed and emitted. In statistical mechanics, the flux either way is an average value of the quantum energies.
To fully describe a radiation field, we need to specify how much energy
* At each point in space
* At each point in time
* In each direction
In each direction. This is what classic thermo does not do.
From one of the educational texts you cited:
We distinguish between the outward direction and the inward direction so that the net flux is…
Here in statistical mechanics influx and outflux are both considered.
The main TAKEAWAY: “(…) the quantities which we are interested in do not depend on the motions of individual particles, or some (…) small subset of particles, but, instead, depend on the average motions of all the particles in the system. In other words, these quantities depend on the statistical properties of the atomic or molecular motion.”
A “radiative flux” is also such a macroscopic quantity, barry.
Radiative flux as in classic thermo does not consider different vectors. Statistical mechanics does.
Statistical mechanics allows for ‘back radiation.’ You seem to have a problem with the term, but it’s just a term that describes what statistical mechanics sees. No, ‘back radiation’ is not a separate source of energy.
MICROscopically, there is a continuous “two-way” exchange of photonic energy at each surface, but no thermal effects. And MACROscopically, there are thermal effects, but no two-way exchange of energy.
Either statistical mechanics or classic thermo will give the same answer for a change in temperature. So this notion of the two-way exchange having no “thermal” effects is about formalism of language, not reality.
[Had to break up one post into several – wordpress wouldn’t post the whole thing]
Predictions for December?
I’m saying still in the 0.3s.
You could be very close, des. There’s still a lot of warmth hanging on.
But, just to be interesting, I’ll say +0.29.
0.24
barry, now you’re a “Coolist”?
☺
Just cool.
0.41
I said 0.34, but MikeR has revealed a goat upthread, may I reverse my guess and make it 0.43?
All bets and amendments must be in by the last minute of the month in question. Bets placed after this time will incur a fine of not less than 2 rotating horses.
But those horses are in “synchronous rotation” with the illusionary GHE.
Viewer discretion advised.
I think an even number of identical horses ( or goats) rotating with the same angular speed , half clockwise, half counteclockwise, so that angular momentum is conserved.
One group may have to run backwards to keep g* happy.
You’re not ignoring me very well, miker. You seem to have the same groupie obsession as the con-man.
I should start selling T-shirts.
Yes just a final shot across your bowels.
As for the T-shirt there is already an appropriate one sold at –
https://www.zazzle.com.au/im_with_stupid_t_shirt-235795798351327070.
I think a change, to the colour of the arrow to blue or green would be appropriate.
I have just returned from my annual pilgrimage to Parnassus to consult the Oracle of Delphi about my football tips for the coming year.
While there, I was able to obtain her tip for the UAH temperature anomaly, and for this month it is 0.48 C.
Despite her advanced age she was still able to calculate an uncertainty of +/- 0.1 C, but, due to a malfunction of her abacus, she was not able to provide an estimate that includes serial correlation.
She also expressed some interest in the goats, but not in the horses as they are not as well suited to the rocky terrain.
The Oracle’s Kung Fu is strong.
What an amazing thread!
But to the topic, I think we might continue to see a net downward trend for the next few months. That looks like quite a powerful La Nina happening in the Pacific right now.
BOM Australia have finally admitted that it is ‘on’. But for about a month they were in denial that it was actually happening. NOAA were more up-front about it.
What fiction is this? BoM has been on la Nina alert for some months, forecasting a probable la Nina. Same for NOAA. As Nina conditions must persist for 3 to 6 months before a full-blown la Nina is called, neither institute has done so.
NOAA definiton:
El Nino: characterized by a positive ONI greater than or equal to +0.5C.
La Nina: characterized by a negative ONI less than or equal to -0.5C.
By historical standards, to be classified as a full-fledged El Nino or La Nina episode, these thresholds must be exceeded for a period of at least 5 consecutive overlapping 3-month seasons.
ONI has precisely one 3-month season exceeding la Nina thresholds, and that will become 2 at the end of this month.
BoM definition:
In order for 2017-18 to be classed as a La Nia year, thresholds [-0.8 ONI anomaly] need to be exceeded for at least three months.
These are the (NOAA) ONI values for the past year to date:
2017 1 -0.33
2017 2 0.01
2017 3 0.11
2017 4 0.29
2017 5 0.44
2017 6 0.39
2017 7 0.27
2017 8 -0.22
2017 9 -0.52
2017 10 -0.61
2017 11 -0.99
Both institutes have said we are ae or near la Nina conditions for a couple of months now.
And anyone can check the BoM archive for what their recent reports have said.
http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/enso/wrap-up/archive.shtml
Here’s the last few.
5 December La Nia established in tropical Pacific
21 November La Nia ALERT: Tropical Pacific near La Nia thresholds
8 November La Nia remains possible, but effect on Australia’s climate likely to be less than during recent events
24 October La Nia WATCH activated
— J Halp-less says:
December 29, 2017 at 7:03 AM
If theres anyone honest out there, *still* somehow not getting it: I would recommend they just keep reading through this little segment of the discussion:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/12/uah-global-temperature-update-for-november-20170-36-deg-c/#comment-277965—
“An evergreen of denial is that a colder object can never make a warmer object hotter. That’s the Second Law of Thermodynamics, so according to the Agendaists, the Greenhouse Effect, with greenhouse gases playing the role of the colder object, is rubbish. They neglect the fact that heating and cooling are dynamic processes and thermodynamics is not.
Eli, of course, is a dynamic bunny and knows how to add and subtract. Divide is also possible. What is happening is that one does not have just a hot body and a cold body, but a really hot body, the sun, constantly heating a colder (much), but still warm body the Earth, which then radiates the same amount of energy to space. ”
Let’s have 3 thin plates: Blue red and green.
They are 2 mm thick and 1 meter square and are separated by
1 mm.
And all three are perfectly insulated.
You take insulation off the blue plate and have it facing the sun.
The sun is about 1.85 AU distance and has 400 watts.
The sun shines on blue plate, which warms and heat red and green plate.
Given time he blue plate warm to about 16 C and warm the red and green plate to 16 C.
And if you like you could diagram that.
Next, you remove insulation from the back of the green plate
allowing it’s 16 C surface to radiate into the 2.7 K void of space.
Now before removing the insulation from green plate, the plates were Not absorbing any energy from the sun- because it was perfectly insulated except the the side where blue plate was facing the sun.
And once the surface of blue cools from heat loss of the green plate, the plate will absorb energy from the sun.
J Halp-less says:
December 29, 2017 at 4:21 PM
“…Plates, pressed together, same temperature. Conductive *heat* transfer nil between
plates. Plates, separated by 1 mm vacuum, still same temperature. Radiative *heat*
transfer nil between plates (i.e, Q12 = 0).”
Nate says:
December 30, 2017 at 8:55 AM
You promised understanding why.
“….I agree that same temperature leads to radiative heat transfer nil because thats what SB law says.
But still same temperature. is just an assertion, not proven.”
And [Nate says]
“Such as, soldering with the iron in contact with the part, the solder will melt onto the part. Remove the iron 1 mm away, the temperature of the part reduces, and the solder no longer melts on it.
Thus contact between metals is much more effective at transferring heat than radiation or convection.”
One aspect of soldering iron is the soldering iron has mass.
So you could have soldering iron which doesn’t plug into a wall socket. You put iron in a fire, and heat up, take out of fire, use heated iron to melt solder [do some solder until iron too cold to use- put back in fire].
Or you could use a dinky electric soldering iron, which plug in wall, takes few minutes to warm up, and works ok if soldering things with low thermal mass [something like 3/4″ copper fitting being soldered to 3/4″ copper pipe- has too much thermal mass [[dinky soldering iron doesn’t work- use propane torch or bigger electric soldering iron]]].
It should noted a propane torch is using convection heat and is not a very precise tool [so use the dinky soldering iron for electronic uses]
But to point, copper and other metal do conduct more heat in some cases. Copper doesn’t work very well for rocket nozzles- which dealing with a lot convection heat transfer [though lots of reasons involved- complicated].
In model which has endless bickering about, the first plate [blue] indicates 200 watts is absorbed and only way to absorb more than 200 watts is to make back side of blue plate colder and plates added aren’t doing this.
“It should noted a propane torch is using convection heat and is not a very precise tool [so use the dinky soldering iron for electronic uses]”
Yes and its flame is much much hotter than the lowly soldering iron…
But generally agree.
g*e*r*a*n,
What’s your take on this sun shield? It is supposed to take the temperature down to 50 K.
https://jwst.nasa.gov/sunshield.html
Engineering is the correct application of the laws of physics.
Why do they use five layers when the green plate makes no difference in Elis example?
J Halp-less
I have to move your response down here about rotating objects.
Here is the accepted definition of axis of rotation.
“Definition of axis of rotation
: the straight line through all fixed points of a rotating rigid body around which all other points of the body move in circles”
Here is what you claim: “You see, Norman, this *rotation on your axis with respect to inertial space*, as you see it, has a much simpler name. Its called *orbiting*, and it is one of two possible motions the bodies can make. Rotating on their axis being the other motion. The moon does the former, not the latter. The reason? It is tidally locked.”
The Moon does both. It orbits around the Earth and it rotates on its axis. You are just wrong. Do you feel better when you make up physics that is not real?
What do you think tidally locked means. The Earth’s gravity does not link to the Moon’s axis of rotation like a rod would do.
I explained it in detail to g*e*r*a*n. He can’t understand it at all and I am afraid you are not smart enough either. You two are the biggest frauds on this blog, pretending that you know physics when all you do is make things up, all the time.
If you are married have your wife stand in the middle of a merry-go-round that you are also on at the edge. You have a brother or friend that is walking with you around the merry-go-round. Both of you rotate. You do not rotate on your axis because your axis is rotating. You still rotate, your face points one way and after a 180 degree rotation of the merry-go-round your face points the opposite direction. Your wife sees the same side of you as your brother. But your brother is rotating on his axis to keep the same side to your wife. He has to pivot around. His axis is not fixed to the merry-go-round so he will rotate on his axis. It is most simple to understand. Just because you make up physics does not make you a genius.
J Halp-less
The Earth’s gravity does not fix the Moon’s axis of rotation. This axis does not rotate around the Earth. It remains fixed as the Moon orbits. You are creating false physics by trying to pretend that the Moon’s axis rotates around the Earth. Made up crap from the wanna-be pseudoscientist. I know you admire g*e*r*a*n and want to be just like him. You have a ways to go yet. You have to dumb down a bit. You made a critical mistake by linking to real physics in one of your posts. A true established Master of pseudoscience would never make such a rookie mistake. Observe g*e*r*a*n some more so you can really get the hang of peddling in false and made up physics and pretending you know actual science. You might get there with some more effort.
Remember never link to any real science, that is a bad mistake for your type of personality.