2017 Third Warmest in the 39-Year Satellite Record
Global Satellite Monitoring of Temperature Enters its 40th Year
The Version 6.0 global average lower tropospheric temperature (LT) anomaly for December, 2017 was +0.41 deg. C, up a little from the November, 2017 value of +0.36 deg. C:
The global, hemispheric, and tropical LT anomalies from the 30-year (1981-2010) average for the last 24 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
2017 12 +0.41 +0.50 +0.33 +0.26
The linear temperature trend of the global average lower tropospheric temperature anomalies from January 1979 through December 2017 remains at +0.13 C/decade.
2017 ended up being the 3rd warmest year in the satellite record for the globally-averaged lower troposphere, at +0.38 deg. C above the 1981-2010 average, behind 1st place 2016 with +0.51 deg. C, and 2nd place 1998 at +0.48 deg. C.
The UAH LT global anomaly image for December, 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
Warm is good: let the alarmist wailing and gnashing of teeth begin.
“As a result of global increases in both temperature and specific humidity, heat stress is projected to intensify throughout the 21st century. Some of the regions most susceptible to dangerous heat and humidity combinations are also among the most densely populated. Consequently, there is the potential for widespread exposure to wet bulb temperatures that approach and in some cases exceed postulated theoretical limits of human tolerance by mid- to late-century.”
– “Temperature and humidity based projections of a rapid rise in global heat stress exposure during the 21st century,” Ethan D Coffel1, Radley M Horton, and Alex de Sherbinin,
Environmental Research Letters, Volume 13, Number 1 (2017).
http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/aaa00e
And nobody on this site will be alive to witness this doomsday scenario.
Gotta love unaccountable doomsday forecasts
You’re sticking your head in the sand. Mid-century is only 32 years away. Many will still be alive, even of those here. Don’t you care about the world you leave for today’s children and young people?
(Do you care about the US budget deficit? What’s the difference? The young are the ones who pay for both problems here.)
davie, why do you believe religious zealots always use fear tactics? Do you believe it has something to do with funding/contributions?
G* thinks highly of science.
Nate, you got something right!
“Dont you care about the world you leave for todays children and young people?”
Dave I have read your comments on these threads for a long time now. Do you have any idea how ignorant you come off when you spew comments like this? Your camp is no where near the moral high ground you seem to think you have. For perspective call me a luke-warmer, and I am more worried about RIGHT NOW.
In the name of stopping a 2 degree warmer world – which can’t be done anyway – and we can easily adapt to. The world is turning food into fuel. There are over a billion people with no power, and your pampered ass is part of the reason they die of respiratory illnesses (from having to burn wood and dung) and malnutrition in their millions. We could improve their situation. But in the name of CAGW – for which there is absolutely no empirical evidence – we do not.
So before you talk this crap again I say “You first.” Prove your resolve. Take nothing what-so-ever that was derived from fossil fuels and walk out into the wilderness and just live.
In Minecraft parlance, strip down naked, walk into the woods and punch a tree. I don’t even give you 24 hours.
Bob,
“(from having to burn wood and dung)” I dont see how this problem derives from our energy policies in the US? If anything fossil fuel prices are lower because of efficiency in the West.
“The world is turning food into fuel.”
Massive ethanol expansion was a Bush era program. Many people, including me, agree it is a terrible idea.
Bob: We no longer have the luxury of thinking only about “now.”
Dave Appell, I’m just not seeing the warming acceleration.
For acceleration, look at sea level rise, or Arctic melting, or global glacier mass balance.
“A 20th century acceleration in global sea-level rise,” John A. Church and Neil J. White, Geophysical Research Letters, v. 33, L01602, doi:10.1029/2005GL024826, 2006GRL (2006).
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2005GL024826/abstract
“Global and regional sea level change during the 20th century,” Manfred Wenzel and Jens Schrter, JGR-Oceans, (7 Nov 2014) doi:10.1002/2014JC009900.
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2014JC009900/abstract
Sea-Level Rise from the Late 19th to the Early 21st Century, John A. Church and Neil J. White, Surveys in Geophysics, September 2011, Volume 32, Issue 4-5, pp 585-602, doi: 10.1007/s10712-011-9119-1.
http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs10712-011-9119-1
Here’s a good figure that makes sea level acceleration obvious:
http://www.columbia.edu/~mhs119/SeaLevel/SL.1900-2017.png
ANOTHER “paper” suitable for lining bird cages. Thanks, davie.
Case in point
DA,
That is unmitigated BS. We do not know what will happen even 20 years from now. In science there is the concept of falsifiabilty when evaluating an hypothesis. Those climate models are not falsifiable, therefore unscientific.
You’re confused. Climate models don’t make predictions, they make projections.
Their truest test is to start them at some point, feed in the known emissions data, volcanoes, solar changes, etc., and see if what they output is close to what actually happened. They have skill at doing so:
https://www.climate-lab-book.ac.uk/files/2014/01/fig-nearterm_all_UPDATE_2017-panela-1-1024×525.png
“All models are wrong, but some are useful.”
– George Box
You are misleading readers about the nature of statistical models. I posted the following on another website.
[This] illustrates a risk for novices in statistical modeling, a risk known as overfitting. If you give me a set of data observations, I can construct a complex formula that will predict the given data perfectly – no error at all. However, try to use that complex formula to extrapolate to NEW observations, and you are courting disaster. The complex formula is guaranteed to have a graph filled with wild oscillations, much like the predictions of the climate alarmists.
In statistical modeling, we are taught to cherish parsimony in models, meaning that a simpler model is preferable, even if it maintains a small amount of error. I am disappointed that no statistician has spoken up to refute this fraud. (end snip)
Box, and other practitioners of the past, measured the usefulness of their models by prediction, and comparing observation to prediction. Apparently for you, increasing inaccuracy is a virtue. At some point, the deplorables notice that the emperor is wearing no clothes, and you have ruined the reputation of science.
“Apparently for you, increasing inaccuracy is a virtue.”
Not sure where this notion comes from?
What I see are plenty of papers comparing data to models, and trying to determine what assumptions make some models do better.
No different than any field of research. It is an ongoing process of refining models to better reflect data.
Surak: Climate models aren’t statistical models, they’re physics models. They don’t project by fitting past data, they project by solving the equations that govern climate.
Congratulations on contradicting yourself in back-to-back posts.
Dave Appell, Climate Models only generate imaginary data, some coder imagines a climate scenario codes it and viola the computer generates the requisite imaginary data. Climate models don’t do science.
Dave Appell, you said “. . . theyre physics models.” I don’t think so, not unless they can accurately model multiple-closely-coupled-chaotic-climate-systems, can these GCM’s model chaos theory Dave ?
Climate models are no different from the models uses to design airplanes, bridges, etc — they take input, calculate via the known laws of physics, and get an output.
For your perusal:
“Description of the NCAR Community Atmosphere Model (CAM 3.0),” NCAR Technical Note NCAR/TN464+STR, June 2004.
http://www.cesm.ucar.edu/models/atm-cam/docs/description/description.pdf
‘Climate models dont do science.’
Well…
Science is about predictions and observations. Sometimes a computer is required to solve the eqns and make the predictions.
This is done for black hole collisions (just observed!) or plasma physics for fusion reactors, or testing new microprocessor designs.
Are these also examples of not doing science?!
No DA. They are treated as predictions. But it does not matter. They do not meet the tenets of the scientific method anyway.
No, they are treated as projections. Ever heard of the RCPs? They assume particular futures, none of which will actually come to pass.
They are NOT SCIENTIFIC. The RCP”s are BS. They cannot be falsified, you idiot.
I didn’t say the RCPs are “scientific.” They’re simply assumptions of future energy use.
SkepticGoneWild says:
“We do not know what will happen even 20 years from now.”
That’s the purpose of the RCPs, which are assumptions about future energy use.
And, yes, we can make some intelligent assumptions. For example, one is that this trend will continue:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keeling_Curve#/media/File:Mauna_Loa_CO2_monthly_mean_concentration.svg
“In science there is the concept of falsifiabilty when evaluating an hypothesis.”
That’s a simplistic notion. It’s true for experimental sciences, but climate science is not an experimental science, it’s an observational science. (So are geology, astronomy, medical science, and more.)
There is no Earth 2 that we can set up with conditions we’d like to test against and see what happens in 150 years.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41559-017-0414-1
Dave this extensive savannah is a more likely outcome based (more) on empirical data. Earth was warm in Miocene and we will likely revert to that ecosystem. My home state of Indiana was mediteranian, and to the South in TN and Florida was likely a monsoon. Even last interglacial at 120k yr ago, sea level was 6 m higher so it was much warmer. So I do agree this will be a dramatic change but it is not all doom and gloom. Canada and Siberia will be great. Dont get me wrong if this happens there will be big loosers and winners. And yes countries need to get their population in control before nature does. We cant solve the CO2 problem without population control anyway. People want energy.
Aaron, looks like we have reached the previous interglacial temperatures:
“The global mean annual values were ∼0.5C warmer than they were 150 years ago and indistinguishable from the 19952014 mean. This is a sobering point, because sea levels during the last interglacial period were 6 to 9 m higher than they are now.”
http://science.sciencemag.org/content/355/6322/276
We need much more energy, but count all costs and pick something sensible.
The trouble is that there is hardly “something sensible to pick” in terms of renewable wind and solar energies to replace seriously the fossils. Those can simply not meet the challenge.
We already addressed this topic, Svante.
One may heavily whine about and deplore it but we will most likely burn all the fossil fuels available on this planet.
The only way to theoretically maintain civilization at present population level with little fossils seems to be nuclear fission (and fusion) with their own relevant well known risks and moreover potentially sooner or later many other vital resource’s shortage.
Now the practical and much more likely and realistic way to maintain (or rather rebuild) civilization in future is to “drastically reduce” global population level by at least one or two orders of magnitude.
That’s the real inconvenient truth.
The plan put forward to cool air In Antarctica to make it snow c02 looks like it would work. It would cost lots but less than switching everything to non fossil fuels.
Rofl… Anyone who convinces people to give him money to cool Anrarctica deserves ti live like a king … King of the snake oil salesmen LOL
gammacrux,
Solar and Wind power growth has been dramatic. Some states ND, TX getting a substantial fraction of energy from Wind.
The idea that, in next decades, these sources won’t be playing a significant role in our energy supply seems silly.
Example: US peak electric power 10^9 kW.
PV solar area needed in desert SW for peak power: 10^10 m^2 = 10^4 km^2 = 62 mix 62 mi.
A bit larger than Phoenix metro area.
Not that it would be done that way.
The point is it is 1890, and you are saying electric will never supplant gas light.
it is 1910 and you are saying the horseless carriage will never replace the horse.
It is 1970 and you say cable TV is a passing fad. etc
Nate,
What’s really silly is to believe that wind and solar might ever seriously replace fossil fuels, even if one considers only electricity generation that is, by the way, just a part of human energy needs.
From a physical point of view, it’s simply impossible because of intermittence and the need to implement huge storage capacity, a technology that does not even yet exist at appropriate scale.
The installed power of wind and solar is irrelevant. What’s important is only the relevant fraction of the total energy injected into the grid. It remains (and most likely will remain) small.
Germany is a typical example of fairly large installed wind and solar power and guess what ? Not only did their CO2 emissions not decrease but they even augmented and they burn now more coal than before. Moreover their grid ‘tolerates” that much renewables only because neighbors such as Switzerland or France did not themselves install so much intermittent power.
Similarly worldwide coal consumption never decreased and it still augments In spite of and in part even because of solar and wind power installation. The “cheap” solar panels are fabricated in China with electricity generated incoal plants.
In the US it’s their switch to gas plants that reduced the emissions a bit, not wind or solar.
Again what’s silly is to believe that wind and solar will curb any soon our CO2 emission to an extent that might have an influence on climate..
“From a physical point of view, its simply impossible because of intermittence”
Impossible is a strong word and one should be cautious in using it. Not impossible from a fundamental POV.
Storage is an issue, but it is being vigorously researched, and even today there are promising options, batteries, pumped hydro, hydrogen, thermal, flywheels, compressed air.
Germany got freaked by Fukushima about nuclear, made a political choice.
“Similarly worldwide coal consumption never decreased and it still augments In spite of and in part even because of solar and wind power installation.”
That is just an assertion. Asian energy demand has grown dramatically in two decades. That is the main reason coal consumption increased.
Nate,
Well, when I say “impossible”, I mean impossible with present technology at a scale that might allow a decent life of and energy supply to 7+ billions people.
I quite agree that it’s certainly not impossible at a smaller scale.
I got sensible comments only, how refreshing!
I’ll continue on Nate’s comment below.
Methane with nuclear are the best viable options. I agree wind and solar are unrealistic to scale up in most situations. Also we should have a conversation about population. Its simple math US consumption per capita is dropping fast… its the population growth that is the issue. Final add, lumping all hydrocarbons or fossil fuels together is a dirty political trick. Coal and methane are totally different in CO2 production and more importantly for pollution. Asking developing countries to jump to wind and solar is crazy. That money should go to methane infrastructure. We need to get them off of open fires with dung and wood and on methane. Its a cruel joke to keep them in poor air conditions for a political stance.
“We need to get them off of open fires with dung and wood and on methane. Its a cruel joke to keep them in poor air conditions for a political stance”
Your the 2nd person to state this odd correlation between dung fires and renewable energy. Please cite some source for this notion.
Nate,
“Your the 2nd person to state this odd correlation between dung fires and renewable energy. Please cite some source for this notion.”
Im not sure what you are disagreeing with? Obviously pollution is huge from indoor cooking. Solar and wind are more and less reliable than methane in many places (Africa, Asia, etc).
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/019689049400086F
http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs292/en/
We need everything we can muster.
A 4th generation reactor by a guy from my home town:
https://tinyurl.com/yar84gas
It would be wrong for government to prescribe technical solutions, it should just put us in the sweet spot here:
https://tinyurl.com/ybqjzrs6
Government does have a role in fundamental research, for example fusion power.
Aaron,
You’ve said something is bad, dung fires, and its a direct result of something else, renewable energy.
I asked for evidence of connection.
All you give is evidence that the thing is bad.
If there is no grid in parts of Africa,
1. Is it because of renewables?
2. Is having non-grid power a bad thing?
Dubious claims.
https://www.sciencealert.com/denmark-got-42-of-its-electricity-from-wind-last-year-smashing-the-world-record
re: intermittency
Yes, we talked about this before.
Avoid static thinking, we are talking about a moving target.
Battery prices are coming down fast, but it’s not just about storage.
Denmark can have 42% wind power because Norway can balance it with water power. The same is possible on the american west coast and other parts of the world. There will be an international H*V*D*C grid that can even out local fluctuations.
Of course the grid needs backing power, natural gas turbines etc., just like now. Consumption can be adapted with variable prices, and major consumers can agree to cut back once in while.
David Archer said known petroleum reserves may not be enough to put us over +2 C, you need coal for that. I think he is wrong because new technology keeps giving us more and more oil. Anyway, the transportation sector has only 14% of the total CO2 emissions (last time I looked). It could run on natural gas, but it looks like electricity is cheaper.
I think Richard Muller is right that we need fracking and natural gas as a stop gap measure. In fact we need everything we can find.
Traditional nuclear power is not so cheap with modern safety standards (clean coal is not that competitive either), although there are a lot of promising developments.
Anyway, consumers must be given a true price to make optimal choices, and to create incentives for new solutions.
Certainly, I think so too.
Yet the challenge is so formidable that there is no reason (as unfortunately done repeatedly in media in France- and even academia in the US- ) to tout there simply exists a satisfactory “solution” with nearly 100% renewables.
What is despicable is to delude people and tell them lies such that wind turbines and solar photovoltaics might readily “solve” the problem without drastic economic recession.
https://ourfiniteworld.com/2017/07/22/researchers-have-been-underestimating-the-cost-of-wind-and-solar/
And this is just the problem to maintain (and in poor countries merely install from scratch and develop) an electric grid.
And then there is the problem of agriculture, transport, fishing, public works, logging etc. Tractors, trucks, airplanes etc will still need liquid hydrocarbons because there is simply no serious alternative solution. The fuels might be synthetic but there is by now no economic way to do this with renewables.
“satisfactory solution with nearly 100% renewables.”
Strawman.
Sensible people are all talking about an energy mix, with ramping up over decades of renewables.
And, of course, the market playing a large role in determining which energy sources are dominant.
The link is had some good points, but seemed stuck in antiquated pricing schemes.
“Economists have set up their economic models as if we would never reach limits.”
On the contrary, economics is all about allocation of scarce resources.
I agree it will take decades, markets must have time to find the optimum without a recession.
Not true in media and politics. Delusion is ubiquitous.
And, sadly, not even true at all in academia:
http://web.stanford.edu/group/efmh/jacobson/Articles/I/CombiningRenew/CONUSGridIntegration.pdf
And by the way, according to the so-called “scientific consensus” itself, a rapid and drastic transition to low carbon energy sources is allegedly mandatory if one is to expect a sizable mitigation effect.
Gamma,
The article is great evidence against your ‘impossible’ claims. Offers possible solutions.
Here are academics suggesting an mix and 5 decade ramping:
http://cmi.princeton.edu/wedges/intro.php
That last link has most of the things we have been talking about.
Perhaps we are in agreement – it’s just a matter of time.
The way I see it, you don’t have to worry about solutions if you put the right price on all those risks and damages. If we keep burning coal it means it is worth it and those other solutions are just too difficult.
Indeed, IMO the strategy proposed in Nate’s link is certainly much more serious and credible than Jacobson’s one.
Good for you SkepticGoneWild. Over that first denial hurdle! 🙂
No. I said warm is good, Einstein.
Maybe read before commenting. “2017 ended up being the 3rd warmest year in the satellite record”.
Maybe you should learn to read English. Your response to my first comment was just plain dumb. Were you dropped as a baby?
“… behind 1st place 1998 with +0.48 deg. C, and 2nd place 2016 at +0.44 deg. C. Thus, despite recent warmth, we are now entering the 20th year without beating the record warmth of 1998.”
Am I missing something?
According to UAH TLT V6, as linked to above, the year 2016 was +0.51 deg. C, not +0.44 as stated.
That would make 2016 the warmest year in the UAH TLT record, with 1998 in second place.
We’re now entering the 2nd year without beating the record warmth of 2016.
Rgds
TFN
and perhaps it would be fair to add an acknowledgement that
“this means that 2016 and 2017 are both in the top 3 warmest years in the UAH TLT V6 dataset, despite the prevailing weak La Nina conditions that prevailed from the second half of 2016 until the present”
And 2017 actually is the warmest non-el nino year in the record.
2017 may yet be called a la Nina year if current conditions persist.
I think when considering ENSO it makes more sense to use the ENSO season as the year (July-June) and then calculate the seasonal temperature.
http://ggweather.com/enso/oni.htm
Then for the 2016-2017 season (July2016-June2017), which had a weak La Nina, UAH LT global was the warmest La Nina season in the record, and the 4th warmest season overall.
For the N.O.A.A. surface temperature, 2016-2017 was also the warmest La Nina season, but the 2nd warmest season overall.
I don’t think it makes much difference. The peak lag in cross-correlation of TLT datasets with the unsmoothed Nino data is 3-4 months, and there are still significant correlations at a lag > 12 months. In other words, whats happening with ENSO now will have its strongest effect 3-4 months later and continue to affect the following year. Since ENSO event onset also slips back and forth by a few months (the current weak La Nina was very later forming, for example) you ay as well use a calendar year.
That said, it doesn’t matter how you look at it, any direct effect of the 2015/16 El Nino is well and truly over, with ENSO having first swung negative back in July 2016…. So its very hard to explain 2017’s warmth using ENSO, let alone December 2017 (2nd warmest in the UAH record if I’m not mistaken – after 2016).
No, 2016 is still the warmest year (0.51 C) with 1998 in second place (0.48 C).
In all other troposphere datasets (satellite, radiosonde, reanalysis) 2017 will likely be the second warmest year after 2016.
Indeed.
Even the table printed in the post shows that 2016 averaged 0.51. Some clarification is called for perhaps…
TFN
let me recheck the numbers…I whipped up the spreadsheet pretty fast.
Dang! My profound aplologies…will fix thge post.
Thanks Roy. Thought it was me for a minute. Feel free to delete my posts referring to it once you make the fix. Happy New Year.
TFN
A few calculations …
Here are the 12 month periods with the highest averages (with the end date listed)
Year Mo 12MonAvg
2016 11 0.528
2016 9 0.518
2016 10 0.518
2016 12 0.511
2016 8 0.502
2017 1 0.493
2016 7 0.486
1998 11 0.483
1998 12 0.483
1998 10 0.480
>Tim Folkerts says: January 2, 2018 at 9:01 AM
> A few calculations
I guess that’s essentially what the red line on the plot is showing.
Another metric could be the period since some milestone value was last seen. eg It now appears to be some 30 months since a monthly anomaly of <0.2C was last seen. No previous period has even come close.
Johnd,
Funny you should mention streaks. I was looking at that too (before life interrupted).
Here are the lengths (in months) of the longest streaks at or above a given threshold along with the end date. (In parentheses are the next longest streak and the end date)
0.0 69 @ *NOW* (41 @ JUN-04)
0.1 32 @ *NOW*(15 @ NOV-10)
0.2 29 @ *NOW*(11 @ OCT-98)
0.3 14 @ NOV-16 (10 @ OCT-98)
0.4 10 @ OCT-98 (6 @ MAY-16)
Its pretty similar for 13 month running averages.
0.0 88 @ NOV-07 (69 @ *NOW*)
0.1 59 @ *NOW*(37 @ JUN-04)
0.2 32 @ *NOW*(15 @ DEC-98)
0.3 23 @ *NOW*(11 @ NOV-98)
0.4 12 @ SEP-16 (6 @ AUG-98)
Basically a few record-long streaks occurred with the 1998 el nino — all others were set in the last couple years (and/or continue to grow each month now).
That streak will have to be broken before there’s any basis for talking about “imminent cooling.”
Latest 5 year average 0.291. 0.125 above previous 5 y record.
Looks like it will continue to increase this year-given that 2013 ave was 0.1
So much for the cold in the US. The globe does not put America first.
3 days of below freezing, similar rain, similar heat will probably keep things similar. I still wager both sides will be surprised at the new climate equilibrium, so best to start getting along now.
Pray tell us what you mean by “the new climate equilibrium”
Sorry, just another alien name.
Alarmists claim runaway climate, which hasn’t happened so obviously there are mechanisms that aren’t understood. Deniers don’t trust their own climate sensors and even basic climate logic. Draw the line between the positions.
Who’s claiming “runaway warming?”
And even if they were, it certainly wouldn’t have happened by now. Global warming is just getting started….
In fact, the model results look quite good:
https://www.climate-lab-book.ac.uk/files/2014/01/fig-nearterm_all_UPDATE_2017-panela-1-1024×525.png
Alarmists claim runaway climate
No, strange people on the net claim that “alarmists claim runaway climate.”
There’s a large army of straw men out there.
I think I represented the loudest arguments fairly.
Really? Then you should have no problem supplying a bunch of links to the MSM verifying that “alarmists” are claiming “runaway climate.”
And maybe you want to qualify what you mean by “alarmists.” Do you mean science researchers? You’re going to have little luck substantiating your claim there. If you mean journalists you’re going to have more luck finding examples, because the news media are sensationalist by nature.
As you think it is one of the “loudest” claims there should be plenty of independent references pointed to in the MSM.
MSM, of course, otherwise you’re not talking about anything “loud”.
Roy, what do you make of 2017’s warmth? Last January you guessed the year would end up about 0.20 C. Just a guess, granted. Do you see any contributing factors, or just a noisy fluctuation?
“Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D.says: “”If I had to guess, I’d say 2017 should be around 0.20.””
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/02/uah-global-temperature-update-for-january-2017-0-30-deg-c/#comment-236370“
davie, this is the second day of the New Year. Why not take this time to turn your life around? Why not try to get a job? Walmart is hiring and they promote from within. Who knows, maybe in a few years you could work up to assistant manager?
Go for it!
David,
0.13C per decade. No change. We are not doomed. The end is not near. The sky is not falling.
Chill, dude.
Uh… that IS change, and it’s statistically significant change.
1.3C warming in a century would be the fastest rate of global change since the ice ages.
To put a number on global change during the last thaw from ice age: 5C over 5000 years.
That’s 1C per thousand years. Globe is warming 10 times as fast now?
barry
I am not sure if your logic with this post is correct. I do not know if it acceptable to take an average temperature over a certain period to derive a rate of warming or cooling.
Consider this article:
https://www.nature.com/scitable/knowledge/library/abrupt-climate-change-during-the-last-ice-24288097
This article indicates climate was very chaotic during the time 18000 to 80000 years ago. Just taking an average does not really give much indication to what was actually taking place. If the climate was in a highly chaotic state your average does not really show this. In the article it said very rapid temperature changes over Greenland took place in the time scale of decades and it was quite a bit of change. I think they also indicate the changes could have been on a global scale.
“I do not know if it acceptable to take an average temperature over a certain period to derive a rate of warming or cooling.”
Bell tolls…
Yes, averages lose a lot of information. The average of 49 and 51 is 50 and the average of 1 and 99 is also 50. Different data sets – identical averages. Or as one of the entries in my tag lines and quote files says:
“Be careful of averages, the average person has one breast and one testicle”
-Dixy Lee Ray
Norman,
Greenland surface area is 0.5% of global.
It is by no means clear that the abrupt changes in Greenland are reflected globally.
In Antarctica the Byrd core from West Antarctica, and probably the Vostok and some other cores from East Antarctica, show events that are correlative to the larger millennial events of Greenland, including the Younger Dryas (6, 31). Byrd and Vostok also contain indications of events that may be correlative to nearly all of the Greenland events (31). However, the ice isotopes indicate an antiphase behavior, with Byrd warm during the major events when Greenland was cold; dating control is not good enough to determine the phase of the smaller events. The general impression of the Antarctic events is that they are smaller and less abrupt than those in Greenland, although fewer paleothermometers and other indicators have been brought to bear in Antarctica, reducing confidence somewhat.
To further complicate the issue, the Taylor Dome core from a near-coastal site in East Antarctica appears to be in-phase with Greenland and out-of-phase with Byrd during the deglacial interval centered on the Younger Dryas (32). As reviewed in ref. 33, non-ice records from broadly distributed sites in the Northern Hemisphere indicate large, abrupt changes (near-)synchronous with those in Greenland, with generally cold, dry, and windy conditions occurring together although with some sites wet perhaps because of storm-track shifts (cf. ref. 28). Some Southern Hemisphere sites also exhibit the Greenland pattern during the deglaciation, although high-resolution (annually resolved) southern records are still lacking. However, southern sites near and downwind of the south Atlantic show an anti-Greenland pattern with millennial warming when Greenland cooled, superimposed on the slower orbital variations, which are broadly synchronous in both hemispheres.
http://www.pnas.org/content/97/4/1331.full
To answer your larger point, Norman, The long-term change in the last ice age transition is something we’re much surer of than short-term global change through the transition period. I put my final point with a question mark to leave it somewhat open-ended, being aware of the Greenland record and what it suggests, and correlation issues – go with what is well-established, but keep an open mind.
If there were abrupt changes over that past period, the corollaries for times present are a double-edged sword. One could argue that current change is nothing new, or one could argue that it doesn’t take much for global climate to tip into a fairly radically new regime.
I would actually expect major shifts during a long-term major change, rather than a completely smooth transition, but the evidence on what degree of change occurred globally in relatively rapid shifts is inconclusive.
Warming is now about 30 times faster than the average rate of warming coming out of the Last Glacial Maximum.
Hard to say for sure on centennial scale, lacking good global resolution.
Sure. I mean the long-term average over many millennia.
I’m quite surprised the tropics didn’t cool.
Eh – the linked text file dataset of the lower troposphere has data only going through 2017/11. Near the top of this article is an image of text file data going through 2017/12. Where is the source of the new data for December 2017? Thanks.
Ah, I just saw the note stating that the files will be updated in the next few days.
If you are eager, you can use the date in this post and append it to the spreadsheet. It doesn’t have all the columns, but it has the key global data.
Thanks for the quick updates, Dr. Spencer! Happy New Year! I look forward to another excellent year!
Indeed. The updates are the only reason why I keep coming back.
What does average temperature mean?
http://pamola.um.maine.edu/wx_frames/gfs/ds/gfs_world-ced_t2anom_1-day.png
Do you need to have an average explained? Or do you need to learn the difference between daily temps and the ones used here?
“What does average temperature mean?”
You mean, for an entire planet?
If T(x,y,z) is the temperature at any point on the Earth’s surface, then its average is defined as for any function:
= (1/surface_area)*surface_integral_of_T
In practice the integral is approximated numerically.
In other words, the temperature of a planet is the output of a formula… which is fine and, really, it couldn’t be otherwise.
Weirdly, most people do not understand this and freak out when you tell them. After all, they protest incredulously, Earth’s temperature must be a FACT because… what if the formula is wrong? Are there no other formulas? Has the temperature of every point on Earth the same importance as any other point when calculating the average? Are the temperatures of every point on Earth really known so that it is actually possible to then calculate their average? Is the temperature on top of a mountain the same as that on a beach? And so on and on, they go, freaking out.
No, the AVERAGE temperature of a planet is the output of a formula.
Don’t pretend you can’t read.
I reckon this tale of people ‘freaking out’ for the reason stated is imaginary.
But, what does it mean physically? Temperature is an intensive variable.
If you don’t know the definition of the temperature of a gas, look it up.
Indeed, in Asia is now a bit warmer than in North America.
http://files.tinypic.pl/i/00953/vipib66r6az1.png
Asia is quite a bit warmer than it normally is:
http://pamola.um.maine.edu/wx_frames/gfs/ds/gfs_world-ced_t2anom_1-day.png
And check out all the warmth in Russia. While the US is plunged into cold, the whole Northern Hemisphere is nearly 1C above baseline.
Yes, Siberia and Alaska are scorching:
http://pamola.um.maine.edu/wx_frames/gfs/ds/gfs_world-ced_t2anom_1-day.png
This is how the left portrays this issue. It is laughable.
No Joke. During Record Cold Spell, The Guardian Warns of Global Warming
https://co2islife.wordpress.com/2018/01/01/no-joke-during-record-cold-spell-the-guardian-warns-of-global-warming/
I think its funny that you think the Guardian, in the UK, should care about a cold spell in the US, when the world experienced well above average temps.
“… when the world experienced well above average temps …”.
By definition “average means “… a number expressing the central or typical value in a set of data …”.
Why not do it simple, use the “average” in Dr. Spencers data, and that’s the anomali for 1979 – 2010;
http://clivebest.com/blog/?p=7960
Climate average is a well-defined thing. Usually a 30 y average for a date and place.
You can find this on most weather sites for your town.
Why should the rest of the world care about a not record high Cold spell in the Eastern part of US?
Are You suggesting that during Cold spells in the US, reporting or debating climate should be forbidden? Why not suggest a presidential order; during cold spells in the US, approximately 2% of the Worlds area, any mention about climate, AGW, Global Warming or Environment is punishable by death.
What a self-centric crackpot You must be.
During Record Cold Spell, The Guardian Warns of Global Warming
Unlike CO2isLife, the Guardian realizes that the US is not the whole world.
The Northern Hemisphere is 0.9C above average, even while the US is way cooler than normal for this time of year.
http://pamola.um.maine.edu/wx_frames/gfs/ds/gfs_world-ced_t2anom_1-day.png
That’s because the US is only 7% of the surface area of the NH.
barry says … at 8:51 PM
“…the Guardian realizes that the US is not the whole world.”
One of the best responses to that argument I’ve seen:
“richard verney July 8, 2017 at 6:24 am
Given:
1. CO2 is said to be a well mixed gas and therefore operates in like manner on a global scale (subject to differences in humidity/water vapour feedback); and
2 The US is a large tract of Northern Hemisphere land; and
3. The US is a good representative sample of geography and topography, and is therefore a valid sub set of the behavoir of land masses in the Northern Hemisphere;
4. The US has the best sampling of data of any significant land surface.
If the US is not showing warming (the US was warmest in the 1930s/1940s), one would needs a strong explanation as to why the US is an outlier and not behaving in the same manner as the Northern Hemisphere as a whole.
The fact is that when you have good quality data, there is no warming, just multidecadal variations, seriously begs the question as to the quality and validity of the data for other areas, and whether the so called AGW thing is just a data issue brought about the manner in which poor quality data with insufficient spatial coverage is presented.”
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/07/07/how-they-airbrushed-out-the-inconvenient-pause/comment-page-1/#comment-2545754
Its false that the US was warmer in the 1930s and 1940s. Look at the data.
David Appell says:
January 2, 2018 at 11:05 PM
Its false that the US was warmer in the 1930s and 1940s. Look at the data.
Read up on the “Dust Bowl” some time.
But don’t look at the data?
“Its false that the US was warmer in the 1930s and 1940s. Look at the data.”
The metric that assesses intense heat waves in Summer(when they count) says otherwise about the 1930’s.
https://www.epa.gov/climate-indicators/climate-change-indicators-high-and-low-temperatures
If you rank the average USA48 temperatures by decade, then the 1930s is 3rd warmest and the 1940s is 6th warmest. (That’s not counting this decade yet, since it’s not over. But it’s looking to likely be the warmest.)
data:
http://www7.n_c_d_c.n_o_a_a.gov/CDO/CDODivisionalSelect.jsp
(Remove the spacers, as usual.)
Mike, the record heat waves during 1930s Summer are still in the official record.
https://tinyurl.com/y8mqd6xs
Spring, Autumn and Winter have become warmer, and the result is that annual temps are warmer now than then.
https://tinyurl.com/yd7ej963
The Us has a bigger one (Pres. Trump).
>>> The US has the best sampling of data of any significant land surface.
Says who? So Europe has no quality data back before 1900?
Steve,
You are cherry picking a location and data set. Why not focus on Cleveland?
Reminds me of the ‘publication’ I received in the mail several years ago, prominently showing the flat temperature over time in the Sargasso sea!
All 7 continents, individually, show significant warming, with similar history, a sharp rise beginning 1980. Easiest to see at Climate at a Glance site (NO*AA), but not unique.
Steve,
1. CO2 is said to be a well mixed gas and therefore operates in like manner on a global scale (subject to differences in humidity/water vapour feedback); and
Global CO2 does not influence daily, weekly, monthly or yearly weather, nor weather patterns for such periods in a specific region. We’re talking about US temps over a week or two.
2. The US is a large tract of Northern Hemisphere land
Smaller than other tracts that are much warmer than usual. Look at Russia, twice as large as the USA, and Asia, 5 times larger than the US:
http://pamola.um.maine.edu/wx_frames/gfs/ds/gfs_world-ced_t2anom_1-day.png
3. The US is a good representative sample of geography and topography, and is therefore a valid sub set of the behavoir of land masses in the Northern Hemisphere
Straight BS. What, because the US has all sorts of topography it can be a proxy for the whole NH temp? That’s not even logic.
4. The US has the best sampling of data of any significant land surface.
Making its temp record relatively sound… Wait, what?
You and many skeptics keep telling us that the US temp record is fraudulent. Does it suddenly become valid when it’s cold in the US? In the general debate, this opportunistic double standard on the US (or global) temp record by skeptics leaves me pretty cold when they appeal to it to make a point.
If the US is not showing warming (the US was warmest in the 1930s/1940s), one would needs a strong explanation as to why the US is an outlier and not behaving in the same manner as the Northern Hemisphere as a whole.
Along a single line of latitude it can be snowing, rainy, cloudy, sunny, relatively cold or relatively warm on any given day in the Winter. You don’t need oodles of data, just look at the world weather report on any news service on any given day. RV’s attempt to link US temps to the whole NH or globe looks pretty wishful to me.
barry says:
January 3, 2018 at 2:19 AM
Steve,
…You and many skeptics keep telling us that the US temp record is fraudulent.
I keep telling you that temperature records are constantly adjusted and the adjustments form a very distinctive pattern here’s the GISS Global Land-Ocean Temperature Index as it appeared in 2005:
http://web.archive.org/web/20050914112121/http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata/GLB.Ts+dSST.txt
and in 2015:
http://web.archive.org/web/20151015132529/http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata_v3/GLB.Ts+dSST.txt
And the comparison looks like this:
http://oi68.tinypic.com/wck4lc.jpg
That graph is a few years old and GISS changes the data every single time they put out a new release. Here’s a link to Steve McIntyre’s “Climate Audit” about that fact:
https://climateaudit.org/2008/04/06/rewriting-history-time-and-time-again/
But I expect that if I did that graph today it would look pretty much the same.
Steve,
I recommend not getting your data and analysis from an agenda-driven blog (agenda not good science)
Nate says:
January 3, 2018 at 6:56 AM
Steve,
I recommend not getting your data and analysis from an agenda-driven blog (agenda not good science)
The data I posted links to is directly from GISS
The graph was constructed directly from GISS data
It’s a fact that GISS changes the historical data every single month.
Steve McIntyre wrote a critique of those data changes.
Not everything that appears on agenda driven blogs is B.S.
Steve,
Their is no accountability, such as peer review, for what is written on a blog. None. Nada. It can be very misleading, cherry picked, or straight up lies.
Steve Case wrote:
“Its a fact that GISS changes the historical data every single month.”
So does UAH.
It’s called ‘doing good science.’
David Appell says:
January 3, 2018 at 11:25 AM
Steve Case wrote:
Its a fact that GISS changes the historical data every single month.
So does UAH.
Its called doing good science.
Out of 77 editions of the GISS Land-Ocean Temperature Index that I had at the time that I made that graph, 27 entries for just January 1880 were changed. Good science? I’m guessing that the value for every month is changed at least once a year. By 2005 all the changes that were made to entries after 1980 amounted to increases. One has to wonder why that is.
UAH also changes historical monthly data from time to time, even between revisions.
It’s called quality control.
Steve, historical data is continually being found and added to the GHCN data set, and the institutes do quality control regularly. There is 10 times as much data for the NH now than they had in the 1980s, for example, when most weather station data came from the US and Europe.
If you prefer older data sets, then you prefer less coverage of the globe.
Steve Case says:
“One has to wonder why that is.”
Yes. And one can read about why.
“Understanding Adjustments to Temperature Data,” BEST
http://berkeleyearth.org/understanding-adjustments-temperature-data/
“Thorough, not thoroughly fabricated: The truth about global temperature data: How thermometer and satellite data is adjusted and why it *must* be done,” Scott K Johnson, Ars Technica 1/21/16.
http://arstechnica.com/science/2016/01/thorough-not-thoroughly-fabricated-the-truth-about-global-temperature-data/
“Understanding Time of Observation Bias,” Zeke Hausfather, 2/22/15.
https://judithcurry.com/2015/02/22/understanding-time-of-observation-bias/
I know you think the US temp records are fraudulent, Steve, so why did you applaud this statement?
“4. The US has the best sampling of data of any significant land surface.”
This only makes it a good proxy for NH (according to richard verney) if the data are good, right?
If the US is not showing warming (the US was warmest in the 1930s/1940s), one would needs a strong explanation as to why the US is an outlier
Would that be the explanation skeptics give all the time? The US data is manipulated?
You don’t see the contradiction in referring to the temp records to make a positive point, such as above, and on a different day dismissing them as completely unreliable?
To me, this is a double standard, and it reeks.
barry says:
January 3, 2018 at 7:51 AM
I know you think the US temp records are fraudulent, Steve, so why did you applaud this statement?
I KNOW that historical global temperature data is re-written every single month. See my earlier post with the links to the Internet WayBack Machine. That includes US data. US data is the only place where I can easily get Minimum and Maximum data. As I’ve been pointing out, averages erase important aspects of the record. The US data available at NOAA’s Climate at a Glance shows us that it’s the colder months of the year that run up the average temperature. The IPCC tells us that the warming will be at night, in winter and in the higher latitudes. The implication is that summer afternoons and in the tropics not so much. But what are we shown as effects of climate change by government funded science?
https://climate.nasa.gov/system/content_pages/main_images/1320_effects-image.jpg
That showed up as #1 on a Google Image search on “Climate Change”
What we are getting from NASA and other government agencies is pure good old fashioned B.S. or to use today’s parlance, “Fake News”. Does B.S. and Fake News equate to Fraud? I haven’t used the term fraud in my critiques of what passes for government funded science. You can look up the definition of fraud.
Steve,
Dont like NASA? Dont like NO*AA? How bout BE*ST? JA*XA, Had*crut? Who do you like?
They all show similar warming. If your looking, as I suspect, for a lower trend in surface data, you’re out of luck.
Steve: But have you tried to understand WHY the data are adjusted every month?
What do you find wrong with the scientific reasons for doing the adjustments?
Nate says:
January 3, 2018 at 10:11 AM
Steve,
Dont like NASA? Dont like NO*AA? How bout BE*ST? JA*XA, Had*crut? Who do you like?
They all show similar warming. If your looking, as I suspect, for a lower trend in surface data, youre out of luck.
That’s right, I don’t have access to the raw data at least not in a form that I can easily deal with. So I have to look at what I know has been adjusted whether those adjustment were honest or not.
You can always look for work that uses the raw data if you haven’t the wherewithal to analyse it yourself.
BEST was one attempt, now derided my skeptics.
Here’s another done by skeptics.
https://noconsensus.wordpress.com/2010/03/24/thermal-hammer/
Whenever skeptics actually do the analysis with raw data, they find the same or higher mean trend than the institutes.
UAH and RSS also adjust the data, and the latest revision from both groups made significant changes to the trends.
Little known fact – NOAA’s latest revision of the SST data lowered the trend.
Other little-known fact – the raw global data for the whole period has a warmer trend than adjusted.
If they’re trying to make things hotter, they shoot themselves in the foot using adjusted data.
JMA use their own SST set for the last 20 years. GSOD is an alternative to GHCN, and gets a warmer result.
The data get tested and tested, and different groups do it differently, and use different data, and skeptics (rarely) do it with raw data, and still the overall results are very similar.
When someone takes the raw data and comes up with something very different, then that will be significant, but all attempts so far only corroborate the institutes.
People yell bias simply because the data are quality controlled. But they never demonstrate it comprehensively, just cherrypick a few stations that got warmer from adjustment – and always being blind to those that got cooler due to adjustments.
Been watching this closely for 10 years. This is what I see.
“Thats because the US is only 7% of the surface area of the NH.”
Not only that, the US did not even get cold until the last week of December.
You can use the link below to view daily, 7 day, 14 day and monthly averages for any date going back over a year.
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/tanal/temp_analyses.php
1 week of bitter cold in a geographically small location of the Northern Hemisphere contributed a tiny fraction towards the monthly value.
……….And the cold came from high latitudes on the other side of the Northern Hemisphere(Siberia), where it was replaced by milder air which caused those areas to be MUCH warmer than average.
It was just an extreme reconfiguration of the heat distribution caused by an extreme weather pattern that caused air masses from Siberia to cross the Arctic, plunge southward thru Canada and continue momentum into the US.
The pattern has a La Nina type fingerprint………anomalous upper level ridge all the way north in Western North America, at times connecting to ridging in Siberia with an upper level trough downstream in Eastern North America. The flow between the two has had a strong north to south component.
The pattern is also in the process of breaking down. Next week, strong Pacific flow will start to blow zonally across the US, with milder Pacific origin air spreading across much of the country from west to east……as the northern stream retreats.
The new target for Arctic air masses may shift to the east and be in Northern Europe in the middle of January.
“an extreme reconfiguration of the heat distribution”
Nice description of whats going on , Mike. Hopefully people will take it into account.
Indeed, the eastern Arctic is warmer than the western one.
http://pics.tinypic.pl/i/00953/qxtrn73txm2q.png
It almost seems like the temperatures go up in spurts a little bit. An El Nino raises the plateau, followed by a few years of stasis, then another El Nino raises the plateau, followed by stasis, repeat.
I think this is some evidence, though no proof of course, that those who think the pause is over are correct, and that warming is resuming. That is, it is more plausible now than before that 2016 was not an anomaly, but perhaps a new baseline for future warming. Or to put it another way: maybe the skeptics were right for the last 15 years or so before 2016, but not right going forward.
The warming has been here all along, but noise can create short-term trends that, if you believe them (you shouldn’t) make it seem otherwise if you’re looking to confuse the situation.
davie imagines: “The warming has been here all along. ..”
The warming is hiding behind the La Nina and the Arctic blast, right davie?
The 13 month centered average is +.4*C since the bottoming out of the 1998 El Nino less than 19 years ago, or more than +.2*C per decade since then. How does that equate to a ‘pause’?
15-years seems like a long time to be noise in the context of trying to predict temperatures
Incoming decades.
Accidentally sent that. “In coming years”.
I wonder if there is some signal in there, something to be learned. But I am no climate expert.
It’s not. Since ENSOs can cause temporary swings in global temperature of 0.2-0.6 C, and AGW is 0.15-0.2 C/decade, a strong ENSO can temporarily obcure the AGW in 15 years.
https://static.skepticalscience.com/graphics/Escalator500.gif
DA links to the bizarre SkS website where their leaders like to Photoshop themselves as Nazi soldiers. Wow! Scraping the barrel there DA!
Cant dispute their graph, huh?
John, Dr. Spencer showed the “step change” mechanism pretty well here:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2013/11/the-magical-mystery-climate-index-luis-salas-nails-it/
The AMO is about 40 years and +/- 0.2 C IRC.
Thanks Svante and David.
Seems like the kind of thing where, from a polemical point of view, if the stairsteps continue, then you’re a fool for focusing on them, and if it slows down or rounds off, then you’re a fool for thinking there was an enduring trend.
So unless 2018 drops like a rock, which I don’t think many scientists are expecting,
Bad idea to use an old iPhone to post! Too slow and unresponsive to touch so a second inadvertently partial/unedited post. But nuff said.
So, temperature rising. Quod erat demonstrandum.
Why winter is always to be cooler in Asia? Maybe tren is changing?
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat_a_f/gif_files/gfs_z70_nh_f00.png
Sorry.
Maybe the trend is changing?
“Temperatures in Syracuse and Buffalo, New York, will struggle to get above zero during the daylight hours late this week and into the weekend. Highs will stay in the teens from Baltimore to New York City.
On Saturday, Boston will challenge its lowest maximum temperature ever recorded for the date, which stands at 7 from 1896.
Low temperature records, some dating back to the late 1800s and early 1900s, will be challenged in Baltimore; Harrisburg, Pittsburgh and Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; New York City, Buffalo and Syracuse, New York; Boston; Hartford, Connecticut; and Bangor and Portland, Maine, on Friday and/or Saturday night(s).”
Low it can cause heavy snowfall on the east coast.
https://earth.nullschool.net/#2018/01/04/0300Z/wind/isobaric/850hPa/overlay=total_cloud_water/orthographic=-88.47,41.34,1037
Pressure forecast.
http://www.lightningwizard.com/maps/North_America/gfs_cape_usa45.png
Sorry.
Ice Armageddon.
Going forward, if GT’s were to increase at 0.005 C/yr (year after year), they’d still shrilling, each and every year, that ‘this past year was a warmer, or warmer than all years in the historical record.’ Wouldn’t be very meaningful, however.
The UAH LT trend is increasing at 2.6 times your rate.
Do you understand the meaning of the word, “if?”
Why would you use a low guess when you could use the actual trend?
Bill Clinton had a difficult time with the meaning of another 2-letter word.
I think you used an small and incorrect trend just so you could rant at the people I’m sure you rant at all the time.
I posted a comment – ‘what if?’ – the only one ranting, is you.
I find that disturbing.
The item I am watching is overall oceanic surface temperatures now down to +.199c and trending lower.
“2016 will not be s warm as 2015, and 2017 will not be as warm as 2016 etc”
– Salvatore del Prete, 12/3/15
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2015/12/2015-will-be-the-3rd-warmest-year-in-the-satellite-record/#comment-203097
Salvatore, of all the people posting here you are the one that sees the forest from the trees. Happy 2018.
thanks
This is what matters
AGW is over.
“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
Your conclusions are going nowhere along with global temperature deviations.
“Global cooling has started, and it will be here for sometime to come. All the factors that control the climate are now in, or going toward a colder phase.”
– Salvatore del Prete, December 31, 2010
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2010/12/dessler-and-spencer-debate-cloud-feedback/#comment-8257
I guess thats why we had the second warmest December in the UAH TLT series eh Salvatore? (after 2016, which was #1)
David reminds one of a inexpensive computer program.
AGW is over.
Huh? You said that your view would be proved in (NH) Summer if temps were at UAH zero line in 2018.
We have neither reached that time nor that level of coldness, so how come you have made this judgement?
Whats everybodys prediction for 2018 temperature anomaly? UAH lower global atmosphere?
Stevek
“Whats everybodys prediction for 2018 temperature anomaly? UAH lower global atmosphere?”
Probably lower than 2017, I suspect. La Nina Conditions are kicking in. Month or two before the TLT picks that up.
If La Nina conditions persist, then I’d bet that 2018 will be cooler than 2017, but still the warmest La Nina year on record.
No global warming since 2016!!!
TFN
I would be slightly surprise if it when up. Seems likely to be about the same, or slightly cooler.
Salvatore Del Prete thinks it will cool significantly, which seems to me about the same probability of it going up- or I would be slightly surprised.
Over next two years it seems likely to go down from 2017.
Or I expect a slight affect from the current solar minimum
AND expect to go lower from the spike in global temperature, but also like 1998 there could step [up] change. But generally speaking a continuation of “the pause” or no acceleration in warming nor do I think there ever was an acceleration in warming.
Or we should continua to recover from the Little Ice Age and there no reason or evidence that indicates anything else.
Of course some kind evidence may become evident.
I like your “or’s” because even the anti-human climate alarmists are finally forced to acknowledge that unpredictable fluctuations supersede the claimed/projected/predicted trends. So 2018 will be whatever or… whatever.
If we are still recovering from the LIA, why are recent temperatures exceeding its beginning by 0.8-1.0 C?
“If we are still recovering from the LIA, why are recent temperatures exceeding its beginning by 0.8-1.0 C?”
LIA was cold period or why it is called the Little Ice Age, and at least one coldest periods in last 8000 years.
During LIA there was advancing glaciers globally and long term periods of sea levels falling. It was a period of time in which there were ice fairs on the river Thamas. With violent weather and Central England Temperature was recording an average temperature below 9 C and recently it’s been about 10 C. Which btw happens to be about same average temperature of
all of Earth’s land temperature.
The world’s average land is 10 C and average ocean is 17 C.
Now how I look at world, it seems obvious that global average temperature is about 15 C because the ocean warms the earth’s surface air temperature.
Ocean average temperature is much warmer than average land surface air temperature- 17 vs 10 C.
And ocean area is 70% of total earth surface area.
And what is required to increase Earth’s average temperature is for the ocean temperature to increase.
Now the tropical ocean warms the rest of the world and tropical ocean is about 80% of the tropical region. And anyone with any understanding of climate knows this.
But some might imagine that the tropical ocean must increase in temperature in order to increase global temperature- and that is not necessarily true. What is more necessarily true is tropics has to absorb more energy from the sun.
What is true now, and for “forever” is the tropical ocean does absorb most of the sunlight which reaches Earth surface
and when include the entire ocean, 70% of surface and absorb obviously more than 70% of the sunlight.
Or the land surface absorb less- even if they were 50% of surface area would absorb less sunlight as compare to ocean surface of 50% and land area is only 30%, land absorbs less than 30% of the sunlight.
So obviously less than 30%, and question is how much less?
I would guess that land area absorbs about 10% of the total sunlight.
I mean ground absorbing energy of sunlight and ground warming the air above it. And ground absorbs less than air above it- but it’s total is about 10%. And dry land as in deserts absorbs the least sunlight. Or if Sahara desert was glassland the grassland would absorb more sunlight [and have very small effect of increasing average global temperatures, though having larger region affect upon temperature.
But Sahara desert as grassland absorbs less energy as compared to Sahara desert being replaced with an ocean.
And land surface can get higher air and surface temperature, but of course it’s radiating [losing] more energy into space.
Land surface has lower average temperature and is losing more energy into space, and not doing much “global warming”- warming the rest of the world. The ocean is warming the poles, not the land areas.
Or the smaller Mediterranean sea warms Europe
more the Sahara desert does. And Sahara desert isn’t warming Mediterranean sea, rather the sea is warming the Sahara.
You get higher temperatures [ground and air] with land, but the ocean area have higher average temperature and keep land areas warmer. Or without the ocean the average land temperature of 10 C would be much colder.
Central England temperature:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central_England_temperature
2018 prediction:
Lower than 2017.
It will be warmer than any year prior to 1998.
Likely in the top 10 warmest years of the instrumental record, (ignoring uncertainty, just going by rank).
Wild guess – annual anomaly will be 0.21 for 2018.
Top 10 years by rank for UAH annual global temp anomaly:
2016: 0.51
1998: 0.48
2017: 0.38
2010: 0.34
2015: 0.27
2002: 0.22
2005: 0.20
2003: 0.19
2014: 0.18
2013: 0.13
(1998 is quite the anomaly)
Not taking any chances, are you?
Huh? I gave a prediction to 2 decimal places. I just know that it’s impossible to nail it down further than the rest of my post.
Weak La Nina now so 0.1 lower than 2017 for first half than ~ 2017 for second half.
So net .05 lower ~ .32
Don’t forget that the second half of 2016 was also a weak La Nina, which persisted through to early 2017.
http://origin.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/ensostuff/ONI_v5.php
at or below 30 year means
since records began . …
latest 30 year means 1980-2010
Yes, thanks.
Are you serious? Would love to wager some money if you are!
James
This was a reply to Salvatore
You must give Salvatore his due: he has studied the issue closely and has come to certain conclusions. He stands by them. I, for one, hope he is wrong about the results, believing warmer is better than colder.
David, and many others I’m sure, seem to believe based on what someone has told them to believe, and seem to think colder is better than warmer. Even more fantastical is their belief they can control the earth’s thermostat though mankind’s actions.
WhooHOO.
My guess is: I’ve no idea.
Salvatore has been saying the same old thing for many years — solar this, solar that, my criteria have been met, the ocean is colder today that it was yesterday, this is the decade of cooling, cooling starts next year.
And he’s been wrong all along.
Repeating the same incorrect prediction all the time is not indicative of someone who studies the science, it’s someone who never stops to think about why he was wrong and why he’s always been wrong. And it shows a heavy bias.
Wait until Salvatore discovers he can turn frowns upside down by claiming that his predictions are not predictions but projections and,… voila!
Laura: Do you understand why climate can be projected but not predicted?
It makes it easierto duck responsibility and ignore model prediction failures thus the chucken little theory can continue to be maintaind and the sheeple controlled…
You can fool some of the people….
I’m amazed at how many people are so sure adjustments are wrong but won’t take 10 minutes to understand why they’re done, in order to at least intelligently discuss or disprove them.
“Understanding Adjustments to Temperature Data,” BEST
http://berkeleyearth.org/understanding-adjustments-temperature-data/
It makes it easierto duck responsibility
Wrong answer. Do you even know the technical difference between a prediction and a projection? If not, have a guess.
Mr. Del Prete…you have lost all semblance of credibility. You seem to think all your countless fallacious predictions just vanish month by month. They dont. Anyone can go through your history here and see that your predictions have been entirely wrong.
Please spare us the nonsense….and spare yourself further embarrassment.
Reindeer are a thing of the past.
Non-sequiturs are not.
Ironic.
Glad you got the joke.
I have never changed my prediction it was always based on very low solar which is now finally being met in year 2017- going into year 2018.
In the meantime where is all the global warming? Temperatures are stuck in a slightly positive range which has not broke to the up side.
AND MOST IMPORTANT -global oceanic temperatures are trending lower which I said would occur.
Here’s the global warming:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/UAH_LT_1979_thru_December_2017_v6.jpg
Some of us know better than to expect every month be a record high or that a few weeks of SSTs are indicative of a decadal trend. I wonder when you’re going to finally understand that.
DAVID we will see. It is crazy to go back and forth.
I think year 2018 is the year.
We have already seen — you’ve been wrong for years. Then you make the same prediction again, without analyzing how you went wrong.
For you, next year is always “the year.”
A broken clock is exactly right twice every 24 hours. Salvatore seems to be banking on that principle.
TFN
I think year 2018 is the year
I’m taking this as your last chance to be right. You’ve pushed the prediction forward for many years now when it hasn’t worked out. This has to be it.
Your prediction:
“I still say according to satellite data global temperatures by next summer will be at or below 30 year means. 1980-2010.”
If la Nina conditions persist and kick in strong in the coming months, we might just get to the 30-year zero line by summer if not before.
A big volcanic eruption very soon would help kick that along.
It’s possible. For me I don’t think hitting the baseline temporarily for a few months is meaningful, especially since you use the lowest temp record with the highest baseline (UAH), but I will hold you to this prediction, especially if it doesn’t pan out.
The current La Nina is already phasing out. There is a rapidly increasing subsurface warm cell of water extending to about 160 degrees West. The current cold blob is quite shallow and concentrated around 100 W. Expect about 4-6 months of lower temp forcing from La Nina, then it will start to turn back quite quickly. There is a very small possibility that the 2018 average will be anywhere near the 30 year baseline. Should be similar to 2017 depending on the timing of the El Nino/La Nina transition and the eventual strength of the next El Nino. Although as mentioned above, a historic volcanic eruption could produce a sizable (but temporary) dip.
For tons of great graphs, google
“Weekly ENSO Evolution, Status, and Prediction Presentation” for the weekly NOAA update.
JD
If solar stays low and year 2018 is not the year I will say this time I am wrong.
“If however Dr. Spencers data and Weatherbells data still show temperatures this high a year from now I will have to say I am wrong.”
– Salvatore Del Prete, 8/3/17.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/08/uah-global-temperature-update-for-july-2017-0-28-deg-c/#comment-257573
“If solar stays low and year 2018 is not the year I will say this time I am wrong.”
Don’t.
Say it was a projection and keep on trucking.
It has always been a projection, based on a certain scenario:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/10/uah-global-temperature-update-for-september-2017-0-54-deg-c/#comment-267005
Barry, right. And Salvatore is also projecting, not predicting — he has a set of assumptions of things that he thinks matter, and of things that he thinks don’t.
And he makes assumptions about the values of certain parameters.
Aren’t the alarmists just pointing to known weather phenom and calling it proof of agw?
No. Exactly the opposite. It is the so-called skeptics that repeatedly (and often knowingly) conflate weather phenomena with climate phenomena.
Riiiiight. And, all the breathless claims that the past season’s hurricanes were PROOF of AGW? Because, of course, we never had hurricanes before.
Scientist said they were, in part, a CONSEQUENCE of AGW, not a proof of it.
What, on this blog? I didn’t see much, if any, of that.
Salvatore
You are right where is the big blow out on the upside
DA
“Some of us know better than to expect every month be a record high or that a few weeks of SSTs are indicative of a decadal trend” really… you actually wrote that
Regards
HC
No hes not. Climate Science doesnt predict a blow out on the upside. Thats a straw man…and you know it.
you actually wrote that
Is there something wrong with it?
The problem is the record is skewed misleadingly higher because there are three large El Ninos since 1998 without corresponding offsetting La Ninas. The changes or trend remains small and completely compatible with a zero anthropogenic influence. I’m not saying it is zero, just that it’s compatible with zero.
The record is not skewed. Your interpretation of the data is skewed. Climate is what happens over long periods of time. No single-year data point is meaningful in and of itself….not high or low.
John is one of those AGW believers who will say what ever it takes to support AGW which never was and natural global warming is soon to end.
But you said warming ended in 2002.
1998-99: medium La Nina
1999-00: medium La Nina
2000-01: weak La Nina
2010-11: medium La Nina
2011-12: weak La Nina
2016-17: weak La Nina
http://ggweather.com/enso/oni.htm
Incorrect
https://youtu.be/GorWMLSPC6I
My post was a response to RW.
Homework for the deniers: recreate Dana’s video using the satellite data, instead of the NASA data he used.
What are you smoking, RW?
There are a number of la Ninas since 1998, including the 2.5 year strong la Nina immediately after the 1998 el Nino, 2 la Ninas in a row 2007-2009, and the strong la Nina of 2010/11, which extended into 2012.
http://origin.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/ensostuff/ONI_v5.php
Since, and including 1997, an El Nino year:
80 blue months
63 red months
Barry,
Look at the red line in the temperature record. Do you see the 3 big upward humps since 1997 that were El Ninos? Now, do you see 3 equally offsetting downward dips from La Ninas? No. Hence, this is skewing the record and/or trend higher than it really is as it relates to GHG warming, because El Ninos aren’t caused by the build up of GHGs in the atmosphere.
Sure, but they’re temporary. They’re not responsible for the trend. They have impact on the trend if they lie at the beginning or end of the trend analysis, making it cooler if you start with a large el Nino, and warmer if you end with one. Why do you think skeptic talked about the trend since 1998 for so many years – the year of the most powerful el Nino of the last 60 years? Then they suddenly got interested in el Ninos when we had the large one in 2016, saying (as they had been told for years) that el Ninos skew the trend if they lie near one end of it, especially if you analyse a short period.
The answer to this has always been – use the whole record. This lowers the impact of occasional high anomalies. Forget 1998.
Let’s do an analysis. Trend for the whole record with and without 2016 el Nino.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah6/from:1979/mean:12/plot/uah6/from:1979/to:2016/mean:12/trend/plot/uah6/from:1979/to:2017/mean:12/trend/plot/uah6/from:1979/to:2018/mean:12/trend
Jan 1979 – Dec 2015: 0.11 C/decade
Jan 1979 – Dec 2016: 0.12 C/decade
Jan 1979 – present: 0.13 C/decade
Note: the trend is highest when you include non el Nino year 2017. The record is long enough that the 2016 el Nino doesn’t peak the trend. This is also the case since 1998, the period being just long enough that the 2016 el Nino doesn’t dominate too much – also that starting in 1998 gives us a ‘peak to peak’ period, sort of canceling each other out.
barry,
As usual, you’re missing my point. They have impacted the trend in a way that makes the overall trend higher than it would otherwise be *if* they were offset by correspondingly strong La Ninas (which they were not). I’m not saying there isn’t a warming trend over the record. There is.
I think you’ve missed my point.
If you start a trend with a massive el Nino, that will lower the overall trend than if there was not one. If you end on an el Nino that will make the trend higher than without.
If you have a number of them then it’s by no means clear what effect they have on the trend together.
There were more la Nina months than el Nino since 1998 (why are we talking about this period anyway?) The strongest La Ninas are never as powerful (re temp response) as the strongest el Ninos. But they tend to be longer. 1997/98 year-long el Nino was immediately followed by a la Nina more than twice as long, for example.
Get a long enough data set and they will have little impact no matter where they lie. That’s my point. Adding powerful 2016 el Nino year to the full satellite data record increased the long-term trend by 1 hundredth of a degree per decade. That’s a trivial difference.
So, don’t use short records. Use long records. Then el Ninos and la Ninas, wherever they lie, won’t matter much. For satellite data you need about 25-30 years of data minimum to get a robust trend. Shorter periods can be contaminated by el Nino influences. So avoid them. That’s the lesson here.
barry,
“If you start a trend with a massive el Nino, that will lower the overall trend than if there was not one. If you end on an el Nino that will make the trend higher than without.”
Yes, of course. This isn’t my point.
“The strongest La Ninas are never as powerful (re temp response) as the strongest el Ninos.”
Says who? It happens to be the case in this short record, yes, but that could just be coincidence.
“But they tend to be longer. 1997/98 year-long el Nino was immediately followed by a la Nina more than twice as long, for example.”
Yes, but a very weak one. It more or less just reverted back to the temperature it was before the big El Nino prior, i.e. didn’t dip significantly below it.
“Get a long enough data set and they will have little impact no matter where they lie. Thats my point. Adding powerful 2016 el Nino year to the full satellite data record increased the long-term trend by 1 hundredth of a degree per decade. Thats a trivial difference.”
Even if correct, that’s just one year. Elimate all of the significant El Nino and La Nina years and what impact does it have? A lot more, because the La Ninas were much weaker.
“So, dont use short records. Use long records. Then el Ninos and la Ninas, wherever they lie, wont matter much. For satellite data you need about 25-30 years of data minimum to get a robust trend. Shorter periods can be contaminated by el Nino influences. So avoid them. Thats the lesson here.”
I’m not using short records. Besides, trends matter little when the amount of the trend can be wiped out in only one or two months of consecutive cooling.
Says who? It happens to be the case in this short record, yes, but that could just be coincidence.
It is the case for the record since 1950, and also the case for the longer record extending to before 1900.
It could all be a coincidence, and la Ninas should *normally* be equally strong re temp response to to el Ninos, but we go with the data we have.
Yes, but a very weak one. It more or less just reverted back to the temperature it was before the big El Nino prior, i.e. didnt dip significantly below it.
I’m looking at the ENSO indices.
I’m trying to figure out what your point is. Do you imagine that the heat of each el Nino is cumulative to the surface temp record? I thought they were temporary blips, whose heat subsides into background, regardless of following la Ninas.
A 100 year linear trend of say 0.5 C/decade would remain 0.5 C/decade if you had el Ninos evenly interposed from beginning to end and no la Ninas. Only the mean temperature for the period would change.
But do you imagine that the heat released stays in the atmosphere unless a la Nina removes it?
If I take that for the moment as how you perceive it, then some simple calcs on the 97/98 event and following la Nina could go like this:
97/98 el Nino lasted 13 months with an average NINO surface anomaly of 1.67 C above normal. That accumulates to 21.7 C over the period.
The la Nina immediately following averaged at -1.01 C over 33 months, which yields -33.33 C for the period.
The weaker la Nina, being more persistent, has a stronger impact than the el Nino overall.
But I don’t know if this responds to what you are thinking because what you are saying is not clear to me.
Elimate all of the significant El Nino and La Nina years and what impact does it have? A lot more, because the La Ninas were much weaker.
This makes me think you DO imagine the temporary diversion have some cumulative effect. No, removing all el Ninos and la Ninas over a long-term period (decades) would have little impact on the trend, only on the mean temperature for the whole period.
Im not using short records.
You began this thread with 1998. That’s a short period relative to the variability in temperature data. But still long enough to provide a fairly robust trend against swings of a few months.
Besides, trends matter little when the amount of the trend can be wiped out in only one or two months of consecutive cooling.
I just showed you that using the whole satellite record, 2016 – a whopper el Nino – changed the overall trend by 1 hundredth of a degree.
You might be interested in this next bit:
The slight warming trend since 1998 in the UAH data is 0.07 C/decade.
Do you know how cold January would have to be to wipe out the slight warming trend since 1998 in the UAH data?
It would have to be -5.8 C. The coldest anomaly in the UAH record is -0.51 C (Aug 1985).
I’m not sure you understand the impact ENSO events have on long-term data. It’s tiny. You’ll only get trends wiped out in one or two months if you use short-term data and pick start/end dates that give you a really small trend to begin with.
You may have to explain in more detail what you are thinking. I don’t think I’m getting it. I’d also ask if you know how a trend is derived. You realize it’s not done by drawing a straight line with a ruler from one point to another?
I made some test data from 1979 to 2019, beginning at 0.1 C for the first year, and increasing by 0.1 C each year to 2019 (4.1 C).
That yields a trend of 1 C/decade.
Then I added a major el Nino every 10 years that raised the annual temp by 0.5 C and no la Ninas.
Eg:
1979 0.6 [el Nino]
1980 0.2
1981 0.3
1982 0.4…..
1987 0.9
1988 1.0
1989 1.6 [el nino]
1990 1.2
1991 1.3…..
1997 1.9
1998 2.0
1999 2.6 [el Nino]
2000 2.2
2001 2.3…..
and so on.
With large el Ninos added every 10 years the resulting trend is:
1.017 C/decade
With no la Ninas and only large el Ninos the difference in trend is 1 hundredth of a degree for the whole record.
What if we double the number of large el Ninos, so that they happen every 5 years instead of every 10? And no la Ninas at all.
Trend result: 1.015 C/decade.
It’s actually a lower trend than with 10-yearly el Ninos by a couple of thousandths of a degree. More el Ninos, lower trend – who’d a thunk?
This is without la Ninas at all and a sudden jump of 0.5 C every 5 years.
Temporary Temp swings only have a large impact on the trend if short-term data are used. That’s the lesson here. The other lesson is that timing matters, which is why you get a very slightly lower trend with more el Ninos, simply because of where they lie on the timeline.
Maybe visuals will do the trick.
I redid the linear regression, but with increments of 0.01 C per year, and 0.5 C Nino jumps every 10 years. This igves an overall trend of 0.1 C/decade, lower than UAH.
This is the result. Blue diamonds are the data, red squares the linear trend in yearly progression, with black line for the trend itself.
https://i.imgur.com/9kKm8nu.png
And NO la Ninas.
Here’s the result with Ninos every 5 years and NO la Ninas.
https://i.imgur.com/y7TWGAs.png
The trend lines with Ninos are virtually identical to the trend without. The only noticeable difference is that the mean for the whole period is higher.
Even with only el Ninos, the trend change is virtually nil from no el Ninos.
Major el Nino temp deviations don’t have much of an impact on the trend when using long-term data.
Bonus round: what would the change in trend be if we had only one major el Nino right at the end of the 41-year data set?
https://i.imgur.com/IEcwKGy.png
The trend?
0.117 C/decade
Less than 2 hundredths of a degree per decade change with a massive el Nino right at the end of the record and NO la Ninas.
Extra bonus round: How cold would a whole year at the end of the synthetic record have to be to get a negative trend?
https://i.imgur.com/7jGg3fq.png
Yep, you’d need an annual average anomaly of -2.5 C for a whole year to make the trend negative.
For a couple of months to wipe out the trend global temps would have to be much colder for this synthetic data.
For the actual UAH data, January 2018 would need to be -5.8 C to wipe out the slight warming trend from only 1998. Yes, the decimal point is in the correct place. To wipe out the trend for the whole record, Jan 2018 would have to be much colder than the depths of the last ice age. About -38 C.
https://i.imgur.com/6IZUayn.png
Lesson: the more data you have, the less impact occasional deviations have.
barry,
You apparently don’t understand the difference between the long term trend itself and the amount of the trend. The long term trend itself cannot be wiped out by a month or two of cooling, but the amount of the trend can be.
If the trend were 3-4C instead of about 0.3-0.4C, where monthly swings were still only a few tenths of a degree, then the trend is clear and significant. When monthly or consecutive monthly swings in temperature are not infrequently as large or larger than the entire trend itself, it’s not very significant since a month or two of change can easily get you back to the same level as the baseline temperature of the trend in one direction or another.
barry,
“But do you imagine that the heat released stays in the atmosphere unless a la Nina removes it?”
And no, this is not what I think at all.
barry,
You put way too much weight into so-called trend analysis. I fully agree there is a warming trend in the satellite record of about 0.4C (or whatever it actually is). I fully agree that there is a warming trend in the last 100+ years of about 0.5-1.0C.
The bottom line is when your start points and end points significantly impact the result of any trend analysis, it’s not a robust result, especially, as I’ve said, when the decades long trends are so tiny that monthly changes are not infrequently as large as the entire trend amounts themselves. Not to mention also that the margin of error of the data is not much less than the entire trend amount either.
Any trend in either direction over any given period will only be known in hindsight. There is nothing in any trend analysis, cooling or warming, over any period of time, that indicates more cooling or more warming is to come in the future.
RW, the land trends are 2 degrees F in 40 y. Not insignificant.
Monthly var in troposphere are double those at surface.
The bottom line is when your start points and end points significantly impact the result of any trend analysis
That’s simply not true with long-term data as I’ve shown above.
its not a robust result, especially, as Ive said, when the decades long trends are so tiny that monthly changes are not infrequently as large as the entire trend amounts themselves
The monthly swing could be 10 times larger than the trend and still not make much of an impact if the period is long enough.
I’ve done the regressions. With long-term data, even small trends are not going to be much affected by ENSO events at the beginning or end. I demonstrated that above.
Does it not impact you that to get a flat trend for the whole satellite period from this month’s anomaly, that anomaly would have to be -38 C??
That’s with a trend of 0.13 C per decade over 40 years. That’s small, isn’t it?
The strongest la Nina we’ve ever seen would barely make a dent on the long-term trend.
What you are concerned about does matter when the period is very short. A trend of 0.13 C/decade over only 2 years can easily be wiped out by a weak la Nina over a few months.
That’s why linear regression is superior to, say, drawing a line between two selected data points. Trend analysis makes an estimate using all the data. Say I chose Jan 1979 and Dec 2017 as my start and end points. The ‘ruler’ method is derived from 2 bits of information, and the result only compares those 2. Linear regression uses 468 bits of information to derive a trend. A temp swing at the end of a dataset has to compete with the combined weight of 468 data points. Short-term deviations just don’t have much of an impact with long-term data.
To repeat, the 2016 very, very strong el Nino increased the long-term trend by 1 hundredth of a degree per decade.
Here it is in pictures: figures supplied.
https://i.imgur.com/FyZJJ8b.png
https://i.imgur.com/tP7cOXU.png
If you think a big temp swing changes things by much, what do you think of this result?
barry,
Dude, you’re not hearing and understanding what I’m saying. You keep posting stuff in response that I generally don’t even dispute or disagree with.
I’m going to let the readers decide. I think my comments speak for the themselves and points I made are logical and clear.
barry,
I’m not saying there have been no La Ninas, as there have been. Only that they weren’t nearly as strong as the 3 El Ninos.
RW:
There’s another explanation.
Global temperatures are increasing by 0.13 degrees C per decade, and that makes any El Nino year look much stronger due to the underlying, ongoing increase, while La Nina years look much weaker due to the underlying, ongoing increase.
Look at the data. El Nino years are getting hotter. La Nina years are getting hotter. Neutral years are getting hotter.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GorWMLSPC6I&feature=youtu.be
RW
You commented:
“Look at the red line in the temperature record. Do you see the 3 big upward humps since 1997 that were El Ninos? Now, do you see 3 equally offsetting downward dips from La Ninas? No.”
As I mentioned, since 1997, blue months have significantly outnumbered red months (80/63). OTOH, the el ninos have been more intense, which likely explains the temperature spikes we see with the latter but not the former.
My guess is it ends up about a wash WRT global anomalies.
You can’t just count colors, because the months have different values.
Over the past 10 years, the average ONI is 0.00. The 15-year average is -0.03. 20 years, -0.13. That’s very close to neutral (and just slightly La Nina-ish).
data:
http://ggweather.com/enso/oni.htm
David
Your comprehension/reasoning skills suck.
If I only counted colors, why would I claim the El Ninos were more intense? Why would I guess it ends up a wash?
BTW, I was trying to expain why we don’t see, “3 equally offsetting downward dips from La Ninas”.
Pointing out the average ONI doesn’t do it.
UAH is not ‘global temperatures’ it is troposphere temperatures. Global temperature has been rising faster than the troposphere temperature.
Snape, you wrote “blue months have significantly outnumbered red months (80/63).” I pointed out that that does indicate much.
The ONI is “the running 3-month mean SST anomaly for the Nio 3.4 region.” Temperatures. And it’s averaged very close to zero for the last 20 years; in fact, slightly negative (La Nina-ish).
So you can’t attribute the warming of the last 20 years to El Ninos. A better question is, why are El Nino years getting warmer (surface and LT), why are La Nina years getting warmer, and why are neutral years getting warmer? The heat doesn’t just pop out of nothing.
David
“Snape, you wrote blue months have significantly outnumbered red months (80/63). I pointed out that that does indicate much.”
Since the average ONI ends up a wash, even though red months are much fewer, this indicates red months have a greater departure from normal compared to the blue (this can be verified by examining the individual values).
Fewer, but stronger, the el nino months create a more noticeable jump when looking at the TLT record.
Those more noticeable spikes tend to mislead skeptics into thinking El ninos have been dominant, even though, as you point out, that’s not true.
“Without corresponding offsetting La Ninas”
Huh? What about the strong ones in 99-2000, in 2008, in 11-12?
Yes I am correct the AGW models have sucked in their predictions.
Wrong again.
https://www.climate-lab-book.ac.uk/files/2014/01/fig-nearterm_all_UPDATE_2017-panela-1-1024×525.png
https://www.tropicaltidbits.com/analysis/ocean/global.png
this is what matters and this was around +.35c in summer
What kind of car did I win?
Salvatore, don’t you have any sense of shame? You’re as bad as GR.
2017: warmest non-El Nino year in UAH’s records.
39 years since Jan 1979, @0.13 degrees C per decade.
That’s 0.51 degrees Celcius of warming so far, and no indication the trend will change, much like Salvatore’s predictions won’t change.
2017 was the hottest non-El Nino year on record.
1972 had similar solar irradiance levels and neutral ENSO conditions to 2017. Average temp difference? 0.9 degrees. That’s using NASA data, which is less than 0.05 degrees C different from the satellite data for long term warming trend. Different measurements, very similar results.
https://youtu.be/GorWMLSPC6I
Joel
Yesterday Gordon showed this graph of the Little Ice Age:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:2000_Year_Temperature_Comparison.png
The difference between the Medieval Warm Period maximum and LIA minimum? ~0.9 C
That took 600 years!
According to the graph, the rate of temperature change between MWP and LIA was about 0.015 per decade.
The current rate is approximately 10 times faster.
I don’t know how anyone can say when the LIA ended. Some people say it’s still ending. Always seems like pure assertion to me. And it is, because they never explain why they think this. They just seem to like it as an explanation for recent warming.
I would say that since the LIA was caused by a quick string of volcanic eruptions in 1275-1300 and an associated ice-albedo feedback, the LIA ended when temperatures returned to the pre-LIA level. That would put it sometime around 1900. We’ve had 1 C of surface warming since.
Miller, G. H., et al. (2012), Abrupt onset of the Little Ice Age triggered by volcanism and sustained by sea-ice/ocean feedbacks, Geophys. Res. Lett., 39, L02708, doi:10.1029/2011GL050168.
” barry says:
January 2, 2018 at 10:03 PM
I dont know how anyone can say when the LIA ended. Some people say its still ending. Always seems like pure assertion to me. And it is, because they never explain why they think this. They just seem to like it as an explanation for recent warming.”
It’s commonly agreed LIA ended somewhere around 1850.
So one can say it ended at 1850 [because it’s commonly agreed- but it’s necessarily true, but it’s “how” you can say it.]
Now it’s said it’s 1850 because it’s was around time period where global glaciers stopped advancing and started retreating
as an average- because individual glaciers can advance or retreat mostly due to local conditions. Or currently there are some glaciers advancing but most still continue retreat or yearly advancing and retreating and no measurable direction other say a slight retreat over say, 10 years or more.
Another broad measuring stick is rising sea level. Of course rising sea levels are hard to measure for many reasons and modern monitoring, you need a few year to determine the small increase is sea level rise. Or can’t really say how sea level change in 2017- but say how much say 2010 to 2016 changed in terms global sea level. So wiki:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_level_rise#/media/File:Trends_in_global_average_absolute_sea_level,_1880-2013.png
from:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_level_rise
Or why does wiki only go to 2014. It not because no cares and they excessive lazy. But rather because there is fair amount confidence- though maybe a bit lazy.
Now in terms ending glacial periods, one has lot sea rise rise occurring- making easier to say when it ended.
Also the air temperature spike quite dramatic. Plus it’s such long time ago, that 10 year period is a small dot on graph. Nor can precise in terms less than a decade of time be possible.
Now, I generally avoid citing realclimate.org but did provided a guess about last 2000 years of sea level rise:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2011/06/2000-years-of-sea-level/
And a commenter says:
–Kevin McKinney says:
20 Jun 2011 at 8:53 PM
Very interesting indeed. On the graph, the increase in SLR appears to set in somewhere around 1800, which seems a bit early for big anthropogenic effectsthough its a bit hard to be definite due to the scale and image size. Can you say more about that? (Its a question the usual suspects would raise, to be sure.)–
And:
[Response: Actually, the sea level reconstruction (blue curve) doesnt show an increase until later (roughly 1900). ….]
If Kevin “right” one could argue LIA ended in 1800 and if “mike” is correct one could say about 1900 as it relates sea level rise.
http://www.cnn.com/2016/02/23/world/climate-change-sea-levels-study/index.html
Updated 6:17 AM ET, Thu February 25, 2016
“The authors said it was the first estimate, to their knowledge, of global sea level change over the past 3,000 years based on a “statistical synthesis of a global database of regional sea level reconstructions.”
And:
The study found that that the global sea level fell by
“a statistically robust” 8 centimeters between 1000 and 1400, a period in which the global temperatures declined by about 0.2C, he wrote.”
In the graph provided [which began about 1750] it recovers that period
“high” level at 1750 [which is sloping down and then goes up] until about 1950.
But sea level appears to “take off” starting around 1920
So search: global sea level rise in 3000 years
Ah, the paper:
http://www.pnas.org/content/113/11/E1434.full
Its commonly agreed LIA ended somewhere around 1850.
A lot of skeptics say we continued to ‘recover’ from it throughout the 20th century and that the ‘recovery’is ongoing.
gbaikie says:
“The study found that that the global sea level fell by
‘a statistically robust 8 centimeters between 1000 and 1400, a period in which the global temperatures declined by about 0.2C, he wrote.'”
That’s worrisome. That would mean our 1 C of warming will create 40 cm of SLR, and 2 C 80 cm. That’s about what models project.
Sea level takes a long time to rise. Ours will be rising for thousands of years. In the distant past, sea level has changed by 10-20 meters for every 1 C of global temperature change.
–barry says:
January 4, 2018 at 6:28 AM
Its commonly agreed LIA ended somewhere around 1850.
A lot of skeptics say we continued to recover from it throughout the 20th century and that the recoveryis ongoing.–
I am not aware of “lot of skeptics” saying this.
I would say a lot skeptics say LIA was a cold/cooler period and if measuring a trend from cooler “dip” ten one has what appears to be “more warming”. Just though cherry picking a trend starting from low or high valley or peak of temperature.
AND there the response to the unlikely claim that LIA wasn’t really a cooler period in terms of global temperature- to which I would say if glacier globally are advancing and sea levels falling, it’s global climate. And selected tree acting as thermometers is not adequate evidence to disprove a wealth of other evidence.
Anyhow, I would characterize the present time as recovering from LIA though I think it’s possible, evidence may be found which could prove otherwise. It’s possible that perhaps LIA
had ended in 1950.
One could say the ice age didn’t occur when newspapers were saying the ice age was coming, and it didn’t, “marked” the end. Or if had occurred as some predicted, then we basically never left the LIA.
Or the warming started when it failed to cool.
Basically, though I don’t like agreeing with IPCC, as general practice, I would be effectively agreeing with them.
Or they say that this time when CO2 effects occurred or had measurable effect. Or I am agreeing with idiots that think only CO2 level effect global temperature, in terms of when warming started.
But as said it seems to me we are stilling recovering from LIA, but it’s possible that more data could indicate otherwise.
Though it’s obvious that cooling stopped, or warming started well before 1900, but sea levels and glacier had not recovered by this time. And also think warming has to start
during the end of glacial period, before it’s manifested as increasing global temperature. Or melting ice and rising sea levels. Warming starts or cooling ends [same meaning, perhaps, though could be different].
Or as I have long stated, I don’t think we know enough about what causes cooling, and due to this lack of understanding
we don’t know jack about climate climate.
It’s pseudoscience, it’s cargo cult religion.
And one should be skeptical of it.
And even if was not pseudoscience, one should be skeptical of it.
Results are in for last month’s sweep:
UAH December anomaly: 0.41 C
Bets:
MikeR – 0.48
Snape – 0.43
Svante – 0.34
Des – 0.3s
g*e*r*a*n – 0.29
barry – 0.24
PhilJ – 0.19
Snape wins the car. That was his second guess. His first guess was bang on. My first guess (0.21) was bang off. PhilJ, g*e*r*a*n and I are eating goat steak.
Amendment: it was Svante who changed his bet to 0.43 (from 0.34), not Snape. Snape was bang on. Svante was close.
Amending the pool:
MikeR 0.48
Svante – 0.43
Snape 0.41
Des 0.3s
g*e*r*a*n 0.29
barry 0.24
PhilJ 0.19
Gah – wordpress is annoying. Here’s cleaner version:
MikeR – 0.48
Snape – 0.43
Svante – 0.34
Des – 0.3s
g*e*r*a*n – 0.29
barry – 0.24
PhilJ – 0.19
+.25c for jan anamoly
You switched my goats back again barry, and here’s Salvatore’s number for December:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/12/uah-global-temperature-update-for-november-20170-36-deg-c/#comment-276068
Ah, your next edit below got my goats right again.
One of those days when you really wish you had an edit function…
MikeR – 0.48
Svante – 0.43
Snape – 0.41
Des – 0.3s
g*e*r*a*n – 0.29
barry – 0.24
PhilJ – 0.19
Well done to Snape!
The oracle is upset and looking for a new scapegoat with regard to her last prediction. She is blaming a goat entrail malfunction.
Barry , due to the latest truly offal result the oracle really needs a new goat. If you haven’t already distributed all your goats to the lucky losers could you please send one urgently to P.O. Box 12018 Delphi Greece.
Do not attempt to send one by email via
https://yougoatmail.com
as she stopped answering emails a long time ago.
MikeR
I was tired of guessing wrong. Used dark magic to see the December anomaly. Better than an oracle.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/b/b9/Ootp076.jpg/220px-Ootp076.jpg
Yes Snape. A lot of people predicted that she would turn out be a dud.
I might have to sack her and I do not have a good foreboding with regards to her football tips now. As I appear to be her last customer, unless she lifts her game, she may have to join the queue of jobless seers and oracles at the local unemployment office.
The goat is behind door 1, Mike. Probably.
Is it Schrodinger’s goat? If I find it I will return it to him dead or alive.
Hopefully dead after the Oracle has done with it.
I wouldn’t feel too put out. If I’d noticed the bet before moving on to other stuff last month, I’d almost certainly have plumped for a few-tenths reduction as well. Despite what I have said in the past about ENSO not being tied to a clear alternation, we generally EXPECT the monthly anomaly to be going down after a strong positive.
C’est la vie, I say, it goes to show you never can tell.
Kicking off the sweep for January’s UAH global temperature anomaly, I’m going with 0.24 C again.
Allow me to try: +0.32
Can I play? I will go with +0.34.
JD
Salvatore goes for 0.25 C.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2018/01/uah-global-temperature-update-for-december-2017-0-41-deg-c/#comment-278842
Here are the UAH global annual anomalies for all years from 1998 inclusive:
1998: 0.48
1999: -0.02
2000: -0.02
2001: 0.12
2002: 0.22
2003: 0.19
2004: 0.08
2005: 0.20
2006: 0.11
2007: 0.16
2008: -0.10
2009: 0.10
2010: 0.34
2011: 0.02
2012: 0.06
2013: 0.13
2014: 0.18
2015: 0.27
2016: 0.51
2017: 0.38
And here they are by rank warmest to coolest:
2016: 0.51
1998: 0.48
2017: 0.38
2010: 0.34
2015: 0.27
2002: 0.22
2005: 0.20
2003: 0.19
2014: 0.18
2013: 0.13
2007: 0.16
2001: 0.12
2006: 0.11
2009: 0.10
2004: 0.08
2012: 0.06
2011: 0.02
1999: -0.02
2000: -0.02
2008: -0.10
Tsk, swap 2017 and 2016 around. Looks like someone needs more sleep.
2007 and 2013. Swap. My brain is officially fried.
Here is the really real warmest to coolest rank from 1998:
2016: 0.51
1998: 0.48
2017: 0.38
2010: 0.34
2015: 0.27
2002: 0.22
2005: 0.20
2003: 0.19
2014: 0.18
2007: 0.16
2013: 0.13
2001: 0.12
2006: 0.11
2009: 0.10
2004: 0.08
2012: 0.06
2011: 0.02
1999: -0.02
2000: -0.02
2008: -0.10
Note for the sleep-deprived: Vim one-liner :%!sort -k2nr
Greek!
Snowfall in New Orleans and freezing rain in Florida. This is the beginning of the low on the east coast.
https://www.facebook.com/719393721599910/photos/a.720324898173459.1073741829.719393721599910/756816344524314/?type=3&theater
Whats the significance of being 1st,2nd or 3rd in a series of 39?
39 years of measurements of pseudo global temperatures is almost meaningless to anyone but a fervent advocate of doomsday.
Now Bryan, even if they weren’t pseudo, why 39 years is forever in the imagination of those who live lives based on the fervent belief that history started when they were born. The curious part is these same people believe they can predict the future and control the climate using only human sacrifice (as long as they are not the sacrificial items)
Now enjoy the blog and quit whining. There is a lot to learn about the science of earth and, indirectly, how much we don’t know.
Lewis
You’re saying 39 years of data is too short a period to draw a conclusion?
I saw skeptics claim AGW is a hoax based on a 2 week cold snap.
Snape says, January 3, 2018 at 5:19 AM:
“AGW” isn’t a hoax. It’s really nothing more than a loose, speculative idea that somehow ended up at the top of the agenda of the green and politically correct – in effect, pseudoscience gone mainstream …
It is at least, as of 2017, still a nonexistent effect, as far as the observational data goes:
https://okulaer.files.wordpress.com/2017/08/erbsceres-vs-uah1.png
https://okulaer.files.wordpress.com/2017/12/olr-vs-tlt-siste2.png
Kristian
It’s good to see an intelligent argument! The charts definitely seem at odds with the theory behind the GHE.
I wonder if someone like Dr. Spencer would have an explanation?
Context for these graphs?
Nate,
It has been given on multiple occasions. And not only that, if you actually understand the concept of an “enhanced GHE” as a driver of GW through a gradual raising of Earth’s “effective radiating level”, then you have “the context” of those graphs already …
http://www.climatetheory.net/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/greenhouse-effect-held-soden-2000.png
Kristian,
As you should know, science papers show graphs, and offer an interpretation.
Dont’ expect everyone has total recall of your previous posts.
Kristian
Remember this? It’s the only thing I’ve found that addresses your chart.
http://www.washington.edu/news/2014/11/10/global-warming-not-just-a-blanket-in-the-long-run-its-more-like-tanning-oil/
Nate says, January 4, 2018 at 2:27 PM:
IOW, you don’t understand how an “enhanced GHE” is supposed to cause global warming …
Like I said, if you understood the proposed mechanism, you’d know what signal to look for.
How would you go about arguing that “AGW” is real, if you don’t know how it’s supposed to work in the first place …!?
Kristian,
this is the OLR response in fig. 1D in Snape’s paper.
https://tinyurl.com/y8xfz32p
You noted before that the paper says:
“Observational constraints also suggest an OLR recovery timescale on the order of decades. However, the current global energy imbalance seems to be dominated by reduced OLR because of the substantial SW forcing associated with anthropogenic tropospheric aerosols”.
So if you say the OLR is increasing then the “seems” is wrong and feedbacks have taken over?
Kristian,
I can guess what you are trying to convey with these graphs, the two don’t agree with each other. How large an effect should I expect to see and are you showing a NULL result with stat significance? I cannot tell.
why 39 years is forever in the imagination of those who live lives based on the fervent belief that history started when they were born
1) Skeptics tend to eschew the surface records and prefer the satellite records. Which starts in 1979 – 39 years. Skeptics are largely responsible for this focus on 39 years.
2) This blog is based on the UAH record – 39 years.
3) I look forward to you championing the instrumental global surface records extending back to the mid/late 1800s. Not sure if you’ll reject proxy data for times before….
Good Point Bryan, 39 years is a short time compared to the 100,000 year climate cycle (Milankovitch cycles). Even less than the 2% that many complain when some give USA conditions as representative of the world. However, understanding current conditions may help us prepare for near future climate changes. Based on the reconstructed temperature/sea level data, we should expect a need to adjust farming practices and/or move inland in the future to adapt, we just do not know how far into it.
From a policy standpoint, I would prefer to invest in the understanding of atmospheric dynamics to see if humans can effectively counter the 100,000 year cycles. In my opinion the low end of the cycle would be more detrimental than the high end. We have the current technology to live/produce food at sea, but very difficult to farm a glacier.
Good thing we don’t have to worry about the low end for 20 thousand years, eh?
I agree and we certainly do not want to have it come sooner.
I think we should have left that decision to generations of the future. It should be their decision, not ours.
As far as the CO2 debate, the data I have seen so far would suggest it has a small impact on temperature but is, in my opinion, the wrong focus for slowing down the climate change phenomenon. There are some who suggest extra CO2 helps in Ag production though. There are others that say slowing our contribution of CO2 will help delay the maximum or that the maximum will be higher if we don’t. I just have not seen the evidence of that or heard good arguments on this blog supporting that position.
However, I believe we can all agree that we can shut down every factory, disable every vehicle and euthanize every human and still not stop climate change. So would it not be prudent to invest in ways to figure out an alternative way to control global temperature? And more importantly, are we smart enough to know what that ideal temperature is for the planet? And finally, does an average global temperature even make sense?
However, I believe we can all agree that we can shut down every factory, disable every vehicle and euthanize every human and still not stop climate change.
Is anyone suggesting we do this?
So would it not be prudent to invest in ways to figure out an alternative way to control global temperature?
I expect we’d have to figure out various ways and see what works. Who shall fund this R&D?
And more importantly, are we smart enough to know what that ideal temperature is for the planet?
How about the temperature at which human life has flourished the most? Say, the 19th and 20th centuries? Or the range within the current interglacial?
I’d say that we have flourished most when global climate change was small and slow.
And finally, does an average global temperature even make sense?
Sure, you can average anything that has more than one data point. If you want to figure out if the whole globe is getting warmer or colder, how else would you go about it? Sea level? That would be an average, too. Amount of global ice? Also an average.
If we’re going to test ways of controlling global temperature, we’d need some way of monitoring global temperature, eh?
Yes, my point exactly. No one is suggesting something as draconian as killing all the humans. But the suggestion that reducing CO2 without definitive proof that it will slow down warming or is in fact not beneficial seems short-sighted given that the draconian approach won’t stop climate change.
I would prefer to use our resources to reduce poverty/hunger and better understand both the climate cycles and how we can influence it. I would suggest diverting some but not all funding that is going to CO2 impact analysis to a more comprehensive research in climate dynamics. I do not think we need to expand funding just use it more wisely. Perhaps a bit more to UAH, that’s a plug for Roy.
My point on average temperature is that you can have the same average with very different results. USA having ideal temperatures vs. Europe freezing and Australia boiling, is that good? What if we have higher/lower extremes across the board? What if 2C degrees warmer results in ending hunger? lower heating cost?
What criteria would you consider “definitive proof?”
David says “What criteria would you consider definitive proof?”
Great question David. It is like pornography, you know it when you see it. I am not a climate scientist, my expertise is in the analysis of data for various governmental studies I do. But I am interested in the climate debate and would defer to the “experts” on this blog for the actual criteria needed.
Kristen and Salvatore have been persuasive in their views. I find them interesting. I also like the contributions from Bindiddon, Barry and yourself. And Ren, though you are right many times off topic, I still appreciate Ren’s contributions. Others not mentioned I like as well just too many to list. But what I don’t like is when conversations degrade into name calling and the such, I typically bypass those discussions.
I am also uncomfortable when some compare a 7,000 year trend with a 30 year trend. As does saying maximum/minimum records ratio is 10 to 1, even though the majority of those records are for sites started post 1950 (a cold period in are recent history).
I simply have not been convinced that CO2 is a problem and may in fact have been beneficial to us.
bilybob says:
David says What criteria would you consider definitive proof?
“It is like pornography, you know it when you see it.”
Not even close to being good enough.
What set of measurements and data would convince you that AGW exists? Or that it doesn’t?
Why does every climate scientist on the planet accept that AGW is real? What have they said/written?
AGW? I thought we were talking about CO2. Lets keep the discussion focused. Why have CO2 levels of 300 PPM or less produced global temperatures in the past that are much higher than today? Why has CO2 levels significantly higher produced cooler temperatures. The short answer is that the CO2/Temperature relationship is spurious. However, there is a fairly established Temperature/CO2 relationship as well as a Human Activity/CO2 relationship. CO2 simply has minimal effect on raising temperatures, and may in fact lower temperatures by increasing plant biomass.
As far as every climate scientist believing in AGW, you ever read the “Madness of Crowds”. There is always a few who will come to their senses and break away from the herd. Keep an eye on the Roy and Salvatore types. They are winning the argument with me. In any case, I have to admit, I never did see a survey conducted on individuals with expertise in the atmospheric sciences that asked “do you think AGW is a problem”. Do you have a link to the survey? Wow, 100% said yes.
billybob says:
“Why have CO2 levels of 300 PPM or less produced global temperatures in the past that are much higher than today?”
When was that?
The only candidate I know of is the Eemian. But
“The Eemian climate is believed to have been about as stable as that of the Holocene. Changes in the Earth’s orbital parameters from today (greater obliquity and eccentricity, and perihelion), known as Milankovitch cycles, probably led to greater seasonal temperature variations in the Northern Hemisphere, although global annual mean temperatures were probably similar to those of the Holocene.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eemian#Global_temperatures
By the way, CO2 isn’t the ONLY FACTOR that determines climate and climate change.
This is a common mistake of those who reject AGW.
billybob says:
“Why has CO2 levels significantly higher produced cooler temperatures. The short answer is that the CO2/Temperature relationship is spurious.”
Wrong — the answer is that the Sun was weaker in the distant past.
The Sun’s luminosity is increasing by about 1% every 110 Myrs. So 450 Myrs ago, when the Earth was 12-14 C warmer, it was 4% less luminous. That’s a huge amount — 55 W/m2 at the top of the atmosphere. Today the Sun’s typical luminosity variation is 1-2 W/m2 over a solar cycle.
“As far as every climate scientist believing in AGW, you ever read the Madness of Crowds. There is always a few who will come to their senses and break away from the herd.”
That’s a lame, vapid argument.
By that reasoning, the Earth is flat and scientists have it all wrong.
AGW? You keep bringing up AGW. My comments are directed at CO2.
As far as those who reject AGW making a mistake if they only looking at CO2, I agree 100%.
I will take a look at the document link you sent on pollution externality costs, it over 400 pages so it may be awhile. Appreciate the link.
As far as the Madness of Crowds being a lame vapid argument. It is interesting that you mentioned a Flat Earth, I always believed that the masses believed the Earth was flat, after all the science was settled or at least the Church ordained it, but there was a few who rejected the Church. Eventually, the others saw the light.
It may be a while before I will be able to respond again, ciao for now.
I bring up AGW because CO2 causes it.
Thing is, we get a different message from the researchers, and uncertainty cuts both ways.
This is how I see it. We are and have been conducting a vast, uncontrolled geophysical experiment with the only atmosphere we have. Don’t know if the consequences will be minor or major. Could be beneficial, little, or deleterious.
If it was like insuring a house, no problem. Burns to the ground? Build another.
We’re inside the test tube, we can’t escape. Seems prudent to me to slow the experiment way down until we get a better fix on it. This can be done without starving ourselves, and it can be done while also fixing other problems. Business has better vision on this than some governments.
I would have to agree with you there. Slowing down seems to be a more prudent approach. We certainly do not want to go “all in” on a solution without a comprehensive understanding of the consequences. We also need not be blind to any impacts we are currently doing.
The good news is that humans are a very resourceful bunch, we are a very adaptable species. And we do learn from our mistakes. There was a time where we would dump raw sewerage into a river, but now we treat it. The other good news is the environment is very resilient. It is a dynamic entity that keeps us on our toes.
Now should we abandon the clean air act? Should we stop looking at being more efficient? Should we not look at alternative ways in energy and transportation? In my opinion, no. At the same time, I don’t see any need to over regulate either. I agree with you that businesses tend to have a better vision. I also believe that free market capitalism is the best way to prosperity, as long as there is just enough regulation, but no more that that.
Capitalism keeps the profits and socializes the cost of pollution. Someone said that global warming is the greatest failure of the free market in history.
I would say capitalism maximizes profit. As far as socializing the cost of pollution, that is where reasonable regulation is required. The key word being reasonable.
As far as someone saying global warming being the greatest failure of the free market in history. Given that we are less than 1.0 C warmer, have greater agriculture production, lower maximum temperatures, higher minimum temperatures, the question should be asked, why does socialism even still exist?
But there has been and is not sufficient regulation of pollution costs in the US. This is a serious problem that sets back the introduction of renewable sources, which cant compete when fossil feels pay no negative externalities.
I dont understand what your question about socialism has to do with temperatures. And your conclusions about temperature strike me as wrong. What data are you looking at?
You mentioned that someone said that Global Warming was Capitalism worst failure (paraphrased). My comment on socialism was directed at that. If that is the worst thing capitalism has done, why are we not all free market capitalist?
As far as the temperature data, that came from you a while back. They are not my conclusions.
http://www.climatecentral.org/gallery/graphics/daily-record-highs-are-dramatically-outpacing-daily-record-lows
If you follow that source you get to
https://science2017.globalchange.gov/chapter/6/
You will find that warmest temperatures, heat waves, warm days are down, coolest days are up. I estimate I am saving about 25% in my summer and winter personal energy needs. And before you say it, yes this only the USA. But it is the best data that goes back sufficiently in the past the world has.
As far as industry being under-regulated on pollution costs. It is an interesting opinion. Certainly before Clean Air and Clean Water Acts, however, we may have gone a bit on the over-regulated side. I do not desire a repeal of those acts. Maybe some tweaks to the regulations where needed.
Industry paying no negative externalities? I would have to disagree, at least for the USA. Maybe China, don’t know their regulatory system. Are they paying all externalities? Not sure if that would even be possible or desirable. From a policy standpoint, increasing production costs will negatively impact low income individuals.
The National Academy of Sciences estimated that fossil fuel for more than just electricity use causes damages of at least $120 B/yr to health and the environment:
“Hidden Costs of Energy: Unpriced Consequences of Energy Production and Use,” National Research Council, 2010.
http://books.nap.edu/catalog/12794.html
(Dollar figure for 2005, in 2007 dollars.)
From your last link (the CSSR Report):
“Cold extremes have become less severe over the past century. For example, the coldest daily temperature of the year has increased at most locations in the contiguous United States (Figure 6.3)”
…
“Changes in warm extremes are more nuanced than changes in cold extremes. For instance, the warmest daily temperature of the year increased in some parts of the West over the past century (Figure 6.3), but there were decreases in almost all locations east of the Rocky Mountains. In fact, all eastern regions experienced a net decrease (Table 6.2), most notably the Midwest (about 2.2F [1.2C]) and the Southeast (roughly 1.5F [0.8C]). The decreases in the eastern half of Nation, particularly in the Great Plains, are mainly tied to the unprecedented summer heat of the 1930s Dust Bowl era, which was exacerbated by land-surface feedbacks driven by springtime precipitation deficits and land mismanagement.”
barry says:
January 3, 2018 at 3:23 AM
But dont look at the data?
Oh! The average temperatures? Yes if you average up the winter minimums and the summer maximums you can claim that the Dust Bowl days weren’t as warm as the present. Did you read my earlier comment about averages and how they lose important information?
Here’s a summer Maximum and Winter Minimum comparison from NOAA’s Climate at a Glance:
http://oi66.tinypic.com/bbjue.jpg
Here’s the EPA’s heat wave index:
https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/styles/large/public/2016-07/high-low-temps-figure1-2016.png
Summer in the US is June to August, isn’t it?
Winter is December to January?
I see that summer maximum temps have no trend for certain lengthy periods.Would I be correct in thinking that you believe that maximum temps should be favoured, then, above minimum or maximum temps?
And you posted just upthread that the surface records are manipulated. Yet here you are now relying on them to make a positive point.
This opportunistic thumb-down/thumbs-up on sources whenever it suits the argument of the day smells pretty off to me.
Fixing: Would I be correct in thinking that you believe that maximum temps should be favoured, then, above minimum or average temps?
barry says:
January 3, 2018 at 8:08 AM
Fixing: Would I be correct in thinking that you believe that maximum temps should be favoured, then, above minimum or average temps?
If you really wanted to fix it, you would have said, “Would it be correct to say that maximum temps and minimum temps should be favored, above average temps?”
Considering that the average person has one breast and one testicle, yes that would be a good idea.
I favour average temps for reason outlined below. Not max or min.
barry says: at 8:07 AM
Summer in the US is June to August, isnt it?
Winter is December to January?
Dividing the year into four distinct seasons with equal lengths is a convention that doesn’t fit the calendar all that well. I originally looked at summer as June – September i.e., I wanted to include the solstice and equinox. But then doing the same for winter leaves out two shorter periods. Didn’t make a lot of sense. May-Oct and Nov-Apr divides the year neatly into two six month segments, one warm and one cold. Another convention? Sue me.
I see that summer maximum temps have no trend for certain lengthy periods. Would I be correct in thinking that you believe that maximum temps should be favoured, then, above minimum or maximum temps?
Other than it was originally called “Global Warming” I have no idea where you come up with that.
And you posted just upthread that the surface records are manipulated. Yet here you are now relying on them to make a positive point.
And I just posted that I have to use something. The raw data just isn’t available to me in a easily useable form
I just don’t see any integrity in calling the data rubbish one day and then trying to make some serious point that relies on it the next.
Either the data is good enough to use or it isn’t. It can’t be both.
+1
Did you read my earlier comment about averages and how they lose important information?
Yep, you said that averages lose important information, and then demonstrated how that might apply to the degree of variability.
Do you remember that Anthony Watts’ paper Fall et al 2011 corroborated the US temp record for average temps? So does CONUS for the period it has run (since 2005). Watts and co thought the min/max US temps were biased.
barry says:
January 3, 2018 at 8:30 AM
Something doesn’t add up. Any look at the historical fact of the dust bowl shows that the summers were horrendous. But it doesn’t seem to show in the official charts put out by the government funded scientists except for the EPA chart of heat waves:
https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/styles/large/public/2016-07/high-low-temps-figure1-2016.png
Steve
You apparently think there is a government conspiracy to hide dust bowl temperatures. Funny that It took less than 20 seconds to find this:
https://www.weather.gov/arx/heat_jul36
What I said was:
“But it doesnt seem to show in the official charts ”
Maybe I should have said “Official Temperature Charts”
Maybe if the official temperature charts showed the Min and Max temperatures the horrendous dust bowl would show.
The results of your 20 second search isn’t what the “Main Stream” media reports. It’s not what they are given in the press releases from the various government agencies involved in climate studies and if it is, it’s ignored.
Steve
I am not a fan of biased reporting, and it works both ways. Cliff Mass, a University of Washington meteorologist, often makes the claim on his blog that the Pacific Northwest has little or no long term warming trend. He does this by only showing daily highs, leaving out daily minimums or averages. Here’s an example:
“One can only make a case for global warming based on trends over an extended period, not one extreme event. So why don’t we look at the long-term (1900-2016) trend of average November maximum temperature over the Puget Sound lowlands for a period of more than a century (this is from the NOAA/NWS climate division data)? Not much trend there!”
May 1934 and July 1936 are still record months for the N.O.A.A.’s USA48 dataset. On the other hand, February 1936 is still the coldest February in their records.
The warmest three decades for USA48 are the last three decades, in order, 2000s, 1990s, 1980s.
Something doesnt add up. Any look at the historical fact of the dust bowl shows that the summers were horrendous. But it doesnt seem to show in the official charts put out by the government funded scientists except for the EPA chart of heat waves
It’s at your finger-tips, Steve and its in the official temp records.
https://tinyurl.com/y8mqd6xs
Maximum temperatures in Summer in the US were hottest in the 1930s. Data adjustments haven’t erased that.
But Winter, autumn and Spring have also become warmer, such that annual temps recently are warmer than back then.
https://tinyurl.com/yd7ej963
I don’t see a conspiracy here.
barry
Averages can work to find an overall trend but they do not indicate human misery factor or how many real people will die based upon the maximum and minimum temperatures.
As David Appell pointed out, the summer heat was intense and miserable for those living in the affected areas. Then a super bitter cold February also caused misery but you could have an average annual temperture that does not reflect the misery.
Sure, you select the data for the purpose, checking that you’re not being fooled by it, or that you’ve under or over-selected. Steve and I are not discussing human misery.
barry says:
January 3, 2018 at 5:25 PM
…Its at your finger-tips…
https://tinyurl.com/y8mqd6xs
…
https://tinyurl.com/yd7ej963
…
I dont see a conspiracy here.
Earlier I put up similar charts from the same website:
http://oi66.tinypic.com/bbjue.jpg
as I recall you didn’t like the May-Oct & Nov-Apr time frames that I used.
You are the one who brought up the terms conspiracy and fraud. Mostly I post factual stuff with links to where I got it from.
Steve,
You said:
Something doesnt add up. Any look at the historical fact of the dust bowl shows that the summers were horrendous. But it doesnt seem to show in the official charts put out by the government funded scientists except
I just showed you Summertime Max temps for the US were warmest in the 1930s using the data made by “government funded scientists.”
Did you mean to change the subject, or are you going to comment on that?
You are the one who brought up the terms conspiracy and fraud.
Have you changed your mind about that? I took it from “government funded scientists” that it was still on your mind.
From Fall et al 2011, Anthony Watts’ paper:
Temperature trend estimates vary according to site classification, with poor siting leading to an overestimate of minimum temperature trends and an underestimate of maximum temperature trends
http://www.landsurface.org/publications-protected/J108.pdf
It also says:
Homogeneity adjustments are necessary and tend to reduce the trend differences, but statistically significant differences remain for all but average temperature trends.
Max/min trends are biased (max too cold, min too hot), but the mean trend cancels the biases no matter which class of station is used.
That’s what Anthony Watts reckons, anyway.
I can’t tell what you reckon because you slam the US temp record on one day and rely on it the next.
Wow….
My prediction of a 0.1C global TLT for December 2017 was a complete joke..
I was confident the weak La Nia would have had more of a cooling effect, but I was obviously way off…
It looks like the weak La Nia has already reached its NINO3.4 SST minimum, so well get some additional TLT global cooling over the next 3~4 months but not as much as I thought we would occur.
overall sea surface temp+.192c deviation the key to what global temperatures will be doing moving forward.
The Alarmist are those who believe we are trapped into using fossil fuels. Alternative fuels can largely replace fossil fuels with little impact on the global economy (I would include new fission reactor designs). We may still need some fossil fuels or nuclear to fill gaps in power generation, but we can realistically reduce fossil fuel use by 80 or 90 percent. Naysayers, have some faith in human ingenuity and the free market.
I’d say the business world is doing a pretty good of developing alternative energy, and gov is doing slightly well at encouraging it. The chopping and changing on energy/emissions policy isn’t good for business. They do better under stable policies.
Well said, Nealf.
The ice attacks the east coast of the US.
http://images.tinypic.pl/i/00953/d1bkd3pf1wj8.png
Moving average has blipped up again. Not that it means that much, but what was I saying last month?
It’s blipped down a little bit as predicted.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/UAH_LT_1979_thru_December_2017_v6.jpg
Oops, you got me that time. My bad. Should have put my glasses on.
Well, it’s hard to see without blowing up the chart.
David Appell says:
Dont you care about the world you leave for todays children and young people?
Dave I have read your comments on these threads for a long time now. Do you have any idea how ignorant you come off when you spew comments like this? Your camp is no where near the moral high ground you seem to think you have. For perspective call me a luke-warmer, and I am more worried about RIGHT NOW.
In the name of stopping a 2 degree warmer world which cant be done anyway and we can easily adapt to. The world is turning food into fuel. There are over a billion people with no power, and your pampered ass is part of the reason they die of respiratory illnesses (from having to burn wood and dung) and malnutrition in their millions. We could improve their situation. But in the name of CAGW for which there is absolutely no empirical evidence we do not.
So before you talk this crap again I say You first. Prove your resolve. Take nothing what-so-ever that was derived from fossil fuels and walk out into the wilderness and just live.
In Minecraft parlance, strip down naked, walk into the woods and punch a tree. I dont even give you 24 hours.
“But in the name of CAGW for which there is absolutely no empirical evidence we do not.”
Citation required. Specific instance of an improvement and empirical evidence showing that its non-use is specifically traceable to belief in “CAGW”, using exactly that term, please.
Or you could just admit that you are making it up and save a lengthy squabble requiring many subject-changes to try and draw attention from your original dishonesty.
Well that was a nice deflection. We all know that it is a fact that the alarmists don’t want the developing countries to develop. It would mean a whole bunch of CO2. It is a fact that we are perfectly capable of developing those countries. Is is a fact that developing a country – people having power as well as all the other things you take for granted – saves lives. You only need to look at life expectancy prior to and after the industrial revolution. It is sad that you can’t handle having actual facts to argue against and so this lame attempt at a rebuttal was the best you could do. What’s next? Going to attack my grammar or something like that I expect.
So where do you live Elliott? Do you have access to electricity and clean running water? I’m guessing you do, being able to post your stupidity on this blog and all.
You wouldn’t last an hour.
And, exactly as expected, you start with the empty bluster and can actually provide no support whatsoever for your claims. As if we would expect anything different!
Of course I have electricity and fresh water. I am only a couple of hundred metres down the mountain from the hypdroelectric plant which powers my village and most of the administrative region, and from which the water comes. You seem to forget that a lot of European countries are ALREADY quite successfully getting their electricity much of the time without using fossil fuels.
And that is why those countries pay the most for power. Germany and South Australia. Leading the world in over charging people for power.
The most for power, and the least for burying people who die from the effects of producing it. Correct. The overall upshot being the greatest life-expectancies and the highest quality of life for the population as a whole based on a normal working income. But thanks for acknowledging that you have to move the goalposts when it turns out that your attempts to muddy the waters have backfired.
“We all know that it is a fact that the alarmists dont want the developing countries to develop.”
Citation required. Once again, with no real expectation that you can actually support the bilge you spout.
Anyway, a lot of them are developing just fine using renewables. One bulb and a solar panel can light a house in Africa for schoolwork, and increasingly often does, and Morocco in particular is playing for the export of solar energy to Southern Europe.
“so this lame attempt at a rebuttal”
It was a demand for support. Perfectly admissible. It’s only your failure to provide any that makes it into a rebuttal.
“It would mean a whole bunch of CO2”
As they are now cheaper, it will actually mean a whole bunch of renewables. And there is nothing you can do to stop it.
“As they are now cheaper”
You are living in a fantasy world Elliott. Those countries “leading the way” in “renewables” have the highest electricity costs.
It took me 5 seconds to find this with the help of google.
https://www.ovoenergy.com/guides/energy-guides/average-electricity-prices-kwh.html
So that was just a plain old lie.
You expect the poorest people to use the most expensive power sources.
Idiocy.
“Those countries leading the way in renewables have the highest electricity costs.”
Which, of course, is a completely separate claim. Yet again.
EB
Nope.
There is in fact nothing you (and one) can do to curb seriously world fossil fuel use. We will most likely burn all the fossil fuels available because we can by now hardly do anything else.
I agree with Bob White. Nothing but idiocy.
Please get a trip to Africa and look at what it means to live without an electric grid and clean running water, modern tools and machines to grow, raise and transport the food, build the houses, wash the clothes etc etc etc. No time left to study science, slavery as in Europe, 5 centuries ago, when we were indeed already on 100 % renewables.
And it is a plain lie to state that in Europe wind and solar makes already a really sizable (in terms of climate) contribution to the grid. Ironically up to now the installed wind and solar power has led to an overall increase in CO2 emissions.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2018/01/uah-global-temperature-update-for-december-2017-0-41-deg-c/#comment-278837
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2018/01/uah-global-temperature-update-for-december-2017-0-41-deg-c/#comment-278909
It is extremely difficult to stop the forces of a free market. The market will take any opening it is given. So long as fossil fuels are cheaper and legal they will be used. ( Even if illegal some people will use them. )
For example Ontario Canada jacked up the electricity rates so more people started converting to gas heating.
Fossil fuels are not a free market. They are heavily subsidised. And the subsidies and investment are now falling off. So, given that fossil fuels can only become MORE expensive from now on as their cost of extraction continues to rise, and given that African villages had not adopted them when they were cheaper, which way do you think it’s going to go?
Anyway, a lot of African cities have already jumped straight to renewables, and villages are increasingly able to get renewable power without the expense of grid connection.
It’s BEING curbed. You lost.
EU emissions have fallen in aggregate and per capita since 1990, despite steady growth. Renewables are quite often now providing ALL the power on the grid at regional and even national levels. The same goes for parts of Africa, by the way.
Once again, you have walled yourselves off from reality.
http://edgar.jrc.ec.europa.eu/overview.php?v=CO2andGHG1970-2016&dst=CO2gdp
EU emissions have fallen in aggregate and per capita since 1990, despite steady growth. Renewables are quite often now providing ALL the power on the grid at regional and even national levels. The same goes for parts of Africa, by the way.
Yet again, you have walled yourselves off from reality.
http://edgar.jrc.ec.europa.eu/overview.php?v=CO2andGHG1970-2016&dst=CO2gdp
gamma
“Now the practical and much more likely and realistic way to maintain (or rather rebuild) civilization in future is to drastically reduce global population level by at least one or two orders of magnitude.
Thats the real inconvenient truth.”
I agree 100%. Too bad we are such a minority.
That kind of thinking was also part of the pesduoscience of the early 20th century… Careful what you wish for..
“Please get a trip to Africa and look at what it means to live without an electric grid and clean running water, modern tools and machines to grow, raise and transport the food, build the houses, wash the clothes etc etc etc”
Again the connection between all these problems and renewables is found where? What research?
Actually many African countries have lower retail electricity prices than does the US ($120/MWh):
https://www.statista.com/statistics/503727/retail-electricity-prices-in-africa-by-select-country/
But of course Africans have much lower incomes.
Bullshit. I can’t see what I might win or lose, no horse in the race.
What matters in terms of climate is of course global (and not EU) fossil fuel consumption in the world !
And this has by no means been curbed.. It is still increasing !!!!!!
Sheer hypocrisy and, sorry, plain idiocy to trumpet EU has curbed its emissions while it imports and buys its tee-shirts, solar panels, smartphones etc etc etc made in China or Asia with power generated there by means of coal plants.
“What matters in terms of climate is of course global (and not EU) fossil fuel consumption in the world !”
And where the EU has led, the world is following.
“And this has by no means been curbed.. It is still increasing !!!!!! ”
False dichotomy. Curb means “to control or limit”. It does not mean “reduce”. The rate of growth of emissions per capita and per unit GDP has clearly reduced. In recent years, in fact, emissions were briefly constant while economic and demographic growth continued – the deniers were extremely vocal about it, in fact, as usual claiming that as action was apparently averting the problem they were right all along that there was not problem requiring action. But that’s denial in a nutshell.
By any reasonable definition, emissions have been and continue to be curbed. They will eventually be reduced, as well,
“Sheer hypocrisy and, sorry, plain idiocy to trumpet EU has curbed its emissions while it imports and buys its tee-shirts, solar panels, smartphones etc etc etc made in China or Asia with power generated there by means of coal plants.”
China is committed to an even more radical Energiewende and is already installing enormous renewable capacity. It will also be this century’s economic giant as it will now dominate renewables technology, leaving Europe in second place and the USA as an irrelevance. One might as well pretend that US denialism is “hypocrisy” because China is reducing your emissions for you whether you like it ot not.
And by the way, the world’s largest exporter is not China. It is the EU. Most of the EU’s trade is internal, and most of its goods produced in the EU. It is a net exporter. It is, therefore, not outsourcing its emissions to producers but outsourcing its renewables technology to consumers, overall.
You can check the US position in the list of net exporters here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_net_exports
Arf.
Much wishful thinking, lies and delusion.
I maintain exactly what I said. Never before has the coal consumed/capita worldwide been as high as it is today. Never.
For your info I’m a French (EU) citizen and certainly not a US (or AGW) “denier”. Funny !
And for sure a large part of the CO2 emissions needed to support the way of life in the US presently take places in China and Asia. As well as for the EU.
Finally there are various kinds of “deniers”.
There is even your kind, namely those like yourself who merely deny basic laws of Physics and all the inconvenient facts of presently available technology. You know those people who claim that the Energiewende in Germany is yet a success and saved CO2 emissions. Those people who pretend that a rapid switch to a low carbon world economy is readily possible and just a matter of appropriate politics (not one of Physics and immature technology) to be easily emulated everywhere, were it not for the naughty AGW deniers.
You know those people who tout the delusion of 100% “green” renewable energies.
Ok gammacrux wants us all to just throw up our hands and admit there is nothing to be done.
“Never before has the coal consumed/capita worldwide been as high as it is today. Never.”
As I said: False dichotomy. Are you hard of reading comprehension, perchance?
“those like yourself who merely deny basic laws of Physics”
That would have to include the host of this blog, then, as Dr. Roy also acknowledges that anthropogenic warming is happening. Which pretty-much requires that his understanding of physics be a compatible superset of my own. So you can go whistle.
“You know those people who tout the delusion of 100% green renewable energies.”
As if there can be anything else by definition in the long run. Any technology for which there is a long run is BY DEFINITION sustainable, bcasse.
L’arf.
It’s not as if one even requires the laws of physics, of course. The laws of arithmetic will do just fine.
Say the Greeks were producing 1 cubic metre of CO2 in the year 500BC. Posit a 2% per annum growth rate. What would be their yearly production today?
It’s about 3 times the volume of the Earth.
Emissions growth SHALL stall, whether you like it or not.
“World Coal Production Just Had Its Biggest Drop on Record,” Bloomberg, 6/13/17.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-06-13/coal-s-era-starts-to-wane-as-world-shifts-to-cleaner-energy
(about 2016)
“World coal production fell by 6.2%, or 231 million tonnes of oil equivalent (mtoe) in 2016, the largest decline on record,” BP
https://www.bp.com/en/global/corporate/energy-economics/statistical-review-of-world-energy/coal/coal-production.html
gammacrux says:
“I maintain exactly what I said. Never before has the coal consumed/capita worldwide been as high as it is today. Never.”
BP says world coal consumption peaked in 2014:
https://www.bp.com/content/dam/bp/en/corporate/pdf/energy-economics/statistical-review-2017/bp-statistical-review-of-world-energy-2017-coal.pdf
Per capita it peaked in 2011. (my calculation)
Since then it’s dropped by over 7%.
“Bob White says:
January 3, 2018 at 10:02 AM
It took me 5 seconds to find this with the help of google.
https://www.ovoenergy.com/guides/energy-guides/average-electricity-prices-kwh.html”
It took me 3 seconds to load that page and see that it was 2011 data…. but today it’s 2018. I wouldn’t dispute the fact that renewables remain more expensive in pure $/kw terms than fossil based carbon sources, but Elliott’s point was that they are getting cheaper. How about providing us with some up to date charts showing costs of renewables over time as a better rebuttal of his claim?
Where did you get the ridiculous idea that I don’t acknowledge that AGW takes place ?
Again for your info I’m a physicist and some of us warned about it already 60 years ago and by the way little more about the magnitude of the effect is known today in spite of expensive computer work. So funny.
https://skepticalscience.com/news.php?n=3993
So who is it who “can go whistle” ?
Hilarious !
And of course It’s not because fossil fuel use is a potential threat to climate that there must ipso facto exist a technical “solution” in terms of renewables for 7+ billions people ! Elliott Bignell and other naive people’ s wishful thinking won’t just make it appear if it’s not possible from a physical point of view. Nature is very stubborn and can’t be fooled.
So who is it who spouts false reasoning and is hard of reading comprehension ?
Hilarious !
“And of course Its not because fossil fuel use is a potential threat to climate that there must ipso facto exist a technical solution in terms of renewables for 7+ billions people”
No, as I said: It is because any solution must BY DEFINITION be sustainable. Anything that is not sustainable is not a solution; anything that is a solution must be sustainable.
In addition to which, of course, anything that draws down non-renewable resources must necessarily represent a temporary step. And anything that does not keep us within the budget of energy entering the Earth system, at least until we get satellite solar power, must equally necessarily draw down non-renewable resources.
We go renewable or we cannot renew. Not exactly rocket salad.
“Where did you get the ridiculous idea that I dont acknowledge that AGW takes place ?”
From your belief that you have your own, privileged laws of physics.
OK, Nate, upthread you talked about a straw man of mine that wasn’t really one.
Here is genuine one of your’s:
There is certainly a lot to be done towards eventually powering a future civilization without fossil fuels. But the transition, most likely, can’t be done in a forced march just because of climate and also not with essentially renewables at present population level.
In France, they already have a grid powered with low carbon sources, yet it is mostly nuclear and hydro ( 87 % ). One may hardly do much better as far as CO2 emissions are concerned.
Yet France’s weight is peanuts on a global scale and its economy would nevertheless collapse without fossil fuel supply for transport; agriculture etc. Not to talk about the risks of a
general worldwide massive implementation of nuclear fission.
DA, you (rightly) tell day after day the deniers here not to confuse weather and climate.
Same holds for short term fluctuations in coal consumption.
Please, look at overall trend in the first graph shown in the following article ( in French, sorry).
https://jancovici.com/transition-energetique/l-energie-et-nous/lenergie-de-quoi-sagit-il-exactement/
As can be seen historically coal use / capita steadily increased (positive trend) and even if it were to stay constant or mildly decrease, overall coal consumption augmented. Same for other energies and historically different sources essentially add and do not really just replace one an other.. Future may (perhaps) be different but uncertainty is total.
We went already through many transitions, the first one occurred some 500 000 years ago when our ancestors began to routinely use fire.
Gamma
IMO you are looking at the problem as all or nothing type of thing. If not ALL then it is pointless. Makes no sense.
France is large country and is an example for others of an approach. Denmark, Texas, ND have another approach.
You keep talking about ‘present technology’ as if it is static, and nothing changes.
Example: 30 y ago, solar was 100 x more expensive than today, LED lighting did not exist, natural gas was ramping up. 30 y before that hydro was ramping, nuclear was 0.
The only thing static is that technology change is the norm.
Nate,
1) Marginal changes won’t have any effect on climate.
Rapid major changes are needed according to the climate scientists.
2) Of course technology and science evolve but at their own pace.
And physical laws put major constraints on the possible evolution.
3) I do not claim that we won’t phase out of fossils in future. We will necessarily do it of course.
My point is just it is highly doubtful that we can do such a difficult thing rapidly because of climate.
gammacrux,
Your chart says exactly what I wrote: world coal consumption peaked in 2014.
And my calculation (yours?) shows per capita world coal consumption peaked in 2011.
Calling it a “fluctuation” isn’t good enough, because coal is now taboo and many countries are trying to get off it. The US is reducing coal use by fracking natural gas. A 7-year decline in per capita use is rather long to simply label it a fluctuation.
There are underlying reasons why coal use is declining.
In any case, your claim in bold was patently false.
DA
Well, how how can you tell for sure that It didn’t “peak” in 2012 for an observer in 2016 as it already repeatedly”peaked” in 1964 (1988) for an observer in 1968 (1992)
Because coal is now “taboo” and similar wishful thinking ?
Let’s wait and see.
EB
Sure, just a insipid salad of wishful thinking and green bullshit.
Yet more nonsense.
Sure, sustainable energy has been making big advances. Looking at the bottom line, though, I don’t see a lot to get exited about (408.55 ppm) :
https://scripps.ucsd.edu/programs/keelingcurve/wp-content/plugins/sio-bluemoon/graphs/mlo_full_record.png
gammacrux:
You made a definitive claim that world coal consumption has never been higher than it is today.
You were wrong. Admit it.
Well, how how can you tell for sure that It didnt peak in 2012 for an observer in 2016 as it already repeatedlypeaked in 1964 (1988) for an observer in 1968 (1992)
Because coal is now taboo and similar wishful thinking ?
Lets wait and see.
Again, your claim was wrong.
Decades ago the world wasn’t trying to control carbon emissions, so burning coal made (some) sense. The situation is vastly different today, with different scientific, technological, economic, and political considerations.
Why has coal use declined in the US, over 45% since 2007. (And we don’t have a price on carbon emissions.)
DA,
You are kidding. The slow decrease in 2014 means really nothing at all.
http://www.iea.org/about/faqs/coal/
Actually what you claim is as wrong as a denier who tells us that since global mean temperatures “peaked” with the 2016 Nino they are now definitely bound to steadily decrease.
Ridiculous. Admit it.
I’ll go with what the data actually say. They prove your claim wrong. I’ll repeat it here in case you forgot:
Never before has the coal consumed/capita worldwide been as high as it is today. Never.
Today.
Again, why has coal use declined in the US, over 45% since 2007. (And when we dont have a price on carbon emissions.)
I dont buy numbers like the one you quoted from the IEA, Or numbers from the EIA, because those are often made to appease industry, and so they are often just projections of business as usual and fail to foresee innovations and political necessities like from AGW.
Further to the spurious claim that respiratory illnesses are a problem whose solution is hindered by the fact of AW: The reality is that a greater proportion of pollution-related respiratory illnesses in the developing countries are attributable to combustion of fossil fuels, primarily coal-burning and transportation. Action to reduce fossil-fuel use would save lives even if AW were miraculously not real:
“The highest concentrations of population-weighted average PM 2.5 in 2015 were in North Africa and the Middle East, due mainly to high levels of windblown mineral dust. At the country level, estimates of population-weighted average concentrations in 2015 were highest in Qatar (107 μg/m 3), Saudi Arabia (106 μg/m 3), and Egypt (105 μg/m 3).
“The next highest concentrations appear in South Asia (especially northern India and Bangladesh) and Southeast Asia, eastern China, and Central and Western sub-Saharan Africa, due to combustion emissions from multiple sources, including household solid fuel use, coal-fired power plants, agricultural and other open burning, and industrial and transportation-related sources. The population-weight – ed annual average concentrations were 89 μg/m 3 in Bangladesh, 75 μg/m 3 in Nepal, and 74 μg/m 3 in India. The population-weighted average PM 2.5 concentration in China was 58 μg/m 3, with substantial variation in concentrations among provinces (1979 μg/m 3).
“In 2016, HEI published a report on the major sources of PM 2.5 related to human activity in China, a result of HEIs Global Burden of Disease from Major Air Pollution Sources (GBD MAPS) project. It found that coal-burning by industry, power plants, and households accounted for nearly 40% of population-weighted PM 2.5 concentra – tions in China overall (see the textbox Understanding the Major Sources of PM 2.5 : The GBD MAPS Project on page 7).
“Estimates for annual average population-weighted PM 2.5 concenrations were lowest ( ≤ 8 μg/m 3) in Brunei, Sweden, Greenland, New Zealand, Australia, Finland, Canada, and several Pacific and Carib – bean island nations.”
https://www.stateofglobalair.org/sites/default/files/SOGA2017_report.pdf
Elliott – Your argument, while excellent spin, does not make any sense. We are talking about people without power and running water. How EXACTLY does fossil fuel pollution affect a person who does not have access to fossil fuel power?
I’m all for clean energy, I think every sane person is. We should use all resources at our disposal to bring everyone into the light.
Again I say, if you don’t want people without power to GET power, please lead by example. Maybe go straight to the source and move to Africa. I bet they would share their food with you. In the meantime you should be ashamed of yourself.
“How EXACTLY does fossil fuel pollution affect a person who does not have access to fossil fuel power? ”
I’m glad you asked, especially as it is hilarious to meet someone who can’t work it out for himself: They have to breathe.
“Again I say, if you dont want people without power to GET power”
Again, and not for the last time, I am sure: Citation required.
If you are simply going to openly lie to their faces, so to speak, about what people have said expect to be called on it. Do you seriously believe they are not going to notice?
So you are perfectly fine with 2000 new coal fired power plants in Africa? Let’s say I’m a multi-billionaire and I just want to donate them. I will also buy and ship all the coal there.
I dare you to answer that question honestly.
That’s my citation.
“Thats my citation.”
Exactly: You never had one. As usual, you were just lying.
“So you are perfectly fine with 2000 new coal fired power plants in Africa?”
Of course not. That would kill them with particulate pollution, and from the effects of climate change, to which Africa is especially vulnerable. I am perfectly fine with them having the same generating capacity in renewables, and will happily pay more taxes to pay for the development.
On the east coast of the US, the weather is like a movie about the ice age. Powerful precipitation from the Atlantic is changing over land into an icy rain.
Sorry.
In the northeast, there can be record snowfall.
Why did not anyone predict this storm?
https://www.accuweather.com/en/us/georgia/weather-radar
Butterfly effect. SPECIFIC storms are not predictable beyond and extremely short time-horizon, even in principle and with perfect and complete data. Only frequencies and overall average energies and intensities are susceptible to forecast beyond a few days.
The next wave of the Arctic air will reach the Great Lakes at night.
Cold AND dark, then? Phew, good thing it’s only the yanks.
Speaking of feeling ashamed of yourself, and since you clearly don’t object to changes of subject, how do you feel about the fact that I, as a European, am contributing more than you are in overseas development aid to Africa and elsewhere?
We are paying for more African electricity than you are, and we are not trying to keep them to 19th-Century technologies. Doesnt that make you sick?
Elliott
“Doesn’t that make you sick?”
I think you will find the US is the largest single donor to the poorest on the planet. Mind you Obama/Clinton probably bombed the crap out of them first.
thoughts from down under
Also thanks to Ren always check you blogs
Regards
Harry
Not relative to our wealth. Not by a long shot.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_development_aid_country_donors#Net_official_development_assistance_by_country_as_a_percentage_of_gross_national_income_in_2015
“our wealth”?
davie, did you forget again? You don’t have any wealth. You must be talking about someone else’s money?
Why no mention of Ws bombs?
“I think you will find the US is the largest single donor to the poorest on the planet.”
The largest SINGLE donor is probably Bill Gates. The US is the largest donor by country. The average US citizen is WAY down the list: The UK and Germany both provide more than half the US national contribution to overseas development aid with 20% and 25% of the US population, respectively. The UK and Germany alone contribute about 12% more together than the USA.
Ren they can’t forecast a day or two out much less the climate.
Global temperature changes occur within certain limits. The local temperature is not constant.
https://www.tropicaltidbits.com/analysis/ocean/nino34.png
If La Nińa does not weaken in January, Europe will be frozen.
Let them worry about another global warming after the next 60 years.
http://pics.tinypic.pl/i/00954/evwa3irp3a6q.jpg
Curry has a post on a book by Bernie Lewin regarding the IPCC.
https://judithcurry.com/2018/01/03/manufacturing-consensus-the-early-history-of-the-ipcc/
It is a long post and the book is probably long too.
Could any of the resident anti-human climate alarmists please provide a quick character assassination of Bernie Lewin so I don’t have to bother reading the post or the book?
Much appreciated.
Laura, thanks for the “anti-human” invitation.
No , I will not do a “character assassination” other than to note:
“Bernie Lewin describes himself as a historian of science from Melbourne, Australia, and the author of climate disinformation blog, Enthusiasm, Scepticism, Science. The blog starts from the premise that there is insufficient evidence to make the claim that CO2 emissions are causing catastrophic global warming.
Lewin has a bachelors degree in social science, and a graduate diploma in information management, according to his LinkedIn profile. On his blogs About page, he confesses that he is not an academic.
Just for the record, in my opinion anyone who claims “there is insufficient evidence to make the claim that CO2 emissions are causing catastrophic global warming cannot be taken seriously. You cannot dismiss decades of observations and research by thousands of eminently qualified scientists with such an arrogant statement from a confessed non-academic.
I hope this is useful to you and that you don’t waste time your time on him.
professorP
One point I would like you to articulate :”Just for the record, in my opinion anyone who claims there is insufficient evidence to make the claim that CO2 emissions are causing catastrophic global warming cannot be taken seriously.”
You need to come up with a very solid definition of catastrophic global warming and what this would entail.
I would agree that there is NOT sufficient evidence to make the claim. I can see it will produce some warming. I would hate to join the anti-science group that frequently peddle their made up version of reality but I would not support the opposing extreme view either. I like to keep this Climate Science and stay away from Climate Religion (belief without needing to provide any supporting evidence).
I can already tell you computer models are not a valid source for hard science. They are the fuzzy soft science that gives some general idea but are far from conclusive. Case of point. Roy Spencer had a thread a showing how computer weather models predicted a huge snow storm for New Year’s. It never took place but a storm is taking place farther North in Maine.
Here is a quote from that earlier thread: “Historically, the most accurate weather forecast model is the ECMWF. Here is the latest ECMWF snow depth forecast for ball-drop time on New Years Eve, courtesy of Weatherbell.com. It shows two feet of snow depth at midnight New Years Eve in New York City. Most of that snow is forecast to fall in the 24 hours prior to ball-drop time:”
Looks like the actual amount is zero inches at this time.
http://www.weatherstreet.com/weather-forecast/new-york-snow-cover.htm
I will not put my faith in a computer model of something as complex and involved as weather or climate.
“You need to come up with a very solid definition of catastrophic global warming and what this would entail.”
Norman, lets start with the assumption that global average warming could be about +2 deg by the end of the century. You can forget computer models if you like since such a number can be estimated by consideration of the climate sensitivity to various forcings. You may like to assign a low probability to this, but you cannot honestly say the probability is zero.
Next consider how this warming could be distributed. It is unlikely to be uniform and more likely to be less than +2 near the equator and more than +2 (maybe +4?) towards the poles.
In such a situation the Arctic sea ice would effectively disappear. A catastrophe ? Maybe yes, maybe not.
The oceans get warmer, Greenland melt rates would increase dramatically, Antarctic melt rates the same leading to increased sea levels. A catastrophe ? More likely yes for some people.
Ocean acidification? The same.
Heat stress? Think about shifting your local climate to one which is +2 or +3 or +4 deg warmer on average. A catastrophe ? Maybe yes, maybe not.
etc etc.
You can also assign a low probability to any of these events taking place but, again, you cannot state that the probability is zero. Many people assign high probabilities and they are not all stupid as deniers like to claim.
Finally, while we are talking about the year 2100, what about 2200 if CO2 keeps increasing?
The potential for catastrophe increases even further.
Most recent empirically-based estimates of transient climate response for CO2 X 2 are around 1.5C and going lower.
http://notrickszone.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/Climate-Sensitivity-Value-Estimates-Update.jpg
There has been no net warming at the Antarctic since records began during the International Geophysical year in 1957.
The rational policy response to any future climate related harm is to prepare for it analogous to the way the Japanese prepare for earthquakes, not by destroying wealth with crazy alternative energy projects.
Christopher, thanks – those are interesting and relevant estimates. I need to digest them before commenting further.
I rely on the IPCC Fifth Assessment Report which stated:
“Equilibrium climate sensitivity is likely in the range 1.5 C to 4.5 C (high confidence), extremely unlikely less than 1 C (high confidence), and very unlikely greater than 6 C (medium confidence).”
Christopher, re Antarctic warming we must disagree.
“The continent-wide average surface temperature trend of Antarctica is positive and significant at >0.05 C/decade since 1957. The West Antarctic ice sheet has warmed by more than 0.1 C/decade in the last 50 years, with most of the warming occurring in winter and spring. This is somewhat offset by cooling in East Antarctica during the fall. This effect is restricted to the 1980s and 1990s.
Research published in 2009 found that overall the continent had become warmer since the 1950s, a finding consistent with the influence of man-made climate change:
“We can’t pin it down, but it certainly is consistent with the influence of greenhouse gases from fossil fuels”, said NASA scientist Drew Shindell, another study co-author.”
Chris, the image you post comes from some publication by Nicola Scafetti ?
If so, I refer you to this publication:
M. Rypdal and K. Rypdal. Testing Hypotheses about Sun-Climate Complexity Linking. Physical Review Letters 104, 128501 (2010). DOI:10.1103/PhysRevLett.104.128501
“”The theory of anthropogenic global warming consists of a set of logically interconnected and consistent hypotheses, Martin Rypdal said. This means that if a cornerstone hypothesis is proven to be false, the entire theory fails. A corresponding theory of global warming of solar origin does not exist. What does exist is a set of disconnected, mutually inconsistent, ad hoc hypotheses. If one of these is proven to be false, the typical proponent of solar warming will pull another ad hoc hypothesis out of the hat. This has been the strategy of Scafetta and West over the years
Good quote. Willie Soon does much the same, but about more than the Sun.
Too bad the data disagrees:
http://www.climate4you.com/images/70-90S MonthlyAnomaly Since1957.gif
http://notrickszone.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/Antarctica-UAH-1979-2016.jpg
Professor Humlum at climate4you gives two reasons why the Antarctic temperature trend is not consistent with enhanced greenhouse warming at high latitudes.
As for being consistent with greenhouse warming that quote betrays confirmation bias, besides the issue is not whether greenhouse gas emissions have or have not played a role in the global temperature trend since ~1945, but how much and what if anything to do about it.
I’ve read in various places that the Antarctic is relatively thermally isolated from the rest of the globe (circumpolar gyre/ocean current], and that global warming would be slow to affect the Antarctic.
I’d go the distance and supply links, but that only comes these days if the intitial commenter has led with such courtesy.
I agree that ‘catastrophic’ is a pretty vague term.
Curbing AGW is a risk management exercise. Ascertain the risks – they’re not definite, but it would be imprudent to ignore worst case scenarios. Plan against the worst happening, adjust strategies as necessary.
I’m a bit more optimistic that the world is heading in the prudent direction, albeit slowly, than I was a few years ago. Nothing is definite, especially the future. Accepting the range of possibilities and acting in a responsible fashion with that knowledge is good enough. No time for one-eyed pollyannas or doomsayers. They beat tin drums and polarise. There is enough information to figure that mitigation, the sooner the better, is a sensible option.
Mitigation in the US is imaginary. There may be quite a bit of natural/regenerative energy capacity produced – solar, wind, geothermal etc, but we’re making no headway, not even trying, to avoid natural flooding issues which would occur in low lying areas if the Greenland ice cap were to melt.
Seriously, are we building dikes to keep out the Atlantic in Miami? Of course not. It’d ruin the beach. On the advice of Dick Cheney, who said not to rebuild New Orleans after Katrina, the left cried out in horror against the idea. Those some ideologues who are saying do something about AGW.
Follow the money, that is the only trail. Al Gore will show the way.
When the money leaves Miami and New Orleans, the rest will follow.
Sorry, you lose me with the binary left/right thing. US politics is polarised. That’s about all the interest I have.
Hasn’t US CO2 emissions dropped slightly over the last few years while the population has increased or is that imaginary?
Barry: Yes. US emissions peaked in 2007 at 6.05 Gt.
2016 was 13% lower, at 5.19 Gt.
Building sea walls is extremely expensive, and unless they are quite long they won’t work. Nobody would fund such a thing, especially Republicans.
My understanding is that sea walls won’t work in Florida because the underlying earth is very porous, and the water will find a way inland regardless of a sea wall.
Bob White says:
“And that is why those countries pay the most for power. Germany and South Australia. Leading the world in over charging people for power.”
Hypothetically, if a country produces it’s own energy, then who does it pay?
Note, also, that there is no pretense at considering what the proper price of energy should be; more is simply presented as unfair without justification. In fact, energy production more than most other enterprises imposes external costs. If the consumer pays only for the cost of actually creating the energy then he is cheating others who pick up the external costs. So Germany and South Australia, for all we know, may lead the world in reducing the cheating of those who use less power and those with the cheapest electricity may be perpetrating a leading fraud. In fact, this is probably closer to the truth.
We have concrete experience of this in Britain with the pea-soupers and Clean Air Act: We regulated to return the costs of pollution to the polluters, making heating more expensive but preventing people actually being killed by pollution that those using heating did not have to pay for. China is going the same way right now.
Elliot, “We regulated to return the costs of pollution to the polluters, making heating more expensive ,,,”
This is the nature of the evolution of industrialization. We begin by dumping as many externals into the environment as possible. As we get richer, we begin to account for that waste/pollution whichever. Cleaning our dumps and stopping the dumping. Next, the regulators go overboard. Then we adjust to a more reasonable amount of regulation. (which is where the US is now)
It, as you indirectly noted, is a matter of self preservation.
The visitors to this blog argue the over/not enough regulation bit often. CO2 is considered by some to be a pollutant. Others, not so much – I belong with those others. Curious, to me, that something so vital to life on earth could be possibly considered a pollutant.
But that is only a reflection of political/religious views of some.
May you live long and prosper!
Thanks be to Trump!
etc.
The EU provides the more mature examples of industrial evolution. The Revolution started in Europe, after all. I am not a fan of historicism, however – more a fan of Popper – and I don’t believe that any simple model of begin/overcompensate/reconcile fits all. With our tendency to recognise some problems after they emerge and then try to regulate them back, you have what from a systems-engineering viewpoint is delayed negative feedback. The general expectation of this would be that any output signal will oscillate, perhaps settling towards a long-term stable state. Different countries would not necessarily oscillate in synchrony unless they are linked, say by trade. As we have now seen several cycles of free trade, globalisation and then an authoritarian backlash, this may be the case. I do not see any “final” state here, only a dynamic.
A systematic collapse would naturally bring a sort of final state, as might an end to growth. The tendency to overshoot inherent in delayed feedback makes a collapse plausible, but one of the two MUST eventually occur, or something between them, so we should be seeking an end to growth at some point. Endless growth is not physically possible, and some of our systems, such as pollution sinks, are clearly already close to their limits. To avert collapse, we must seek a stable state in terms of outputs to such sinks.
elliott…”Endless growth is not physically possible, and some of our systems, such as pollution sinks, are clearly already close to their limits. To avert collapse, we must seek a stable state in terms of outputs to such”
People will be reading your words 100 years from now and laughing hysterically.
Some of them clearly are now. Who cares about a few hysterics? It’s been well over 100 years since Tyndall and Arrhenius and anyone laughing at them today belongs in a padded cell. Or in politics.
Lewis wrote:
“CO2 is considered by some to be a pollutant.”
HUMAN emitted CO2 is the pollutant. Not natural CO2.
Hilarious.
Why? Arsenic is a naturally occurring substance. Increased levels due to human activity are classified as a pollutant.
Another good example is Cadmium, the chief anthropogenic source of which is phosphate fertiliser. It’s not a “pollutant” until we change its position. Then it is.
David Appell says:
January 3, 2018 at 5:05 PM
Steve Case says:
One has to wonder why that is.
Yes. And one can read about why.
Understanding Adjustments to Temperature Data, BEST
http://berkeleyearth.org/understanding-adjustments-temperature-data/
Thorough, not thoroughly fabricated: The truth about global temperature data: How thermometer and satellite data is adjusted and why it *must* be done, Scott K Johnson, Ars Technica 1/21/16.
http://arstechnica.com/science/2016/01/thorough-not-thoroughly-fabricated-the-truth-about-global-temperature-data/
Understanding Time of Observation Bias, Zeke Hausfather, 2/22/15.
https://judithcurry.com/2015/02/22/understanding-time-of-observation-bias/
Out of 77 editions that I have of the GISS Land-Ocean Temperature index, the entry for January 1880 was changed 27 times since 2005.
Can you tell me why?
How many times must adjustments be made for:
Time of observation bias?
Station movement?
Instrument change?
Urban heat effect?
Station homogenization?
Exactly what is going on?
To learn, why not read the documents I suggested?
It looks like Grayson (sorry, Roy) will move right over a wierdly warm blob of ocean. It’s an area I’ve been curious about for a couple months now (dark spot just off New England coast – upper right hand corner of chart).
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/ocean/weeklyenso_clim_81-10/wksl_anm.gif
Dr. Spencer
Have you noticed that warm blob? I can’t find anything about it on the internet.
The anomaly is subsurface, so maybe it’s no big deal.
Probably this causes the Gulf Stream.
http://pics.tinypic.pl/i/00954/xkv6kpyqmnqe.png
That is why the storm in the Northeast will intensify.
http://www.lightningwizard.com/maps/North_America/gfs_cape_usa12.png
Talk about back to the future. So it’s almost as warm as 1998? So scary!
Looking at 5 year averages might be a good exercise for you.
Are you people seriously unable to tell the difference between climate medians and climate outliers?
Dr. Roy provides a decadal trend of 0.13C. Much more useful than your attempt to scramble your own brains by picking the most unrepresentative single data point you can find. That’s 1.3C per century, plus about 0.9C to date. Quite enough to be alarming, given that we are already seeing 100-150k excess deaths per annum due to climate change.
Does that include the people who died because they could not afford to heat their homes.as a direct result of green policies its so easy to blame CC for weather events that are neither unusual or unprecedented. I have yet to see a survey that connects any increase of death rates linked to CC.you don’t have to look very far back in history to find evidence of weather related deaths many times higher than today’s.its there for all to see if you have the time to look
“A temperature increase of less than one degree Fahrenheit over half a century raised the probability of mass heat-related deaths in India by two and a half times, a new study has found….”
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/08/world/asia/india-heat-deaths-climate.html?_r=0
“…we further show that the increase in summer mean temperatures in India over this period corresponds to a 146% increase in the probability of heat-related mortality events of more than 100 people….”
http://advances.sciencemag.org/content/3/6/e1700066.full
“Deaths from Climate Change,” World Health Organization
http://www.who.int/heli/risks/climate/climatechange/en/
http://www.who.int/publications/cra/chapters/volume2/1543-1650.pdf?ua=1
“Does that include the people who died because they could not afford to heat their homes.as a direct result of green policies”
Name one, and show a link to the green policy in question.
As David has already supported, the most comprehensive global surveys from bodies tasked with investigating the question, such as the WHO, already estimate a current rate of 100-150k excess deaths per year due to the effects of AW. I very much doubt you could demonstrate a single case of someone who cannot heat their house “because of green policies”. I’ll be impressed if you can even identify one such death in any country that HAS a “green policy”. let alone demonstrate causation.
Although I firmly expect you to show that you do not understand the difference.
LMAO. How does it feel to be so gullible?
The UAH graph you are referring to is of the ‘lower troposphere’ not of global land temperatures. The troposphere averages 11 – 12 miles high, so you’re talking about temperatures 6 miles above the surface on average. The global land surface, not measured by UAH lower trop, is warming faster.
Do you mean kms instead of miles?
TLT measurements are weighted strongest at about 4km altitude.
Barry, you’re still talking about 2 & 1/2 miles above the surface of the planet, about half way up Mt Everest. Not a lot of people live in that strata. And there is still a big difference in global surface temps than global troposphere temperatures. UAH remains a measurement of the upper atmosphere where few people or animals can survive. It is not an equivalent measure to surface temperatures.
Sure. Why are you telling me this?
A nice comedy of errors from the Deniers here: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/planet-oz/2017/dec/19/checkmate-how-do-climate-science-deniers-predictions-stack-up
A few bets lost!
The global sea surface temperature drops markedly in December.
https://www.tropicaltidbits.com/analysis/ocean/global.png
Where would one find longer term SST graphs?
I’ve asked for a comparison to SSTs from previous La Ninas, but they never produce. Clearly they know what we’ll see.
Characteristic denialist obfusc where natural variation is concerned: Keep talking about the monthly dips, ignore the monthly jumps and refuse to acknowlege the existence of decadal trends.
Hadley SSTs, from 1850 to present:
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/hadsst3/data/HadSST.3.1.1.0/diagnostics/HadSST.3.1.1.0_monthly_globe_ts.txt
Do you mean such a guy, lewis?
http://www.data.jma.go.jp/gmd/kaiyou/english/long_term_sst_global/glb_warm_e.html
Here: https://bobtisdale.wordpress.com/2012/09/10/august-2012-sea-surface-temperature-sst-anomaly-update/
http://woodfortrees.org/plot/hadsst3gl/from:1979/plot/hadsst3gl/from:1979/trend
The SST is starting to drop below the trend line (+0.14 C per decade) since 1979. Don’t know if I would be making any claims about imminent massive drops in UAH temperatures based on that, unless you have an over-active imagination.
No imagination whatsoever, I. I reckon it’ll still be about 0.14C per decade in ten years’ time.
http://woodfortrees.org/plot/hadsst3gl/from:1979/plot/hadsst3gl/from:1979/trend/plot/uah6/from:1979/plot/uah6/from:1979/trend
Land surface temps and tropospheric temps over land are not co-operating with SSTs as yet.
Barry,
“I dont know how anyone can say when the LIA ended. Some people say its still ending. Always seems like pure assertion to me. And it is, because they never explain why they think this. They just seem to like it as an explanation for recent warming.”
The evidence the LIA is still ending is Exit Glacier in Seward, Ak. It’s receding over spruce trees dated from the MWP. For its ice to melt and reveal the last and re establish would take several 100 years if not more. The last could even be under the Harding Ice Field. That likely means the MWP was at least as warm and for longer.
Thanks. Do you have a link for this?
2 questions immediately arise
1) Could the MWP warmth in this area have been anomalously warm even in the context of the MWP?
2) Is this consistent across multiple glaciers or just this one? EG, does this represent a global phenomenon or strictly local?
This was the first study I came across with a quick google: not about Exit glacier, but glaciers in the N Atlantic area.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4673052/
We use cosmogenic beryllium-10 dating to develop a moraine chronology with century-scale resolution over the last millennium and show that alpine glaciers in Baffin Island and western Greenland were at or near their maximum LIA configurations during the proposed general timing of the MWP. Complimentary paleoclimate proxy data suggest that the western North Atlantic region remained cool, whereas the eastern North Atlantic region was comparatively warmer during the MWPa dipole pattern compatible with a persistent positive phase of the North Atlantic Oscillation. These results demonstrate that over the last millennium, glaciers approached their eventual LIA maxima before what is considered the classic LIA in the Northern Hemisphere.
One glacier doesn’t prove anything about a wide ranging phenomenon like the LIA, without considering local influences.
Darwin continued here:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2018/01/uah-global-temperature-update-for-december-2017-0-41-deg-c/#comment-279397
Thanks Svante. I replied above but it went down thread because I’m on my iPhone. I’ve had so many writings disappear while I look for links. Very frustrating. But then just a hobby for me. I laugh when I see folks debating such far afield topics when there are so many agw theory ending things out there. That it’s been as warm or warmer than now and for longer just in the last few warming periods just one of so many. Supposedly Alaska the canary. Obviously the case back in 1170 too… Thanks again for posting my reply. Such a nice guy.
The storm becomes dangerous.
http://www.ssd.noaa.gov/goes/east/eaus/flash-ir4.html
blizzard is here
I would say the little ice age ended in 1830,and this warm period is ending in year 2018
Why?
Salvatore, but previously you said the warming ended 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
“I will be proven correct along with many in my camp that predict this will be the decade of global cooling and a large part of that cooling will be due to LOW solar activity. Mark my words.”
You wrote this in 2010, Sal. I’ve marked your words.
At the same link Salvatore also wrote
“Your study, the CO2 man made global warming hoax, don’t mean anything because in the next few years we will know ,who is right and who is wrong.”
It’s now been a “few years,” and we now who was right and who was wrong.
I admire your rigour, both of you. I can’t generally remember deniers’ names a day after I disconnect from a discussion, and here you are keeping track of their drivel over years. Glad someone is keeping track!
Thanks Elliott. And I’m enjoying reading your comments, which are science-based and insightful.
because that is when the solar Dalton Minimum ended .
I meant, why 2018?
You vastly overestimate the sun’s influence on climate change. The science puts it as less than 0.1 C per W/m2.
What do folks think of this new study which estimates 0.1 degree warming of oceans over last 50 years ? What are re there error bars on this estimate ? could this number be low due to ocean lagging atmosphere temperature?
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/01/04/an-instant-global-ocean-thermometer-from-antarctic-ice-cores/
I think I’ll stay on the japanese met agency’s conservative line for a while… because their surface time series is the ‘coolest’ among all.
http://www.data.jma.go.jp/gmd/kaiyou/english/long_term_sst_global/glb_warm_e.html
Oooops! Wrong chart here!
http://www.data.jma.go.jp/gmd/kaiyou/english/ohc/ohc_global_en.html
But how to convert from these petajoules in Celsius? No se!
To convert heat changes to temperature changes, use the definition of specific heat:
delta(Q) = mc*delta(T)
where Q is heat, m is mass and c is specific heat.
From the Scripps press release:
“Our precision is about 0.2 C (0.4 F) now, and the warming of the past 50 years is only about 0.1 C,” he said….”
Thanks. I looked to find where error was coming from.
They say advanced equipment can provide more precise measurements
I take this to mean that they lack really good equipment.
Maybe. Or maybe there wanted to first demonstrate proof-of-principle before going all out.
Difficult to tell much without reading the paper. Lack of error bars doesn’t inspire confidence. It’s a new technique, so take the first attempt with a grain of salt. The result isn’t out of the ordinary, but that doesn’t mean it’s sound.
The paper is loaded with error bars.
https://www.nature.com/articles/nature25152
Nature wouldn’t publish it without them.
Ah yes, there is one error bar. How do you know it is ‘loaded’ with them? Have you read it?
Skimmed it so far. But their main figure, Figure 2, has vertical error bars on all of the hundreds of data points.
Did you find a free copy? I couldn’t.
No, I get free access to Nature since I’m a science writer. I can send it to you if you email me. My email address is on my Web site, http://www.davidappell.com
Science writer?? LMAO. That’s a good one.
0.1 C for whole ocean, what does that mean for total energy total per m^2 of surface?
What is average ocean depth?
I would expect most of deep ocean has ~ 0 warming given that it takes 1000 y to turn over.
“What is average ocean depth?”
3700 m IIRC.
Average ocean depth is about 4000 m.
For a mean temperature change of the entire ocean of 0.1 C, you’d need an input heat of 1.6 GJ/m2 (= 430 kWh/m2).
Let’s say AGW has been happening for 50 years (since about 1970). Then this heat input would correspond to an average power input of 1.0 W/m2 over that time.
That’s reasonably close to the calculated planetary energy imbalance of 0.78 W/m2 for the entire ocean for 2005-2015 given in Johnson+ 2016:
Improving estimates of Earth’s energy imbalance,
Johnson, G.C., J.M. Lyman, and N.G. Loeb
Nature Clim. Change, 6, 639640, doi: 10.1038/nclimate3043 (2016)
http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v6/n7/full/nclimate3043.html
And, actually, 50 years was the period of time used in this new paper. Should have looked that up first.
https://scripps.ucsd.edu/news/new-study-identifies-thermometer-past-global-ocean
And…. the study shows the ocean warmed by 0.1 C over 50 years.
A little late to the party.
I fear there is something egregiously wrong with the data being gathered by whoever gathers data. I don’t blame UAH for this in the least but I have asked the question as to how much access NOAA has to the satellite data before UAH receives it.
There is no apparent reason for temperatures remaining consistently high following the 2106 El Nino. The remaining warming far exceeds anything CO2 could produce in a century.
Either there are processes in nature of which we are not aware or NOAA has found a way to infiltrate the satellite data before it reaches UAH.
What bull. The data say something you don’t like, and instead of re-examining your understanding and beliefs you take the lazy way out and accuse someone, anyone, somewhere, anywhere of fraud.
The worst of denier behavior.
Of course el Ninos and la Ninas are not the only things affecting short-term global temps. And a long-term background warming would explain recent relatively warm temps post el Nino well enough.
But if you dig really hard you might be able to argue that there is no global warming without resorting to childish conspiracy theories.
I fear there is something egregiously wrong with the data being gathered by whoever gathers data…
There is no apparent reason for temperatures remaining consistently high following the 2106 El Nino.
A great example of someone who starts with a conclusion and bends all inquiry to maintain it. Next up, Gordon scours the net to find natural causes explaining recent temps, proving no AGW. Or maybe he’ll just monitor WUWT and wait for some other contrarian to do the cherry-picking for him.
Gordon translated:
“Things did not turn out as I predicted, which means that someone else has done something wrong. It couldn’t possibly be me.”
Perfect.
It’s easy enough to check the ENSO monitoring sites and trawl up historical data for the cycle state. It clearly does NOT always switch cleanly from one state to its opposite. There have been a few instances in the past when both positive and negative states have wandered back to neutral and then back to the prior polarity before eventually switching.
No reason, therefore, to assume that anything unusual is at work if it dithers a bit this year, as well.
It’s also a mistake to pin temperature fluctuations on ENSO events and nothing else. The last few months anomalies are only surprising if one expects global temps to follow ENSO events exactly, and perhaps under the belief that the world is not warming.
It seems to me that skeptics are disappointed the so-called pause did not return after the 2016 el Nino finished. Some go as far as to claim the data has been manipulated – just because their expectation has not been met.
lou maytrees…”The UAH graph you are referring to is of the lower troposphere not of global land temperatures. The troposphere averages 11 12 miles high, so youre talking about temperatures 6 miles above the surface on average. The global land surface, not measured by UAH lower trop, is warming faster”.
All surface temperatures are recorded in enclosures in the troposphere ranging in height from several feet and greater. The notion that sat measurements of the troposphere come from 6 miles high is nonsense. Sats can detect temperatures right to the surface.
“Sats can detect temperatures right to the surface.”
Show us your source
Gordon Robertson wrote:
“Sats can detect temperatures right to the surface”
Then answer, why is no one doing this, anywhere in the world?
Sats can detect temperatures right to the surface.
Oh dear, how utterly wrong. We’ve even cited UAH and RSS documents saying that this is not so, and verifying that the TLT temp profile is derived from the whole troposphere, weighted at about 4km altitude.
It’s hard to fathom such pig-headedness in the face of information coming from source. But the lesson is clear: GR has no idea.
Do you have a source for this grand misconception, Gordon? Anything at all? Please don’t waste time with further assertions, just give a link or something.
Satellites detect surface “radiances”, and from these they compute surface temps:
http://www.remss.com/measurements/sea-surface-temperature/
https://tinyurl.com/yaylrvkp
We’re talking global temps. They can only do that with SSTs, not land surface, and this is not included in the UAH TLT product. For UAH TLT, radiance measurements of the troposphere to 8km height, weighted at 4km is what is used, including over the oceans.
Read both links, barry. Not just the first one. MODIS does the land temps, although only in clear-sky conditions (IR only, not MW). CERES provides a satellite-based global sfc temp product (MOA), on which they base their global EBAF Sfc LW_up data product:
https://ceres-tool.larc.nasa.gov/ord-tool/jsp/SYN1degEd4Selection.jsp (Parameters > Initial Meteorological Parameters > Skin Temperature)
https://ceres-tool.larc.nasa.gov/ord-tool/jsp/EBAFSFC4Selection.jsp (Parameters > Surface Fluxes > Longwave Flux Up)
barry says, January 4, 2018 at 9:53 PM:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/MSU2-vs-LT23-vs-LT.gif
They retrieve tropospheric MW radiances all the way from the surface air layer up to the tropopause layer, but weight them all to center just below 4 km, yes.
Thanks, I didn’t see it was 2 links.
Satellite land surface temperature estimates are also affected by atmospheric radiance through the troposphere. There is no satellite sensor that can retrieve land surface temps directly (or for the 2 meter altitude) as Gordon seems to believe.
https://tinyurl.com/ycayfroe
They retrieve tropospheric MW radiances all the way from the surface air layer up to the tropopause layer, but weight them all to center just below 4 km, yes.
Yes, for TLT, each channel yields radiance measurements through kilometers of altitude of atmosphere. There is no sensor that isolates radiance measurements to within a couple of meters, or even 1 kilometer over land.
barry says, January 5, 2018 at 1:44 AM:
Sure. But as you’ve seen, satellites are able to isolate radiances from the actual surface, both on land and sea.
barry says, January 5, 2018 at 1:44 AM:
This is true.
But as youve seen, satellites are able to isolate radiances from the actual surface, both on land and sea.
Satellites “isolate” ST? Not for land as far as I have read and following your links further.
Unfortunately, direct observations of surface irradiance are currently available only over a limited number of ground sites over land, and a handful of offshore and island locations. Therefore, a global estimate of the surface radiation budget must be determined indirectly through radiative transfer model calculations initialized using satellite-derived cloud and aerosol properties and meteorological data from assimilation models…
The surface irradiance estimated in the Clouds and the Earth’s Radiant Energy System (CERES) project relies on Moderate Resolution Imaging Spectrometer (MODIS) derived cloud and aerosol properties and also uses CERES-derived top-of-atmosphere (TOA) irradiance as a constraint [Charlock et al., 2006]. Despite the relative success in using such data sets, the accuracies of surface radiation estimates are constrained by the limitations in accurately retrieving all of the necessary cloud parameters needed for the radiative transfer models.
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2011JD016050/full
Any case, none of this has to do with what Gordon is talking about.
barry says, January 5, 2018 at 4:14 AM:
Come on, barry. Don’t make this so hard. Not ST. Surface “radiances”. Here’s what is said:
“DESCRIPTION
Here we offer daily composites and monthly means of the land surface temperature as derived from infrared radiances measured with the MODIS-TERRA sensor at its channels 31 and 32. From radiances obtained under clear-sky conditions the land surface temperature is obtained using a split window technique. This data set is the final product of a product chain.”
Sensor channels 31 and 32 detect IR radiation inside the main infrared atmospheric window, which, in clear-sky conditions, for all intents and purposes means thermal radiation straight from the surface:
https://tinyurl.com/yaagr2mg
This, BTW, is the same technique as used by the orbiting satellites around Mars to determine its gl ST:
http://gemelli.spacescience.org/jbandfield/publications/bandfield_mcs_tes.pdf (Table 2, Figure 6)
Okay.
In clear sky conditions….
But about half the sky isn’t clear. This is why no one is compiling a time series of surface temperatures measured by satellite.
DA…”But about half the sky isnt clear. This is why no one is compiling a time series of surface temperatures measured by satellite”.
So you are claiming that high frequency EM cannot penetrate an overcast sky. Guess I’d better stop using my cell phone when it’s cloudy since it obviously doesn’t work. And I was deluded watching all those TV programs on old-fashioned antennas on cloudy days.
Gordon Robertson says:
“So you are claiming that high frequency EM cannot penetrate an overcast sky.”
They’re not “high frequencies,” they’re low frequencies — microwaves. About 100,000 times lower than infrared radiation.
Cell phones use frequencies of about 700-2600 MHz (microwaves are roughly 300 MHz), but the transmission is short range so they don’t have to deal with clouds.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2018/01/uah-global-temperature-update-for-december-2017-0-41-deg-c/#comment-279247
It’s not a terrible feeling to find something to agree on.
Indeed.
barry…”There is no satellite sensor that can retrieve land surface temps directly (or for the 2 meter altitude) as Gordon seems to believe”.
Who is talking about the land surface? Do surface thermometers measure land surface temps? Do they stick them in the soil and measure the soil temps?
Satellites gather microwave radiation from oxygen molecules. There is nothing to stop them gathering that data from near surface, as in right above the surface. The notion of sat telemetry being limited to 6 miles of altitude is ludicrous.
Please note, sats do not gather temperature data from CO2 molecules. I wonder why? [/sarc off].
Gordon Robertson says:
“Satellites gather microwave radiation from oxygen molecules. There is nothing to stop them gathering that data from near surface, as in right above the surface.”
And how would they know if oxygen microwaves they receive are from near the surface or higher in the atmosphere?
Satellites gather microwave radiation from oxygen molecules. There is nothing to stop them gathering that data from near surface, as in right above the surface
The satellite instruments used for UAH global temps cannot isolate radiance measurements of molecules near the surface from the rest of the troposphere.
If the sensors could do that, then UAH would be able to provide a direct analog for surface temps. That would be incredibly useful, but they simply can’t do it with the microwave sensors they use, which ‘see’ through clouds. You can derive surface radiance using IR sensors (with much post-measurement processing), but they can’t see through clouds.
It’s hard to believe you don’t know this after all the time you’ve spent on this blog.
And how would they know if oxygen microwaves they receive are from near the surface or higher in the atmosphere?
Good question.
DAppell..”Lewis wrote:
CO2 is considered by some to be a pollutant.”
HUMAN emitted CO2 is the pollutant. Not natural CO2″.
How convenient and how idiotic. So the elements C and O when combined become a pollutant if humans emit them but not a pollutant if the oceans, forests, and swamps emit them naturally.
Why do you alarmists hate human beings so much?
Yes, manmade CO2 is a pollutant — an unwanted substance with deleterious effects.
Legally, it’s a pollutant in the US.
—
You comment about hate is a sign of desperation and frustration. It doesn’t deserve the dignity of a reply.
Desperation and frustration are symptoms associated with a sore loser.
Gordon knows deep down he has been deluded all these years.
profp…”Gordon knows deep down he has been deluded all these years”.
I am still trying to understand why you’re type don’t understand basic chemistry. The amount of heat contributed by each gas in the atmosphere is directly proportional to it’s concentration. That’s the Ideal Gas Law and Dalton’s law of partial pressures.
I am not interested in the ravings of climate modelers who have arbitrarily assigned CO2 a heating factor of 9% to 25%, depending on humidity. They have also assigned a positive feedback to back-radiation from ACO2 which is a direct contravention of the 2nd law.
Either the present maintenance of a global average around 0.4C above the baseline is due to corruption from NOAA or something is going on that no one understands.
John Christy of UAH has been eminently humble about that possibility, claiming he is humbled by the complexity of the atmosphere. Maybe if alarmists like you had more humility you’d get it that you are the deluded party.
Gordon Robertson says:
“The amount of heat contributed by each gas in the atmosphere is directly proportional to its concentration. Thats the Ideal Gas Law and Daltons law of partial pressures.”
And radiative transfer. Which, for some reason, you routinely ignore.
Cognitive dissonance can be an ugly disease.
Gordon Robertson wrote:
“I am not interested in the ravings of climate modelers who have arbitrarily assigned CO2 a heating factor of 9% to 25%, depending on humidity. They have also assigned a positive feedback to back-radiation from ACO2 which is a direct contravention of the 2nd law.”
These numbers are calculated, as you well know.
And they do not violate the 2nd law, as you know also.
Your lack of interest is precisely your problem — you need to pretend that you are always right and the rest of the world is always wrong. Just like Donald Trump.
davie, with the booming economy, even you should be able to get a job.
How many job applications did you complete this week?
“So the elements C and O when combined become a pollutant if humans emit them but not a pollutant if the oceans, forests, and swamps emit them naturally.”
Of course. Water is a pollutant in a fuel tank; fuel is a pollutant in a river. What constitutes a pollutant is context-sensitive.
elliott…”Of course. Water is a pollutant in a fuel tank; fuel is a pollutant in a river. What constitutes a pollutant is context-sensitive”.
AGW in the mind is also a pollutant. CO2 in the atmosphere is not. Maybe coal soot and SO2 but not CO2, an odourless gas that stimulates life in plants, trees, etc.
CO2 also causes higher temperatures. To ignore this effect while only citing plant fertilization is dishonest.
“Unfortunately, the simple idea that global warming could provide at least some benefits to humanity by increasing plant production is complicated by a number of factors. It is true that fertilizing plants with CO2 and giving them warmer temperatures increases growth under some conditions, but there are trade-offs. While global warming can increase plant growth in areas that are near the lower limits of temperature (e.g., large swaths of Canada and Russia), it can make it too hot for plant growth in areas that are near their upper limits (e.g., the tropics). In addition, plant productivity is determined by many things (e.g., sunlight, temperature, nutrients, and precipitation), several of which are influenced by climate change and interact with one another.”
“Does a Warmer World Mean a Greener World? Not Likely!,” Jonathan Chase, PLOS Biology, June 10, 2015.
http://journals.plos.org/plosbiology/article?id=info:doi/10.1371/journal.pbio.1002166
davie spouts his pseudoscience: “CO2 also causes higher temperatures.”
davie, where is your “evidence” of such nonsense.
Valid physics only, not “bird-cage liners”. Show us the equations.
I love CO2! I could do with more! Makes my plants grow. Love the bubbles of wines fermenting and olives too.
Gotta get me a poster and T-shirt. I luv CO2; without it u r dead. Double the dose for perfect health!
tony: if CO2 is so good for plants, why are there no plants on Venus (atmo CO2 = 96%)?
davie, are you seriously that clueless?
DA: As usual Davie, you are clueless on science or the implications. Here I am in total agreement with G*
You go around trolling and promoting junk science and junk scientists. I clearly caught you out on this before on a number of occasions.
CO2, in the conditions pertinent to earth, could not increase to dramatic levels as a result of humans. We also could never get 90+ atm of CO2 on earth due to humans no matter how much you fart. Unicorn farts won’t do it either. Do you grasp the significance. I did say “double the dose” but even a bit more would be beneficial.
Mars has nearly 100% CO2 and is mighty cold even adjusting for insolation differences.
I luv CO2; please more of it! Double the dose for perfect health!
RSS December anomaly is out also recording a tick up from last month. Here’s the monthly anomalies from Jan 2016, same period as Roy’s table in the article.
2016 1 0.8444
2016 2 1.1666
2016 3 1.0400
2016 4 0.9434
2016 5 0.6855
2016 6 0.6273
2016 7 0.6449
2016 8 0.6363
2016 9 0.7619
2016 10 0.6056
2016 11 0.5801
2016 12 0.4020
2017 1 0.5857
2017 2 0.6693
2017 3 0.5709
2017 4 0.5500
2017 5 0.6325
2017 6 0.4906
2017 7 0.5995
2017 8 0.7183
2017 9 0.8472
2017 10 0.8060
2017 11 0.5501
2017 12 0.5892
Monthly anomalies for both data sets usually but not always change in the same direction. Remember, they have different baselines, so the values aren’t directly comparable.
barry
RSS3.3 is considered deprecated by Mears and Wentz but is still active (UAH5.6 is no longer, shut down last year in july).
Thus please mention 4.0 when you publish.
Moreover it would be nice to give the link, as for example the data I download slightly differs:
http://data.remss.com/msu/monthly_time_series/RSS_Monthly_MSU_AMSU_Channel_TLT_Anomalies_Land_and_Ocean_v04_0.txt
Thanks in advance.
This is the link I use (v4):
http://images.remss.com/data/msu/graphics/TLT_v40/time_series/RSS_TS_channel_TLT_Global_Land_And_Sea_v04_0.txt
I found myself locked out of other links when RSS began asking for a login to get their data.
Are they different? I wonder why.
Somewhere on RSS’s site you can apply for a login & password to their data pages….
Did that and forgot the password.
barry, always use the word “password” for your password. Then you won’t forget it.
☺
Well hell, not always, but yes, for a non-sensitive account that’s a good idea.
Well, they’re not different numerically, just that the link you’ve got has 3 decimal places instead of 4, and they are rounded.
This new year has opened up with more fun times following the hilarious end to last year; green plates in the sky and moon spin.
The importance of being ernest takes centre stage with microscopic detailed calculations of the T rate increase a whopping 1.3C per century.
I could have sworn that the start of the satellite series was just when the Great PDO shift took place in the late 70’s. after a drop in T from the mid 1940’s The end point reflects the highest T evah given the el Nino events.
So we start low and end with a high to get 1.3C per century. Dire, real dire! If I had chosen the opposite I would be told I was cherry picking but it seems that this is good methodology for warmers.
FAR predicted 3C per century. Hilarious!
NB for Appell: the word used is PREDICTED, got it?
While all the noise in this forum is about this supposed 1.3C doom rate of T change there is the ever popular Monkton at WUWT giving his version which mocks what is said here.
Perhaps we should start a list of prophecies and note their success or fail. Let’s not leave out the chief scientist Al Gore! His assistant was of course James Hansen the father of modern climastrology.
I leave it to others to fill in the details but Hansen is colourful. On his prediction I visualized office workers in Manhattan dropping fishing lines out of their windows to catch the fish for lunch and dinner. Before the last Presidential elections he was pressing for the direct extraction of CO2 from the atmosphere as a matter of urgency such was the danger. Shortly after the election he stated it was not so urgent. The moon does spin on its axis too!
Wow TonyM!
Do I read right? Has ‘ever popular’ become a valuable attribute for you?
Despite the somewhat hilarious 3 C you mentioned above, if I have to choose as source between the ‘ever popular’ third viscount Monckton of Brenchley (journalist) and the IPCC info selection staff, I’ll take the latter.
Your choice, Tony!
Bindidon:
It is of no interest to me what you read into it. I think I am usually clear on what I say but if you don’t grasp it then it is a simple thing to ask me to clarify. Usually this would include quoting me and I would try to clarify.
As for Monkton my reference is clearly a comparison with the comments on this site (not by Dr Roy) and on this topic. You are perfectly free to take the failed predictions of the IPCC. It is a body established to promote only the supposed human influence on CAGW, climate change or whatever other euphamism is the flavour of the moment. Hence it is a prejudged outcome and cannot be classified as science which must always be open to questioning.
Consensus science is the science we have when there is no science. Otherwise we would point to the testable hypothesis and experiments which support it. So please do that for me instead of hiding behind the IPCC.
Tonym:
Climate science isn’t an experimental science, it’s an observational science.
But it does apply different parts of different sciences that HAVE been experimentally verified: the Planck law, Kirchoff’s law, the laws of thermodynamics, the physics of fluid flow, etc.
davie rambles: “But it does apply different parts of different sciences..”
No davie, “climate science” misapplies science. That’s why you end up with nonsense like the Sun can heat the Earth to 800,000K. Or, CO2 can warm the planet.
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).
=> dT = 760,000 K
QED
davie demonstrates, AGAIN, his inability to understand quantum physics, radiative heat transfer, and the Laws of Thermodynamics.
It’s fun to watch.
Tonym wrote:
“Consensus science is the science we have when there is no science.”
NASA used consensus science to get to the moon. You depend on consensus science every time you start your car. You’re depending on it right now as you use your computer.
David APPELL,
You obviously find it hard to grasp consensus due to scientific testing and consensus due to waffling.
All of these fields are applied science. All have been subjected to rigorous testing. Other than space flight all pass with flying colours. Heavens, I test my car every time I start it. My only failure was when I flattened the battery! Similarly with my computer; almost invariably a pass.
Yeah, there have been failures with space flight. Some should have been found before flight but sadly, ce la vie.
In all these fields we can point to the success rate of experimental tests. This is what subsequently gives the consensus.
Now show me the success rates in climastrology. You would be scraping the bottom of the barrel as they say. Did anything turn up?
Consensus science is the science we have when there is no science.
Tony, climate science is not an experimental science. Do you understand why? (Short answer: there is no Earth 2 to use as a control.)
Experiments also can’t be done for the sciences of geology, astronomy, medicine, economics. But we have learned a great deal from them.
So stop harping about experiments — it just shows you don’t understand what an experiment is and when they’re possible or not possible.
tony, climate science uses many of the same tools used in weather prediction models. Lots of testing every day! Prediction way better than when I was a kid.
Consensus has developed about what works in weather modeling. That consensus is taught in meteorology courses. Next generation improves it. That’s how science/tech progresses.
David,
As I thought, you scraped the bottom of the barrel and found nothing. Zip! Total failure. So much for science.
I give you a more detailed response at the start of a new thread as this has become unwieldy.
Nate:
I commented in a new comment thread similar to DA.
tonym says: “So we start low and end with a high to get 1.3C per century. Dire, real dire! ”
Good point, tonym.
And yes, the “blue/green plates” and “moon/spin” were especially entertaining.
The “plates” problem involves understanding physics, which is not a common background here. But, how some tried to manipulate the pseudoscience was amazing. The imaginary concept of a “black body” is “defined” to act as a perfect absorber/emitter, or insulator, or heat source, as needed to support the agenda.
Hilarious.
The “moon” does not require any background to understand. It can easily be verified on a kitchen table with any spherical object, by a 12-year-old with an open mind. So, the effort to somehow re-define “axis of rotation” was amusing.
My prediction is 2018 will be even more fun, as the pseudoscience continues to be exposed, and the desperation increases.
g*r…”The imaginary concept of a black body is defined to act as a perfect absorber/emitter, or insulator, or heat source, as needed to support the agenda”.
Not really a perfect emitter. The theoretical BB absorbs all frequencies but emits lower frequency below a certain cutoff point.
For example, treating the Earth as a BB means it absorbs all frequencies of EM from the Sun but only emits frequencies in the low end of the infrared spectrum.
Can’t imagine how the Sun behaves as a BB since I cannot imagine it absorbing all frequencies of EM.
Gordon erroneously states: “The theoretical BB absorbs all frequencies but emits lower frequency below a certain cutoff point.”
Sorry Gordon, but a “theoretical BB emits based on its temperature, a perfect Planck spectrum. There is no meaningful “cutoff point”.
And, I’m not sure where you are going with the Earth/Sun. The quote from my comment was about the blue/green plate problem.
Gordon Robertson says:
“The theoretical BB absorbs all frequencies but emits lower frequency below a certain cutoff point.”
No Gordon. A blackbody absorbs all frequencies and emits all frequencies.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_body#/media/File:Black_body.svg
“The plates problem involves understanding physics, which is not a common background here. But, how some tried to manipulate the pseudoscience was amazing. The imaginary concept of a black body is defined to act as a perfect absorber/emitter, or insulator, or heat source, as needed to support the agenda.”
G* continues to live in bass-ackward world, where up is down, unequal is equal, no one understands physics-but he does, energy is created from nothing, heat flows from hot to hot, charcoal is a mirror, and ordinary facts are hilarious.
flat tires, probably no one understands your disconnected rambling.
But, that’s okay, you’re nevertheless desperately hilarious.
G* reading comprehension is a useful skill to develop.
tonym wrote:
“So we start low and end with a high to get 1.3C per century. Dire, real dire!”
1) You’re assuming the trend will remain linear for a century, which isn’t a good assumption, because of feedbacks coming to the fore.
2) Even at your rate, we’d take 4 centuries to get the same warming that the Earth had in about 100 centuries coming out of the last icy period. We’re warming 25-30 times as fast.
BTW, do you understand the difference between a prediction and a projection?
davie, the chance of your “feedbacks” happening is even less that your chance of getting a 6-figure annual income.
Can you say “wee”?
DA…”Were warming 25-30 times as fast”.
From a mini ice age. Temps during the Little Ice Age were 1C to 2C below normal. What else would you expect from a planet that is re-warming?
Temps got back to pre LIA levels a hundred years ago, didn’t they?
Yes Barry. Gordon is again wrong.
Gordon Robertson says:
“Temps during the Little Ice Age were 1C to 2C below normal.”
No, there were less than 0.5 C below those of 1000-1200 CE.
D Appell:
I am not assuming anything but reflecting the comments made earlier by commenters including yourself. Do look!!
Barry:
1.3C warming in a century would be the fastest rate of global change since the ice ages.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2018/01/uah-global-temperature-update-for-december-2017-0-41-deg-c/#comment-278768
You, DA, adds:
Warming is now about 30 times faster than the average rate of warming coming out of the Last Glacial Maximum.
You now double down on this.
DA this is your hallmark of sensationalism and trolling. I have had to admonish you when u cited Marcott’s work as confirming the current status as being unprecedented. You are forever the troll when Marcott himself stated that modern instrumental records could not be compared with centennial and bicentennial proxies used in his paper.
Indeed short term to long period comparisons themselves are invalid for obvious reasons.
That goes for Barry’s comment too! No, I don’t include him in the “troll” descriptor; that is your flag!
BTW David, do you understand the meaning of the word “prediction?” Go to FAR!
Our current rate of warming is about 30 times faster than the average after the last ice age (glacial period) ended.
From Shakun et al Nature 2012 Figure 2a:
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v484/n7392/full/nature10915.html
global temperature anomaly in year -18,000 is -3.4 C
global temperature anomaly in year -11,000 is +0.0 C
so the average temperature change is 3.4 C in 7000 years, or ~ +0.005 C/decade, compared to NOAAs current 30-year trend of +0.17 C/decade
So that’s a factor of 32 now compared to then.
http://davidappell.blogspot.com/2015/06/current-warming-30-times-faster-than.html
I still don’t see any evidence you know the difference between a prediction and a projection.
davie, let me see if I can help you.
I PROJECT that you will continue to wallow in your pseudoscience another year. That PROJECTION is based on observations here.
I PREDICT that you will continue to wallow in your pseudoscience another year. That PREDICTION is based on my “gut feeling”.
Does that help?
D Appell:
I can’t help what you see or don’t see nor your persistent myopia or troll virtues. Go look up the dictionary for the definition of prediction.
It seems you never will learn.
The quote from the first page of the Executive Summary of the Summary for Policy Makers, FAR 1990:1
“Based on current model results, we predict:
Under the IPCC Business-as-Usual (Scenario A) emissions of greenhouse gases, a rate of increase of global mean temperature during the next century of about 0.3C per decade (with an uncertainty range of 0.2C 0.5C)” [IPCC FAR summary]
Notice the word PREDICT. We had this discussion before but I don’t recall when but it is a deja vu moment as follows:
You are the one who has said climate conjecture cannot be “tested.”
You avoid subjecting the CAGW hypothesis to testing by ignoring the abject failures of Hansen and FAR predictions put forward more than twenty years ago. Yet, you jump to attack Salvatore when he has had only five years to fulfil his predictions.
Your previous comments breach the 1st Law of T but you scurry off to hide under the bed covers.
Your are somewhat inconsistent. NO, that’s not right: you are perfectly consistent. Just what I expect from you.
David, you just keep trolling on!
Notice the word PREDICT.
A projection is a prediction IF its assumptions come to pass. Which is, of course, exactly what the projection does!
You still clearly do not understand what a projection is.
The First Climate Model Turns 50, And Predicted Global Warming Almost Perfectly, Ethan Siegel, Forbes.com, 3/15/17.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2017/03/15/the-first-climate-model-turns-50-and-predicted-global-warming-almost-perfectly/#227ae5746614
“In fact, the match of observed temperature to Hansens scenario is C quite good.”
– Tamino, 3/21/14
https://tamino.wordpress.com/2014/03/21/hansens-1988-predictions/
David Appell:
Can you read or are you simply thick?
The conditions:
Under the IPCC Business-as-Usual (Scenario A) emissions of greenhouse gases etc
Do you notice the word EMISSIONS? Got it or do you wish to obfuscate and conflate again?
Similarly it applies to Hansen’s BAU predictions.
Emissions of both CO2 and CH4 have certainly more than met these conditions. Just do a quick Google.
Both Hansen and FAR fail!! Should that be period?
Yet you link to Manabe et al who did not go on the thermageddon bandwagon as Hansen and others have.
You also link to Tamino. Who is he? Some expert with a track record, a guru or what? A quick search finds that he is:
Self-described Hansen bulldog Tamino, writing at NASAs realclimate blog hosted by Hansens other bulldog (Gavin),
So we are to expect objective analysis are we? He starts off by seemingly acknowledging emissions of CO2 has actually increased but the rubbishes critics for failing to account for CH4.
He then turns to Mauna Loa measures of CH4 which are fairly static after 2000 to 2010.
Only a clot could assume that Mauna Loa measures world emissions of CH4.
So he switched away from emissions which have actually grown; they exceed business as usual!
David if we increase the size of the barn door and shift it around sufficiently you too can hit it!
David, you just keep trolling on!
Taming is a scientist who has written some important papers. Hes an expert on statistics. He writes a blog called Open Mind. Google for it.
For Gods sake, no one in the world thinks Maura Loa measures methane emissions. Where did you ever get that ridiculous notion?
David Appell:
Your response shows you to be more of a time wasting, trolling clot than I could have thought. You cite references as your ticket to authority but it becomes clear that you don’t read the detail, don’t analyze them, don’t understand them or are simply a denier of facts or combination in various degrees. Is it any wonder you were banned at WUWT.
Yet you have the audacity to demand of Ren that he desist from posting when all he does is post mostly references to data. Most of us, I feel, appreciate his efforts in part because he doesn’t foist any deliberate, distorted view in the process quite unlike yourself.
You claim Tamino is a noted expert. I could not care less if you regard him as God’s archangel; he has deliberately misled the findings by switching data in the reference you gave. You endorse this by accepting it and continuing to pretend he is correct even though it has been pointed out to you. You are a indeed a troll!
He states:
Hansen estimated future temperature based on three scenarios of possible greenhouse gas emissions, high emissions (scenario A), medium (scenario B), and low (scenario C).
NOTE
FAR and Hansen PREDICTIONS rest on EMISSIONS of scenario where A) is business as usual (BAU) which is growth of >1.5% p.a. which was exceeded.
Tamino acknowledges this claim for CO2 :
…temperature had to come closest to Hansens scenario A because CO2 increase has most closely matched Hansens scenario A
But he says CO2 is not the only man made forcing and proceeds to CH4. So far so good. Then comes the switch; the pea and thimble trick of dishonesty and shenanigans which you endorse.
He says:
Heres a comparison of the methane concentration (the 2nd-most-important man-made greenhouse gas) used in those models, to observed methane concentration since 1983 (measured at the Mauna Loa atmospheric observatory):
It turns out that methane has increased more slowly than the slowest of the scenarios.
Of course it has!!! Mauna Loa measured it! But that is not measuring EMISSIONS which actually increased at BAU!!! The pea and thimble switch!!
FAR and Hansen predictions FAIL! Man is not such a baddie! Have you found anything by scraping the bottom of that barrel yet?
TonyM
Your logic is assbackwards. The PDO turned positive around 1977. The UAH dataset did not start until Dec, 1978, almost two years later.
This is starting HIGH, not low. It remained high (positive) for most of the record’s first 20 years. We didn’t see a significantly negative PDO until 1998.
http://research.jisao.washington.edu/pdo/pdo_tsplot_jan2017.png
snake, the start of a 20 year positive would be considered starting “low”.
Your logic is, well, non-existent.
(This is going to be a GREAT year in climate comedy!)
g*
What if the first 20 years of the UAH record had featured a negative PDO rather than a positive one? Would you consider that “starting high”?
Most people that understand logic can answer that. Are you saying that you are unable to process logic, and require adult help?
G*, lecturing people about logic is funny when you yourself have very often rejected straightforward logic.
“flat tires”, that’s especially funny, knowing your tendency to project your own failings and inadequacies on others.
G* a black object, which is defined to be a strong absorber, cannot behave like a mirror, a strong reflector. Yet you reject this straightforward logic.
Snape:
I don’t know much about assbackwards logic but you might consider it for your comment. Do you suggest that the PDO operates like a light switch? That is not what the data show.
I turn to GISS (not my fav) where the anomalies are in 100ths of C:
1944: +22
1950’s and 60’s : some down to -22
1976: -13
1977: +22
1978: +6
1979: +13
1980: +29
1981: +31
So the 78 and 79 years are both lows compared to later and 1944 even though the PDO shift started in 1977 as you say.
I’m happy for Dr Roy to correct me if I am wrong and he is around.
In CO2 terms the surge started post world war 2 so that basically most of the T prior to then could not be CO2. Otherwise the 2015 to 1945 period would show exceptional CO2 sensitivity such that it would clearly falsify the CO2 claimed sensitivities subsequently. As it is the IPCC hedge their bets with nondescript terms like ‘over 50% attributable to man’ post 1950. Yeah right; clear science by sucking finger and putting in the air as opposed to elsewhere.
TonyM
I wonder how you would answer the question g* just evaded?
What if the 39 year UAH record had started around 20 years earlier, near the beginning of a negative PDO, when the anomaly was – 0.22?
Would you consider that “starting high”
snake, g* did NOT evade your question. You just did not understand it. And then, you could not answer my question.
So, YOU are the one evading, not me.
Just like a 12-year-old, you get wrapped around your axle so easily.
(It’s going to be a great year in climate comedy.)
“The study determined that the average global ocean temperature at the peak of the most recent ice age was 0.9 C (33.6 F). The modern oceans average temperature is 3.5 C (38.3 F). The incremental measurements between these data points provide an understanding of the global climate never before possible.”
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/01/04/an-instant-global-ocean-thermometer-from-antarctic-ice-cores/
And the blog poster, David Middleton, says:
“Color me skeptical about the claim that the ratio of argon, krypton, and xenon measured anywhere on the planet or in ice core bubbles yields the average temperature of the worlds oceans to within 0.2 C.
Their work does seem to have yielded one useful result:
Our precision is about 0.2 C (0.4 F) now, and the warming of the past 50 years is only about 0.1 C.
The warming of the past 50 years is equal to half the margin of error of the new global ocean thermometer.”
So glacial periods had average ocean of about 1 C
and .1 C increase is about .5 increase in global air.
Increase of ocean of 2.5 C is 25 times .5 = 12.5 C increase in global air temperature.
Hmm.
Average ocean temperature have higher, last interglacial was 1 to 2 C warmer. Global air 5 to 10 C higher?
I don’t think so.
And tens millions of years ago ocean have been 10 C warmer, 50 C warmer air temperature. Nope
Hmm. And doesn’t work if .1 C average ocean equals .25 C increase in global air.
I would tend to think your ice box climate is fairly sensitive to average ocean temperature changes.
And average ocean of more than say 5 C, means no permanent polar sea ice. But 5 C [3.5 + 1.5 or 15 times .5 = 7.5 C] is too high.
Let’s say 5 C ocean equals 7.5 C increase to global average surface ocean temperatures- so 17 + 7.5 = average ocean temp of 22.5 C. What does average ocean temperature of 22.5 do in terms increasing land air temperature?
It seems it have large effect upon Canada current average air temperature of about -4 C. It could make it say, 5 C, or increase average air by about 10 C. Making all of Canada almost habitable.
I think it’s probably around .1 C average ocean equals .25 C increase in global ocean surface temperatures.
And applies only to ice box climates.
And glacial periods are colder due to affects of ice caps in temperate zones.
“And glacial periods are colder due to affects of ice caps in temperate zones.”
If use .1 C ocean to .25 C ocean surface.
A 2.5 C colder ocean is -6.25 to ocean surface temperature of 17. Giving average surface temperature of 11.75 C.
Having a surface ocean temperature of 12 C rather 17 C would mean the ocean not warming land regions very much.
Or what is called greenhouse effect is mostly limited to tropical region.
Recently I had a bit of fun. I added a little method in a UAH grid object computing, for each of the about 9500 cells in Roy Spencer’s 2.5 degree grid (tinyurl.com/ybpn9zuj till tinyurl.com/yd9m2zsb) the lowest resp. highest anomaly since dec 1978, summing up their difference in a time series.
To give an example, for 1998 1823 cells had their highest anomaly in that year, and 73 their least one, giving subtracted 1750 (i.e. about 20% of all cells).
Superposed with the temperature anomalies – scaled appropriately of course, that gives the following funny chart (monthly data was averaged to years for clarity):
http://4GP.ME/bbtc/1515169305390.jpg
It was nice to compare the ENSO eventr 97/98 and 15/16: despite the latter showing a higher global average than the former, there were far more maxmins in 97/98 than in 15/16.
It might be interesting to refine the output by splitting it into UAH’s 66 active latitude bands.
Interesting.
Why not include 2017?
Because Roy Spencer’s record for december 2017 wasn’t ready yet.
Bindidon – ‘far more maxims in 97/98 than 15/16.’ but doesn’t that have to do with simple maths. The average global temperature was .4*C lower in 97/98 than in 15/16. What would your chart look like if you added that same difference of +.4*C to the 15/16 anomalies. To a layman your graph seems to show that the El Nino of 15/16 was simply not as strong, even tho it went to a higher anomaly, as the 97/98 El Nino.
But… this is exactly what I wanted to show. Not less, not more.
Simply because many people don’t believe that.
Let me add that a comparison of five ENSO indices made at the end of 2016 shows the same:
http://4GP.ME/bbtc/1515178196789.jpg
oh, okay. Misunderstood. As Roseanne Roseannadanna would say … ‘nevermind’
Yessah
Didn’t quite get what you did there, Bin.
Was it: summing the number of ‘highest ever’ anomalies over cells and summing the number of ‘lowest ever’ over cells per year?
I could see how this might produce a different result to the regular method, in that the actual value of each highest and lowest ever anomaly for each cell is ignored. Thus, 2016 could have fewer ‘highest ever’, but those that were higher were much higher than in 1998.
Did I understand it correctly?
barry on January 5, 2018 at 5:34 PM
Was it: summing the number of ‘highest ever’ anomalies over cells and summing the number of ‘lowest ever’ over cells per year?
Not quite.
1. Search for each cell its highest evah year resp. lowest evah year over the entire temperature time series.
2. Then sum up the highs resp. lows over the years.
3. The yellow bars then are for each year the difference between highest evah and lowest evah counts, just like in Appells chart somewhere in another thread (with the difference that (1) I have neither tmax nor tmin records for UAH, and (2) UAH’s tavg record is monthly and not daily.
A possible alternative would be to add for each year the cells’ highs and lows, instead of simply counting them.
LouMaytrees on January 4, 2018 at 4:54 PM
The UAH graph you are referring to is of the ‘lower troposphere’ not of global land temperatures. The troposphere averages 11 12 miles high, so you ‘re talking about temperatures 6 miles above the surface on average. The global land surface, not measured by UAH lower trop, is warming faster.
There is indeed no reason at all to pretend that tropospheric temperature measurements would be by definition relevant for surface. Who pretends that is a troll.
A way to tell us all where UAH’s LT temperature average measurement takes place is to consider UAH’s absolute temperatures and the lapse rate alltogether.
The average absolute temperature valid for a year in any of the 4 atmospheric layers surveyed can be reconstructed out of UAH’s climatology file of that layer, e.g. for LT:
https://www.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/v6.0/tlt/tltmonacg_6.0
Actually, the LT average absolute temperature is around 264K, 24 K below the average surface temperature of about 288 C.
The lapse rate is about 6.5 K / altitude km.
That gives us an average measurement altitude of 3.7 km, i.e. about 650 hPa atmospheric pressure.
A comparison of UAH6.0 LT and RSS4.0 LT with e.g. the RATPAC B radiosondes measurement at resp. 700 and 500 hPa gives a good match when looking at their 36 month running means:
http://4GP.ME/bbtc/1515198288889.jpg
Nota bene: it is of course mandatory to compare not only surfaces but also RATPAC B with the land-masked TLT measurements because the RATPAC set has 70% land-based units, the remaining 30% being based on little islands.
As you can see, though linear estimates vary by quite a lot (RSS4.0 LT land is by far highest, especially due to very low anomalies in the 1980’s), the 36 month running means show us far better what differs and what is similar.
*
But for many people it might be a big surprise that a similar comparison of UAH and RSS with GISS (land)
http://4GP.ME/bbtc/1515198348218.jpg
gives such similar results. Maybe this is due to the fact that they are more or less victims of a manipulation.
The graphs presented here are no fake; they are an exact representation of data publicly available.
*
Nevertheless, though showing here and there similar, surface and lower troposphere are and keep two very different entities.
That we see even better when comparing land and ocean alltogether instead of land only.
Of course the 2nd 700 hPa in the title of the first graph should read 500 hPa instead.
binny…”The troposphere averages 11 12 miles high, so you re talking about temperatures 6 miles above the surface on average”.
Nonsense. I have just detailed below how channel 5 on satellite AMSU units measures at an altitude of 2000 metres peak with it’s bandwidth ranging right to the surface. If your interest is science you should refrain from making unsubstantiated claims about satellite telemetry.
binny…”There is indeed no reason at all to pretend that tropospheric temperature measurements would be by definition relevant for surface. Who pretends that is a troll”.
So, you’re claiming Roy is a troll???
http://www.barrettbellamyclimate.com/page55.htm
It’s plain from his description of the AMSU capabilities that channel 5 measures it’s peak at 2000 metres, not 6 miles.
You are becoming more of an idiot every day.
Gordon, do you actually read and understand the material that you link to. Obviously not.
The Bellamy reference is obsolete in one major respect, the aqua satellite channel 5 failed in 2013 and has not been used for UAH calculations of temperatures for several years.
Anyway channel 5 of aqua satellite measured predominantly from an altitude 4.25 km, not 2 km as you claimed,
see https://ghrc.nsstc.nasa.gov/amsutemps/.
Irrespective of this, UAH TLT v6 measures some radiation from the surface but measures more from the troposphere than the surface up till 7.5 km. It also has contributions up till 14 km, see
http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/MSU2-vs-LT23-vs-LT.gif
The figure often quoted, I seem to recall, for the UAH v6 TLT average height is about 4.5 km.
As Gordon claims he has mathematical expertise with regards to weighting, he should be able to calculate the percentage of the radiation emitted from the surface as compared to that from the troposphere.
Hint, integral calculus may be required.
miker…”Gordon, do you actually read and understand the material that you link to. Obviously not”.
I might ask the same question of you. The article at Bellamy is by Roy Spencer and it’s not obsolete.
I have studied bandwidth extensively with regard to amplifiers and communications circuits. The weighting graph makes it obvious that different channels cover different altitudes. The peak of channel 5 corresponds to 2000 metres, not 4 KM.
The atmosphere obviously has a gradient of temperatures based on the related gas pressure. The oxygen molecules at each level of the gradient would be expected to emit radiation frequencies based at the expected temperatures at those altitudes.
If you wanted to detect surface temperatures, where would you go looking and what type of receiver would you use to detect the weak microwave radiation from oxygen? If you set your receiver to detect oxygen radiation at 4 km you’d get nothing.
Gordon,
Despite my link to UAH site above where it explicitly gives a figure of 4 km height for channel 5, you still think that the figure is actually 2 km. Let Roy Spencer know that he has got it wrong.
Elsewhere you can find the following,
Channel 5: Over land, this channel is sensitive to the average air temperature in a deep layer from the surface to about 11 km. in altitude (with most air sensitivity at about 4 km. altitude), and to a much lesser extent, surface temperature.
from
http://www.lmd.jussieu.fr/~falmd/TP/results_interpret_AMSU/ans_interp_AMSU.pdf
Also the maximum for channel 5 is between 3 to 4 km definitely not 2 km see figure 1 at the following –
http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/full/10.1175/JTECH-D-13-00134.1
However even if you believe (evidence free) that the peak is at 2 km then the assumption that the weighted average corresponds to the peak is only true if the weights are symmetrical around the peak.
Gordon, as a self-professed expert on weighting, you do understand this, I hope?
By the way the Bellamy link hat you referred shows that channel 5 has a peak at 600 to 700 mbar (corresponding to about 4 km). Again I have to assume you cannot read or have very poor eyesight.
As for detecting surface emission you would use channels 1,2 and 25 as they are not oxygen emission sensitive channels. Unfortunately using these channels appears to not be practical because the emissivity assumptions required for different terrains, vegetation and snow cover etc.. .
This is also explained in the Bellamy article (just below the figure showing the weighting profiles).
Gordon , remember Golden Rule number 1 – Read the article before you link to it .
You Robertson troll name me (and others) an idiot (you even named me an ass hole (but were to much a coward to write the word explicitly).
But you are simply unable to read documents.
If you were able to, you would have easily detected that my comment was an answer to somebody, and consisted of two parts:
– the one beginning with
LouMaytrees on January 4, 2018 at 4:54 PM
and written in italic font was a copy of the comment I answered to;
– the rest being mine.
Your are manifestly not intelligent enough to discover even such a simple difference.
Everybody writing here hopes one day you will retire from this site, thus his/her comments stopping to be wasted by your dumb nonsense.
But above that difference, you are so unexperienced with all the stuff discussed here that you weren’t able to understand my comment’s central point concerning the estimation of UAH’s reading altitude.
barry…”Weve even cited UAH and RSS documents saying that this is not so, and verifying that the TLT temp profile is derived from the whole troposphere, weighted at about 4km altitude.
Its hard to fathom such pig-headedness in the face of information coming from source. But the lesson is clear: GR has no idea”.
More abject ignorance from Down Under.
I have provided you with 2 direct quotes after you have called me a liar, When my quotes directly contradicted you, rather than having the class to apologize, you flew off on a tangent with your reply having nothing to do with your error.
Here you are in error again. Direct from Roy:
http://www.barrettbellamyclimate.com/page55.htm
It is apparent from Roy’s description of satellite telemetry, that Channel 5 not only measures to the surface, it actually measures microwave radiation from the surface.
Just as you have no idea how to apply statistics rather than using base number crunching, you fail to understand the concept of weighting. That’s because you have no idea about bandwidth or how instruments measure bandwidth.
It’s obvious from Roy’s graph on weighting that channel 5 measures it’s range of frequencies best at around 800 hPa. Note that sea level is indicated as 1000 hPa and since 1hPa = 100 Pascals, that’s 100000 Pascals, or 100 kPa. Average sea level pressure is 101.325 kPa.
800 hPa = 80,000 Pascals or 80 kPa. That corresponds to an altitude of 2000 metres, not 4 miles or km. Bandwidth is normally calculated at 0.707 of the peak value, so channel 5 intercepts the surface well within it’s bandwidth, and as Roy points out, it also intercepts direct microwave radiation from the surface.
You can see that several channels intercept the bandwidth of channel 5 therefore the amount they add to the signal needs to be filtered out, or compensated for. That’s where you weighting comes in. It has nothing to do with pegging the temperatures measured to 4 km.
This all comes down to how atoms emit and absorb energy (EM). The frequency they radiate is proportional to the temperature of the atom. All the frequencies they can radiate, and the related intensities forms a bandwidth with a related bell curve shaped graph.
Of course you spent countless hours engaging in a pointless discussion of blue plates and green plates put forward by Eli Rabbett, who fails to grasp how atoms work vis a vis their ability to emit and absorb EM. He actually thinks the IR emitted is heat. He was corrected by two scientists who specialize in thermodynamics yet he still fails to grasp the very basic concept that EM is not heat.
You’re wrong Gordon; see what Roy wrote here about measuring surface temperatures by satellite:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2018/01/uah-global-temperature-update-for-december-2017-0-41-deg-c/#comment-279417
I short, surface emissivity varies too much to make the calculation possible.
(Thanks Bindidon.)
DA…”see what Roy wrote here about measuring surface temperatures by satellite:”
I have no interest in the measurement of ground surface temps only the average atmospheric temps above the surface, which the sats pick up on channel 5.
is just an example of the tremendous confusion in above post !
1) What is measured is the intensity (technically the radiance) of microwaves at a specific frequency (channel) selected in the band around 60 Gz that is emitted by the oxygen molecule as opposed to atom.
2) What is proportional to temperature is the intensity (radiance) of the radiation emitted at a specific frequency (or in a specific channel) and of course by no means the frequency itself which is independent of temperature.
3) All the microwave frequencies emitted by O2 form actually a complex band whose shape is depicted here:
https://mobile.twitter.com/monkeybrainsnet/status/766018248655503360
4) The shape of this complex band is not to be confused with the weight functions of different channels. The former is the specific absorp-tion coefficient of O2 versus frequency and the latter are the weight of atmospheric layer temperature sampled at a given frequency (channel) versus pressure or altitude. Weight function is determined by the magnitude of the absorp-tion coefficient and optical depth at a specific frequency (channel).
https://infogalactic.com/info/Satellite_temperature_measurements#Tropospheric_and_stratospheric_measurements
gamma…”What is measured is the intensity (technically the radiance) of microwaves at a specific frequency (channel) selected in the band around 60 Gz that is emitted by the oxygen molecule as opposed to atom”.
A molecule as opposed to an atom??? What exactly do you think constitutes a molecule? A molecule is two or more atoms joined by bonds. The bonds are electrons, or due to electrons (ionic bonds) therefore molecules are an aggregation of protons and electrons.
Did you not study this in physics or chemistry? Any emission of a molecule is due to the same emission in an atom, the electron. Only electrons can emit electromagnetic energy, which includes IR. Electrons have a negative charge and that means they carry an electric field. An electric field in motion generates a perpendicular magnetic field.
EM = an electric field perpendicular to a magnetic field. Are there any lights going on???
Whether you are talking a vibrational molecular source of the EM, a rotational source, or translational source, the emission is all based on electrons. The electrons cause the vibration, rotation, or translation in conjunction with the positively charged proton in the atomic nucleus. The electrons cause any dipole distortion because the dipole is the electron(s).
The frequency of the EM radiation is directly proportional to the temperature of the atom which in turn is proportional to the energy level through which an electron drops to the next lower energy level. Read Neils Bohr!!!
It’s little wonder you alarmists are so thoroughly confused about basic physics.
Gordon wrote:
“Any emission of a molecule is due to the same emission in an atom, the electron.”
Wrong. You’d know this if you ever studied quantum mechanics.
PS: The Bohr Model is not QM.
DA…”Gordon wrote:
Any emission of a molecule is due to the same emission in an atom, the electron.
Wrong. Youd know this if you ever studied quantum mechanics.
PS: The Bohr Model is not QM”.
************
The Bohr model was corroborated for hydrogen by Schrodinger who is considered the father of quantum theory per se. Bohr went on to take Schrodinger’s theories into the nether world, divorcing himself from Einstein and Scrodinger. Bohr is now considered the instigator of modern quantum theory.
Quantum theory is all about the Bohr model. The basis of quantum theory is the wave equation as applied by Schrodinger. He applied it to the Bohr model of hydrogen.
However, Schrodinger remained true to Newtonian physics from whence came the wave equation. He maintained there has to be a reality represented by QM. Bohr did not agree.
The basis of QM is that electrons orbit a nucleus with harmonic motion based on the electron charge. That’s why Schrodinger was able to apply the wave equation, which requires harmonic motion.
Whatever did you think QM was about?
Gordon Robertson wrote:
“Quantum theory is all about the Bohr model.”
Wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong.
The Bohr model is wrong. It makes incorrect predictions (like for the angular momentum of the electron):
https://quantummechanics.ucsd.edu/ph130a/130_notes/node52.html
The Bohr model also doesn’t explain the hyperfine spectrum of hydrogen — because it has no concept of spin. For that you need real quantum mechanics.
The Bohr model was a great and necessary first step, but it was/is wrong and just the beginning of quantum theory. If it is the sum total of your knowledge (and it seems to be), you know practically nothing about atoms and molecules.
And it shows.
Sorry Gordon, so I think you did not verify the Bohr model for hydrogen. The Bohr model does not get the angular momentum of hydrogens ground state electron correct; the Schrodinger equation does.
gamma…it is not helpful at the atomic level to think of molecules as separate entities.
Consider, for example, a single hydrogen atom with one electron orbiting 1 proton in the nucleus. I am not claiming the Bohr model is correct, no one really knows if electrons are particles orbiting a positively charged nucleus. However, this model is presented in chemistry as representing atoms.
Bohr presented the model with electrons confined to certain orbitals, not to show a physical representation of an atom but to account for Planck’s quantum energy states. The only way he saw electrons orbiting a nucleus was with them restricted to certain energy orbitals. Some scientists like Einstein could not accept electrons jumping from one energy level to another without going through a transition state with a time element.
If you now bond two hydrogen atoms together, the electrons theoretically begin orbiting both atoms. Of course, the orbits will become more irrational the more protons you have in the nucleus and the more electrons orbiting the nucleus as you have in different elements.
Supposing in a more complex arrangement of atoms in a molecule one of the orbiting electrons absorbs a quantum of energy and rises to a higher orbital state. Suppose that electron is part of a dipole arrangement in CO2, with C at the centre and an O on either end.
O====C====O
Those dashed lines are electrons bonding the Os to the C. The Os can vibrate along the linear axis in two ways. Both Os can expand and contract together or one O can go out as the other moves in. In the latter case, you can have EM emission capabilities. You can also have emission if the Os tend to rotate about the C (a moment).
All of this depends on the electron charge. That’s a molecule I drew above and as you can see it involves the +ve proton charges on the O and C nuclei and the -ve charges on the bonding electrons.
Only the electron can emit EM since it is the only charge that moves significantly. Furthermore, the electron has a charge and an electric and magnetic field associated with it. When the electron jumps down an energy level, or more, somehow it emits EM and cools.
That’s what the Stefan-Bolzmann equation measures, the cooling of atoms. The associated temperature in the emitting body is due to the state of electron energy levels in general.
The energy of molecules is quantized. The molecule can absorb or emailed energy by transitioning from one quantum state to another. That need not have anything to do with electrons a change in angle between three molecules will do it, achange in the vibrational state will do it etc.
You clearly never studie quantum mechanics, and wont even read a Wikipedia page. Youre beyond hopeless, and have no shame with lying. You are excellent example of the Dunning Kruger effect, The best time ever encountered.
DA…”That need not have anything to do with electrons a change in angle between three molecules will do it, achange in the vibrational state will do it etc.”
So where does the EM emission come from just because of a change in angle? Still don’t get it do you…from electrons?
The bond angle is due to repulsion between electrons.
Atoms and molecules are arrangements of +vely charged protons on the nucleus and -vely charged electrons orbiting the nucleii. All bond angles and linear arrangements are due to electron charge or electronegativity. Some are due to lesser forces like van der Waal forces but even those are dependent on the -ve charges from the electrons.
You can’t get away from it DA, electrons are responsible for all EM in the universe.
Gordon Robertson wrote:
So where does the EM emission come from just because of a change in angle?
It comes from a change in the molecular energy level.
The energy levels are quantized. A transition from one quantum level to a lower one leads to the emission of a photon.
Einstein certainly accepted the idea of quantum energy transitions. In fact, his A and B coefficients were important additions to their understanding.
Still wrong, Gordon. Actually, electrons in and atom dont move, they exist in a probability distribution about the nucleus. But in molecules like CO2, the oxygen atoms really do vibrate relative to the carbon atom. The molecule also rotates. These vibrations and rotations are quantized, and a transition from one state to another involves absorbing or emitting photons.
There sure is a lot you dont understand about quantum mechanics. Nothing, really, after the Bohr atom.
Gordon Robertson wrote:
The frequency of the EM radiation is directly proportional to the temperature of the atom which in turn is proportional to the energy level through which an electron drops to the next lower energy level.
Also wrong. (And Niels Bohr never said this.)
Temperature is the average kinetic energy of a gas of molecules, independent of the molecules’ internal structure.
I’d like to see you tell us the quantitative relationship between EM radiation and an atom’s “temperature.”
(What is an atom’s temperature, anyway? Define it.)
Some trolls will never learn more than they were able to do decades ago. The brain says:
Stop boring me with that new stuff! I swallowed enough.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emission_spectrum#Radiation_from_molecules
http://tinyurl.com/yd9j79rj
etc etc etc
binny…from your wiki link…”Radiation from molecules
As well as the electronic transitions discussed above, the energy of a molecule can also change via rotational, vibrational, and vibronic (combined vibrational and electronic) transitions. These energy transitions often lead to closely spaced groups of many different spectral lines, known as spectral bands. Unresolved band spectra may appear as a spectral continuum”.
Any idiot can write a wiki article but this article is actually confirming what I have claimed. It is you and your alarmist brethern who don’t understand the structure of an atom or molecule hence have deluded yourself into thinking molecules have separate EM generators.
When you study electronics or organic chemistry you go through this elementary atomic physics. There is no point in chemistry in talking about bonds without understanding what constitutes a bond. Therefore there is no point talking about molecules as separate from atoms unless you understand that atoms are run by the +ve and -ve charges of protons and electrons and that bonds are made of electron orbitals.
The vibrational states referred to at your link are states in which the bond lengths between atoms in a molecule change in harmonic motion in a rectilinear fashion. The bonds can also vibrate in an angular manner due to difference in charge states between atoms at either end of a bond (dipole). Those charge state differences are all due to electron charges whereas the rectilinear vibration is due to the interaction of electrons in orbits with the positive charge of the protons in the nucleus.
Rotational vibration is a property of a linear molecule which has been struck by another atom/molecule in a gas that causes the molecule to rotate. Again, the emission of EM is due to the rotation of the electron charges.
Translational vibration would be due to electrons changing in the orbital energy levels. With regard to molecules that would refer to translational vibrations within a molecular structure caused by a shift in charge as the electrons loose energy and drop to a lower energy level. That translates as well to a loss of heat and the emission of a quanta of EM.
Just because two or more atoms are bonded into a molecule does not mean the atoms stop behaving like atoms. It means the orbital interactions of the electrons with the atoms becomes far more complicated.
Gordon, you’re wrong…. but a more interesting question is, where does your obstreperousness come from? What are you trying to accomplish with it?
DA…”Gordon, youre wrong. but a more interesting question is, where does your obstreperousness come from? What are you trying to accomplish with it?”
The fact that you cannot claim anything more than I am wrong suggests strongly you are in over your head. I might ask why you are in such deep denial about the basics of atomic theory.
I have studied this stuff over and over in various electronic and electrical theory courses as well as in university level electrical engineering courses. I have also studied it in chemistry courses, especially organic chemistry.
The fact you don’t know even the basics suggests you have never gone beyond pre high school physics.
Gordon Robertson
Quit pretending that you studied anything of value. You make up stuff that is all you know how to do. You read a couple words about atoms and you are the smartest man alive. You know that atoms are made of electrons, protons and neutrons. Do you want all the posters to stand up and give you a standing ovation for you super mind to know this?
Yet you are unable to understand even simple ideas about molecules and atoms. You are a dribbling moron with your idiotic notions that Mid-IR is emitted by electronic transitions. I have linked you many times to material that clearly states you are wrong. You ignore it like the pretender you are. You are almost as dumb as g*e*r*a*n but not quite there yet. If I keep reading your stupid posts on your limited understanding of IR emission I might put you at the same low IQ I know g*e*r*a*n has.
Wake up in 2018 and quit being the idiot of the blog. Read some real science and learn that you know very little and then less.
Gordon Robertson says:
The fact that you cannot claim anything more than I am wrong suggests strongly you are in over your head. I might ask why you are in such deep denial about the basics of atomic theory.
I’ve told you many times before — your ignore molecular vibrational and rotational energy transitions.
Your hero Linus Pauling would find that ridiculous.
I have studied this stuff over and over in various electronic and electrical theory courses as well as in university level electrical engineering courses. I have also studied it in chemistry courses, especially organic chemistry.
What a shame that all that studying never lead to much learning.
Read these:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rotational%E2%80%93vibrational_spectroscopy
http://www.wag.caltech.edu/home/jang/genchem/infrared.htm
http://users.physik.fu-berlin.de/~essenber/Dateien/VersucheChemie/rotvib.pdf
The con-man is trying to ignore me, but he can’t pound out more than a few lines without mentioning me.
It’s fun to watch.
gamma…”What is measured is the intensity (technically the radiance) of microwaves at a specific frequency (channel) selected in the band around 60 Gz….”
Then why are they interested in a 60 GHz band? They are measuring brightness temperature not intensity. From wiki:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brightness_temperature
“Brightness temperature is the temperature a black body in thermal equilibrium with its surroundings would have to be to duplicate the observed intensity of a grey body object at a frequency ν”.
It’s about frequency, not intensity. It tells you in the article that the overall microwave intensity is very weak and requires amplification.
I have not seen specific information about AMSU telemetry but I imagine from year in electronics that the channels refer to amplifiers. I saw reference to heterodyning which means the overall frequency spectrum is converted down to a manageable frequency for processing.
Modern radio receivers are called super-heteordyne converters since they take in a radio signal at a high frequency and convert it down to a manageable intermediate frequency for processing. That suggests the channels refer to amplifiers with a specific frequency response/bandwidth.
Why would they have amplifiers with a broad bandwidth if they were not detecting a range of frequencies per channel? And why would they require several channels? If it was only intensity they were measuring they could not distinguish between the frequencies received by the different channels.
gamma…”All the microwave frequencies emitted by O2 form actually a complex band whose shape is depicted here:”
yes…’complex band’ refers to a continuum of frequencies. However, the graph to which you link shows the absorp-tion of RF. Reference to a 60 GHz band, for example, means there is a continuum of radiated frequencies with the centre at 60 GHz. That’s what ‘band’ means with reference to frequencies.
gamma…”Weight function is determined by the magnitude of the absorp-tion coefficient and optical depth at a specific frequency (channel)”.
Roy describes weighting as: “The vertical profiles of each channels relative sensitivity to temperature (weighting functions) are shown in the following plot:”
It stands to reason that each channel is tuned to the expected temperature at a specific altitude. That temperature is predetermined by gravity since the pressure gradient in a system with constant volume and mass should be directly proportional to temperature.
Table 1 at this link shows the frequencies to which each channel is tuned.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advanced_microwave_sounding_unit
Barry,
“Thanks. Do you have a link for this?”
https://www.nps.gov/kefj/learn/nature/upload/The%20Retreat%20of%20Exit%20Glacier.pdf
And from Dr. Roy: “The fact that receding glaciers in Alaska are revealing stumps from ancient forests that grew 1,000 to 2,000 years ago proves that climate varies naturally, and glaciers advance and recede without any help from humans.”
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/08/an-inconvenient-deception-how-al-gore-distorts-climate-science-and-energy-policy/
When the spruce turn to juniper, you’ll be getting close to the end of the lia. Then a couple hundred years at least until they re establish. Although maybe there are viable pine cones left to speed recovery along? Definately a you shall not pass moment. Do you see the size of that stump in the link? That’s a behemoth. The spruce in Seward are the biggest trees I’ve seen in AK save for the occasional poplar.
https://tinyurl.com/ycdup7fy:
“The most recent stumps emerging from the Mendenhall are between 1,400 and 1,200 years old. The oldest are around 2,350 years old.”
That’s more like the Roman warm period if you allow some time for the glacier (and forest) to grow.
The glacier is way off equilibrium, so we are likely to shoot past the RWP/MWP quickly.
Discussed here: https://tinyurl.com/ycr3sesv
And from Dr. Roy: The fact that receding glaciers in Alaska are revealing stumps from ancient forests that grew 1,000 to 2,000 years ago proves that climate varies naturally, and glaciers advance and recede without any help from humans.
That statement might be true for some local glaciers, but it is not true globally. Global glacier mass balance has been in steady decline for 50 years:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glacier_mass_balance#/media/File:Glacier_Mass_Balance.png
Thanks for the links, Darwin.
“The fact that receding glaciers in Alaska are revealing stumps from ancient forests that grew 1,000 to 2,000 years ago proves that climate varies naturally, and glaciers advance and recede without any help from humans.”
Glaciers advance and recede without human activity helping things along? Well blow me down.
Apparently Roy (and you think some people don’t believe climate can change naturally. Where does one get such crazy ideas?
So there was a forest in 1170 in Seward and a glacier covered it afterwards until recently. Maybe Seward was warmer then than during the 20th century.
Afraid this doesn’t mean much re global warming. Highly localised areas aren’t a proxy for global.
Sorry Barry but I’ve been hearing Alaska is the canary in the coal mine forever. Now when it’s proven it’s been as warm or warmer for longer here during last warning periods its meaningless?
(Past warming) not last warning) although seeing you use the f word down thread you might be on that too.
Wait for it, wait for it…
“Alaska, of course, being the only Arctic part of the U.S. it’s often referred to as polar amplification, that climate is warming much more rapidly at high latitudes,” Thoman said. “We are the U.S.’s canary in that coal mine.”
https://www.adn.com/alaska-news/weather/2018/01/08/alaska-just-had-its-warmest-december-on-record/
And again, that glacier will not stop receding if warming stops because of its inertia.
A decisive portion of Roy Spencer’s article at Bellamy
http://www.barrettbellamyclimate.com/page55.htm
For those channels whose weighting functions intersect the surface, a portion of the total measured microwave thermal emission signal comes from the surface.
AMSU channels 1, 2, and 15 are considered ‘window’ channels because the atmosphere is essentially clear, so virtually all of the measured microwave radiation comes from the surface.
While this sounds like a good way to measure surface temperature, it turns out that the microwave ’emissivity’ of the surface (its ability to emit microwave energy) is so variable that it is difficult to accurately measure surface temperatures using such measurements.
The variable emissivity problem is the smallest for well-vegetated surfaces, and largest for snow-covered surfaces.
While the microwave emissivity of the ocean surfaces around 50 GHz is more stable, it just happens to have a temperature dependence which almost exactly cancels out any sensitivity to surface temperature.
Nice find. Thanks.
A really nice info!
Over 100 C difference between Siberia and Australia…
https://www.wetteronline.de/wetterticker?postId=post_201801067801096
A first info about OLS trends for each of the 9504 cells in the UAH 2.5 degree grid data set during 1979-2017 (in C / century)
5 Highest trends in the Northern Hemisphere
1: 80.0N-82.5N 65.0E-67.5E | 4.84
2: 80.0N-82.5N 67.5E-70.0E | 4.79
3: 80.0N-82.5N 72.5E-75.0E | 4.76
4: 80.0N-82.5N 50.0W-47.5W | 4.75
5: 80.0N-82.5N 70.0E-72.5E | 4.74
5 Lowest trends in the Northern Hemisphere
8981: 47.5N-50.0N 30.0W-27.5W | -0.47
8997: 50.0N-52.5N 30.0W-27.5W | -0.48
8999: 47.5N-50.0N 32.5W-30.0W | -0.48
9003: 50.0N-52.5N 35.0W-32.5W | -0.49
9026: 50.0N-52.5N 32.5W-30.0W | -0.52
5 Lowest trends in the Southern Hemisphere
9500: 80.0S-77.5S 157.5E-160.0E | -2.23
9501: 75.0S-72.5S 157.5E-160.0E | -2.36
9502: 75.0S-72.5S 160.0E-162.5E | -2.50
9503: 75.0S-72.5S 165.0E-167.5E | -2.63
9504: 75.0S-72.5S 162.5E-165.0E | -2.72
5 Highest trends in the Southern Hemisphere
38: 77.5S-75.0S 35.0E-37.5E | 4.45
48: 77.5S-75.0S 37.5E-40.0E | 4.36
56: 77.5S-75.0S 32.5E-35.0E | 4.31
95: 75.0S-72.5S 32.5E-35.0E | 4.14
130: 75.0S-72.5S 35.0E-37.5E | 4.01
Have some fun in discovering the locations!
In comparison with the same kind of data computed last year, the average over all 9504 cell trends experienced an increase of about 2.5 %.
Tomorrow I’ll produce a graph showing the trend repartition over all UAH latitude bands from 80.0N-82.5N to 80.0S-82.5S
Using e.g. https://www.findlatitudeandlongitude.com/
Bin, keep searching for that illusive AGW.
Maybe it’s hiding behind all the new record snows?
Hilarious.
DA: “Global glacier mass balance has been in steady decline for 50 years:”
Steady? Shouldn’t it be receding exponentially faster as aco2 goes up? Granted CO2 is below natural climate variability but we should still see vastly increased receding as opposed to steady?
I realize this is cherry picking but Exit glacier receded fastest 100 years ago and has slowed in the last 50 years. In fact, it doesn’t appear to have receded at all since I was there years ago.
“In the years between 1914 and 1917, Exit Glacier experienced its most rapid retreat. In just 3 years, the glacier retreated 908 ft”
And obviously all glaciers receded much further than now during past warming periods and without any help from human activity. It’s been as warm or warmer than now and for longer just in the current interglacial period. We have a ways to go. But get back to us when the trees (where there are currently glaciers) are full grown again okay?
aCO2 is increasing exponentially, and its forcing goes Logarithmically with CO2. The net result is a linear forcing.
But if you look at that Wikipedia graph, the decline in global glacier mass balance is faster than Linear.
davie, I hope you are not applying for jobs that require a knowledge of science.
Stick with menial jobs, like sweeping floors.
Do you know how to wash dishes?
g*r…”Do you know how to wash dishes?”
His degree in Home Economics might come in useful there. It may now be knows as family and consumer science. Then again, they probably study basic atomic theory there as well.
darwin…re glaciers…here’s a general comment on AGW from Syun Akasofu. He is a well known astronomer having pioneered studies in the solar wind. More recently he has lived in Alaska and studied local glaciers.
http://people.iarc.uaf.edu/~sakasofu/misleading.php
He has theorized that warming since 1850 is actually a re-warming from the Little Ice Age.
Another:
http://people.iarc.uaf.edu/~sakasofu/passionate_subject.php
Touches on the LIA and the Arctic:
http://www.larouchepub.com/other/interviews/2007/3419dr_akasofu.html
In this one, a journal editor resigns due to an Akasofu paper. Akasofu is a prominent scientist and such a resignation proves the bias in modern journals to skepticism.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/09/09/syun-akasofus-work-provokes-journal-resignation/
So much for David Appell hounding people for peer reviewed proof. I tried to tell him peer review is rigged.
Gordon again calls fraud (“rigged”) because journals publish papers that disagree with his ideology.
It can never be that Gordon is wrong — it always has to be the entire rest of the world that is wrong (and throughout history, too).
PS: You didn’t link to anything peer reviewed.
Wow, looks like great info Gordon, thank you. Not positive but I think he was the guy who announced glaciers grew in 2008.
Some of the merry tribe like to track data. Our hilarious “science writer”, davie, likes to stalk Salvatore, for example.
So, here is the tribe (most flagrant violators of facts and logic), not in any order:
1) davie
2) Norm, the con-man
3) T-ball, aka “ball4”, aka, “trick”, aka “cabbage head”
4) miker
5) barry
6) Tim Folkerts
7) Brad
8) Skeptic Gone Wild
9) gummycrud
10) snake, aka “snape”, aka “Sir Isaac Snapelton”, aka “the 12-year-old”
11) Kristian
12) Nate, aka “flat tires”
I know I have missed some minor contributors. Please feel free to enter your name if I left you out.
Now, for the prevailing pseudoscience, going into 2018.
1) Putting on a sweater proves “cold” can warm “hot”.
2) The Sun can heat Earth to 800,000K.
3) C02 produces warming.
4) A horse running around an oval track is also rotating on its axis.
5) Cabbages glow in the dark.
6) C02 is a pollutant.
7) The Earth is warming the Sun.
8) ALL infrared is ALWAYS absorbed.
I may have forgotten some of the hilarious pseudoscience. All are welcome to add.
2018 is going to be a great year in climate comedy. Maybe Bin could keep track for us?
g*r…”Now, for the prevailing pseudoscience, going into 2018″.
You might add to the list the following:
7)atoms are not made up of electrons and protons therefore molecules are not either.
8)the Bohr atomic model has nothing to do with quantum theory.
9)heat can flow from a cold body to a warmer body. I know you covered that with the Earth warming the Sun.
10)heat is not real.
How about: throwing out 75% of your data and synthesizing the missing data in a climate model is OK. Especially, when you make sure to throw out the cold data and keep the warm data.
Good ones, Gordon.
Yes, all are welcome to contribute to the list. It should be fun to document the desperate pseudoscience.
g*e*r*a*n
It would be nice if you could quit trolling.
On your list the main names that should appear “So, here is the tribe (most flagrant violators of facts and logic), not in any order:
1) g*e*r*a*n: Well known to NEVER include actual science in any of his posts. Repeat false ideas in hope they become true to some. Does not understand even simple basic science. Fools no one but pretends he is brilliant. Master of pseudoscience and his make believe reality.
2) Gordon Robertson: Well known to accuse many scientists of lying even when he is incapable of understanding what they are saying or what they are doing. Many have tried to educate this one but his mind is a brick and delusional. Will only take in information that agrees with his delusions.
3) J Halp-less: Known to have no original thought process but will sit and listen to all the empty words vomiting out of g*e*r*a*n’s dark mind.
Now, for the prevailing proof g*e*r*a*n is an idiot with very limited reasoning ability.
1) Putting on a sweater proves cold can warm hot.
:The sweater is cold the body becomes warmer.
2) The Sun can heat Earth to 800,000K.
: IF the Earth would lose no energy. Never meant to be a real
point. Only an idiot could not understand the purpose to the
thought, oh yes I forgot we are talking about g*e*r*a*n.
3) C02 produces warming.
: No context, no meaning.
4) A horse running around an oval track is also rotating on its axis.
: If a horse did not rotate as it moves around an oval track,
rotation caused by how the horse plants its hoofs and creates
the rotation around its axis, it would run right off the
course. It must rotate to move around the track. g*e*r*a*n
demonstrates his completely idiocy with this logic. Only one
other agreed with him, his lapdog J Halp-less.
5) Cabbages glow in the dark.
: They do in the Infrared spectrum
6) C02 is a pollutant.
: Could be if the concentration is high enough
7) The Earth is warming the Sun.
8) ALL infrared is ALWAYS absorbed.
: If an object is a blackbody this would be correct. The amount
absorbed is based upon it emissivity.
You are a moron g*e*r*a*n and your list proves it.
The con-man waffles, spins, and equivocates.
Hilarious.
For 2018, here is a simple 4-step demonstration even an amoeba would understand:
1. Pierce an object with a round toothpick. Grasp the toothpick between your fingers and twirl the toothpick. What you observe is call rotation. The object is rotating or spinning about the axis of the toothpick.
2. Now take that same toothpick and object and make a a circular orbit about some point on your desk or a table (but don’t spin or twirl the toothpick in your fingers) This motion is called an orbit.
3. Now this demonstration is tricky for those sub-amoeba types who have less than one cell in their body. Perform the orbit as described above, but at the same time rotate the toothpick between your fingers. The object is doing two things (Noooooo!) It is performing an orbit, and it is rotating about its axis.
4. Now this next facet of the demonstration is almost too much to bear for s*u*b*a*m*o*e*b*a*s. Mark one side of the object and have it face the center of orbit. Perform the demonstration in step 3 above, but rotate the toothpick slowly in your fingers so the marked side of the object always faces the center of orbit while making an orbit. So the object is spinning about its own axis while making the orbit.
s*u*b*a*m*o*e*b*a*s will not perform this demonstration since their less than one cell organism might self-destruct.
Still confused about “rotating on an axis” versus “orbiting”, huh?
I still recommend the simple orange/string demonstration. But, it may be a little too high-tech for some. ..
We all agree that the Earth both orbits *and* rotates on its axis. It orbits CCW around the sun once every 365.25 times that it rotates on its axis (which it also does CCW). So I guess the people who think that completion of one CCW orbit = one CCW axial rotation (as they do for the moon) must actually think that the Earth rotates on its axis 366.25 times each year.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sidereal_time
“must actually think that the Earth rotates on its axis 366.25 times each year.”
Relative to what coordinate system? This is the whole point of the article. Did you read the article?
Relative to the stars, ie our galaxy, yes, the Earth rotates on its axis 366.25 times each year.
Yes Nate, I did read the article. Thank you.
And do you agree with “Relative to the stars, ie our galaxy, yes, the Earth rotates on its axis 366.25 times each year.”?
If so, then I dont understand your agreement with G*.
I can see why some people (mostly astronomers) might find it useful to think of it that way. Besides that, I just think its pretty funny. Just comes across like people cant separate an object orbiting from an object rotating on its axis. Either when the object is doing both (as with the Earth) or when the object is doing just one (as with the moon).
“I can see why some people (mostly astronomers) might find it useful to think of it that way. ”
It useful because it is correct and it is well defined.
“Doing just one (as with moon)”
No , if you specify an astronomical reference frame (ie wrt to stars) then the moon is rotating as well as orbiting.
As an aside it seems that only when things are rotating relative to the stars, is a centrifugal force effect seen. The stars act like an absolute ref frame for rotation.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Absolute_rotation
But whats even more correct and well-defined is that there are 365.25 days in a year, and the moon doesnt rotate on its axis, because its tidally locked.
Define ‘correct’ and ‘more correct’ please.
If you agreed the Earth, rel to stars had an extra rotation per year, then you must by logical extension, agree that the moon has made one rotation per orbit of the Earth, again rel to stars.
“more correct and well defined”
If you havent stated the ref frame, then it is not well defined.
So what is the ref frame in which ‘the moon doesnt rotate on its axis”?
I said that for some people, I can understand why its useful to look at it like that. For most people, treating their day as though it only lasted 23 hours and 56 minutes would lead to disastrous results, as the year went on. They would be late for an awful lot of things. Much better to realise that those extra four minutes each day are what complete a *true* and *full* rotation of the Earth on its axis, how would you put it…rel to itself.
It only really works for astronomers in the main, since its useful for tracking the position of stars, etc. Of course they still operate on a 24 hour clock, like everybody else. Though it might be fun if some of them really committed to it.
Ok, I guess.
IMO, since we are talking about an astronomical phenomena, orbit of the moon, we ought to follow the lead of astronomers.
And if we are talking about what is rotation, a science concept, then we ought to follow what scientists do, and that is to specify ref frame. And this is a science blog.
OK, I will follow the lead of astronomers, and continue to adhere to a 24 hour clock. If any of them switch over to living their lives on sidereal time, perhaps you can follow them.
skeptic…”Perform the orbit as described above, but at the same time rotate the toothpick between your fingers”.
How about turning the table at the same time?
Gordon,
Turning the table at the same time would just confuse the issue by adding another rotating reference frame.
Imagine performing my demonstration sitting at a table placed at the center of a merry-go-round. The rotation and orbit of the object will still happen with respect to the table I am sitting at, but the motions wrt to the non rotating reference frame will be complicated.
SkepticsGoneWild
I think that was the simplest, most elegant experiment I have seen with regards to this silly debate.
What are the chances Halp or g* will give it a go?
(I think you meant a round object, not a round toothpick)
Snape,
The object can be round. But by round toothpick, I meant the kind that has a round diameter:
https://tinyurl.com/y7u4m2jj
These kind are easier to twirl in your fingers, than the flat ones that have a rectangular cross section.
Snape, I already understand what SGW is explaining. Im guessing the point I made above sailed straight over your head. Oh well, your loss.
Halp
Go back to SGW’s toothpick model. Spin the object 365 times about it’s axis while you simultaneously move it just one time around a center point on the table. That’s the situation WRT the earth, and that’s NOT the situation we’re talking about!
You’re still very confused.
Yep, definitely went over your head. Never mind.
“What are the chances Halp or g* will give it a go?”
Zero. They will not perform it because they would have to deny what the observation clearly shows. This is not some thought experiment. They are both in denial.
Sorry about misunderstanding the round vs flat toothpick….lol.
BTW, I continued the argument downthread a little bit. Used part/most of your toothpick model again. If they still can’t figure it out, they never will.
Why would I need to figure out something I already understand?
The following is dedicated to the deranged and his sidekick.
Part 1
http://scienceline.ucsb.edu/getkey.php?key=2455 (note 6 answers for the price of 1) .
http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/about-us/44-our-solar-system/the-moon/general-questions/115-does-the-moon-rotate-beginner .
Part 2
https://www.space.com/24871-does-the-moon-rotate.html .
http://discovermagazine.com/2014/dec/2-ask-discover .
Part 3
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OZIB_leg75Q .
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VGnIuqYKnTE .
https://www.universetoday.com/20524/how-long-is-a-day-on-the-moon-1/
This was via a 5 minute google search. Can you imagine if I had spent an entire 10 minutes?
Does either Halpless or the deranged one have any link to where ever they got their misinformation, or is it their own work?
Poor MikeR, he just cant help himself. He *has* to respond. And, he just *has* to be unpleasant. Its OK though, he goes away eventually.
I apologise for the tone of my comment above that offended Halp but my tolerance of fools is limited.
Notice that Halp has not responded to my request for him to provide any evidence of where he obtained his understanding of lunar dynamics. If he would reply regarding this matter I would, of course, consider being more polite.
And yes, I will endeavour to go away as my new year’s resolution still stands, but it seems more honoured in the breach than in the observance.
Nothing to apologise for, I wasnt offended.
Halp, Excellent news! I can up the ante then.
Halp , you have avoided disclosing the origins of your shared delusion with that other deranged individual.
Once again, this time with feeling. Where did either of you come up with the novel take on lunar dynamics?
I have yet to check the all the information on the web site of the flat earth society at
https://theflatearthsociety.org/home/
or its associated Facebook page.
I do not normally frequent either of these sites but a cursory look indicates that there appear to be lots of lunar theories by lunatics. Is your very own just another of these or have you guys thought this up yourselves?
Finally Halp, for your delectation –
http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2010/10/07/counterclockwise-but-there-are/
Thanks for all the links, but, again: why would I need to figure out something I already understand?
Halp,
In the dogged support of your fellow lunatic, you deserve a purple heart or at least a free psych evaluation.
Not only are you guys functionally innumerate but also illiterate and you can’t cope with material aimed at a junior high school level.
However in the vain hope that you can both read and understand, I am including another pair of links.
http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/physics/44-our-solar-system/the-moon/general-questions/110-does-the-moon-rotate-are-there-other-moons-that-always-keep-one-face-toward-their-planet-intermediate
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/is-it-just-a-coincidence/
I am still looking for an explanation appropriate for a pre-school kiddie. I will keep you posted Halp if I find one.
I already understand, MikeR.
Unfortunately after a more exhaustive search, I couldn’t find something appropriate for Halp. I have only found several more links to material that require a minimum understanding at a junior high school level
I think I will have to give up on Halp as a lost cause.
By the way Halp, you still haven’t indicated the origins of the lunar theory. Is it just your colleague’s work or did you contribute your own insights?
I already understand. Though you can keep searching for more links if it keeps you entertained.
Difficult choice there Nate,
Halp-less and g*e*r*a*n vs. Scientific American and the Cornell University astronomy department, hmm?
Thankfully, theres no choice to make.
P.S: yes, it can be hard to distinguish between Nate and MikeR, sometimes.
Halp,
As you seem unable, or extremely reluctant to provide a citation for the origin of you lunar theory, I think is it safe to conclude that it is indeed your or perhaps your colleagues own work.
I urge you to publish immediately.
Your innovative ideas, if correct, will cause a revolution in our understanding of orbital dynamics as the moon will be the only body in the solar system among all the planets, hundreds of moons and thousands of asteroids that has zero rotational angular momentum about its axis. This has profound implications for the origin of the solar system and will also result in the abandonment of theories such as tidal locking.
Also human lives are at stake. If true, your ground breaking theory will prevent future astronauts from landing (or even crashing) into a landing place that could be diametrically opposite to the one chosen by that the NASA.
I hope you are right or we might see a disaster like this occurring –
http://www.gstatic.com/tv/thumb/dvdboxart/8932517/p8932517_d_v8_aa.jpg .
However those other misguided fools at Caltech, like those at Cornell, seem to disagree –
http://www.caltech.edu/news/looking-man-moon-4187
Maybe you are right and these idiots have got it all wrong.
However, it is intriguing that physicists at Caltech have got this years Nobel Prize Nobel Prize for Physics for their verification of gravitational waves and yet, they or their colleagues, cannot understand your lunar theory?
Maybe fire off a letter to the Physics departments at Caltech and Cornell etc. and outline your theory and await a response.
Halp,
I did find something more appropriate for you and is suitable for bedtime reading –
https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/2707216-the-moon .
One of the reviewers commented that their three and a half year old understood the material in this book.
Perhaps if you are a good child , eat all your dinner and don’t stay up too late glued to the internet, then maybe your mother could read it to you.
Pass it on to g* as well.
“hard to distinguish between Nate and MikeR, sometimes.”
Yes, both are in the sensible group.
Understand I, already. You can put that in the right order.
People who have been persuaded by G* arguments to change their views:
…
… Gordon (below), we have scored a hat trick again.
Gordon,
It is apparent from Roys description of satellite telemetry, that Channel 5 not only measures to the surface, it actually measures microwave radiation from the surface.
You provide this link:
http://www.barrettbellamyclimate.com/page55.htm
Roy writes:
For AMSU channel 5 that we use for tropospheric temperature monitoring, that brightness temperature is very close to the vertically-averaged temperature through a fairly deep layer of the atmosphere. The vertical profiles of each channels relative sensitivity to temperature (weighting functions) are shown in the following plot:
The plot shows channel 5 covering an altitude of about 10km+.
http://www.barrettbellamyclimate.com/userimages/UAH4.jpg
What else does Roy say?
AMSU channel 5 is used for our middle tropospheric temperature (MT) estimate; we use a weighted difference between the various view angles of channel 5 to probe lower in the atmosphere, which a fairly sharp weighting function which is for our lower-tropospheric (LT) temperature estimate.
Channel 5 includes surface emissions but can’t isolate them from the rest of the troposphere, though by combining view angles they get a profile with weighting at about 4km height.
AMSU channels 1, 2, and 15 are considered “window” channels because the atmosphere is essentially clear, so virtually all of the measured microwave radiation comes from the surface. While this sounds like a good way to measure surface temperature, it turns out that the microwave ’emissivity’ of the surface (its ability to emit microwave energy) is so variable that it is difficult to accurately measure surface temperatures using such measurements.</b.
MSUs can’t accurately measure surface radiance.
What does Roy’s latest paper say?
Average air temperature over relatively deep atmospheric layers can be monitored, with minimum cloud contamination, using passive microwave radiometers operating in the 50-60 GHz range
http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/APJAS-2016-UAH-Version-6-Global-Satellite-Temperature-Products-for-blog-post.pdf
Another Spencer and Christy paper says:
A fundamental question often asked is: what do the channel 2T anomalies represent? First, let us address the deep layer nature of the measurement. The channel 2 weighting function is vertically broad… over a layer extending from the surface to 30kPa… Therefore MSU channel 2 measurements are dominated by the vertically weighted air temperature through a deep tropospheric layer of air … the satellite can only measure deep layer temperatures”
http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/1520-0442(1992)005%3C0847%3APARVOS%3E2.0.CO%3B2
(P 848)
Link is provided for you to read, “the satellite can only measure deep layer temperatures”.
Do you get that? From the horses mouth. Say you acknowledge.
More from Christy and Spencer.
Here T2LT represents the lowmiddle troposphere and is derived from a linear combination of 8 of the MSU channel 2 (MSU2) 11 view angles to remove stratospheric and upper-tropospheric emissions (Spencer and Christy 1992b). Note that T2LT differs from T2 in that the temperatures of the differing view angles in T2 data are not linearly combined to remove the stratosphere emissions [see section 2a(2)]. About 90% of the emissions originate below 400 hPa
http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/10.1175/1520-0426%282003%2920%3C613%3AEEOVOM%3E2.0.CO%3B2#s2a2
MSU cannot isolate surface emissions successfully, or vertically narrow bands of atmosphere. MSU sensors measure atmospheric radiance with vertical resolution of kilometers, not meters.
You can find links to other S&C papers at the above links all consistent with this.
From RSS page on MSUs.
Microwave Sounders
These are satellite-borne instruments that measure the radiance of Earth at microwave frequencies, which allows scientists to deduce the temperature of thick atmospheric layers.
Advantages
Global coverage at a high samplng rate
Disadvantages
Coarse vertical resolution
http://www.remss.com/measurements/upper-air-temperature/
On the same page:
Channels and Satellites used in RSS Atmospheric Temperature Products:
[List of channels/sensors]
Each product measures the mean temperature of the atmosphere in the thick layer. This brightness temperature TB measured by the satellite can be described as an integral over the height above Earth’s surface Z of the atmospheric temperature TATMOSPHERE weighted by a weighting function W(Z), plus a small contribution due to emission by Earth’s Surface τεTSURF.
When is it going to sink in?
UAH TLT is derived from brightness measurements through Earth’s troposphere weighted at about 4 km altitude.
Neither UAH or RSS have a land surface product or “2 meter altitude” product derived from satellites. If they could do that, they certainly would for a direct comparison to the surface records.
barry…”When is it going to sink in?”
I throw that back at you. Do you know anything at all about bandwidth and the meaning of channels in telemetry? Why do you think they have so many channels with each one tuned to a certain Ghz centre frequency?
Each channel represents an amplifier that is tuned to receive certain EM frequencies. Channel 5 is tuned to the expected frequencies from oxygen molecule emissions
Don’t sit there and lecture me on how microwave receivers work, I specialized in telecom featuring microwaves. You are talking through your hat, trying to interpret jargon from RSS after they claim oxygen absorbs at certain frequencies but they are measuring microwave emissions. Roy corroborated that the AMSU measures emission. If it was measuring absorp-tion you’d need an entirely different setup.
Roy also corroborated that the weighting is related to the sensitivity of the receiver to altitude. The weighting is a reference to how the sensitivity changes as the scanner moves from straight down to the horizon. Obviously channel 5 on the scanner will scan an increasing altitude as it sweeps.
Why do you think the peaks of each channel’s bandwidth is centred at different altitudes? If they were all centred at 4 km, or whatever, the graph would indicate that.
There is no point having umpteen separate channels unless each one is tuned to receive data from different altitudes. Channel 5 does overlap a considerable altitude but it is centred at 2000 metres and one of its flanks intercepts the surface.
Yes, channel 5 cannot isolate a narrow band of vertical atmosphere. None of the can. There are various ways to try to reduce/isolate different layers of the atmosphere, including combining different channels at different frequencies, or using one channel but with many viewing angles.
The best vertical resolution they can get is still of radiance measurements many kilometers deep.
You are talking through your hat, trying to interpret jargon from RSS after they claim oxygen absorbs at certain frequencies but they are measuring microwave emissions. Roy corroborated that the AMSU measures emission. If it was measuring absorp-tion youd need an entirely different setup.
What are you talking about? This is from the RSS page.
“RSS upper air temperature products are based on measurements made by microwave sounders. Microwave sounders are capable of retrieving vertical temperature profiles of the atmosphere by measuring the thermal emission from oxygen molecules at different frequencies.”
I never said they were measuring absorp-tion, and neither does RSS.
barry…”Coarse vertical resolution
http://www.remss.com/measurements/upper-air-temperature/”
************
note the title of the article at your link:
Upper Air Temperature
This includes TLT – read the whole article, rather than just the web address, eh?
barry…”This includes TLT read the whole article, rather than just the web address, eh?”
he?…fair dinkum, cobber.
I need to be honest, I include RSS with the likes of NOAA. I have no respect for them or what they have to say.
barry…”The plot shows channel 5 covering an altitude of about 10km”
It peaks at 2000 metres and is almost gone by 800 hPa. You need to learn to read graphs.
It peaks at 2000 metres and is almost gone by 800 hPa.
Yep, that’s something like what the old LT profile was, but hooray!
You are finally seeing that MSUs measure radiance through kilometers of atmosphere, and not some vertically shallow near-surface band.
Hopefully you will remember this in the future.
—————————————————————-
Handily, the chart in Spencer and Christy’s latest paper for revision 6 of the UAH data set has a weighting profile expressed in altitude, so no need to convert. The graph is near the bottom of the paper.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/APJAS-2016-UAH-Version-6-Global-Satellite-Temperature-Products-for-blog-post.pdf
If you look at Fig. 2 (p.31), you can see the version 6 LT profile stretching from surface to about 14km, peaking at around the 4km mark.
Weighting for the previous version (5.6) peaked at around 2km, and stretched from the surface to 13km altitude.
While weighting peak is currently at 4km, there is another 10km of radiance being measured above it, and only 4km below. IOW, there is more radiance being measured above 4km than below (the profile area is greater above 4km than below it).
(For version 5.6 with peak weighting at 2km, most of the radiance measured above that to 13km – look again at the area)
MSUs cannot and do not give surface or near-surface temps. Hopefully you’re seeing that now and we don’t have to do this again.
I urge you again to look at Fig 2 in the S&C paper above, on page 31. That’s the profile in altitude for the radiance measurements made by MSUs.
And keep in mind what I quoted directly from the compilers of the UAH temperature record, as linked to one of their papers above:
“the satellite can only measure deep layer temperatures”
Surely that is as clear as it gets.
barry on January 7, 2018 at 6:14 AM
To be sure it is now definitely understood even by trolls, I add here to your excellent comment a link to Fig. 2:
http://4GP.ME/bbtc/1515330621970.jpg
People lacking experience probably interpret the 5 not as a UAH revision but as a channel number.
As I noted in an earlier comment upthread, UAH6.0’s average absolute temperature in 2015 was around 264 K giving an average measurement altitude of 3.7 km aka 640 hPa.
{ Mea culpa: I still didn’t compute the actually valid temperature! Should happen soon. }
Maybe I should take some time to inspect UAH5.6’s climatology in order to obtain the absolute baseline allowing for a recomputation of UAH5.6’s average absolute temperature for the same year as for UAH6.0, and hence of a comparable average height of its measurements.
According to Fig 2., that should be around 2 km.
The average absolute temperature for 2017 is 264.33 K, what is 0.37 K higher than the average of Roy Spencer’s 12 month climatology (263.95 K).
That 0.37 K difference is the same value as the one obtained when averaging the 12 anomalies in the head post; thus my evaluation of UAH’s climatology data seems to be correct.
UAH5.6′ climatology
https://www.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/t2lt/tltmonacg_5.6
gives for its 12 months a year average of 269 K, i.e. 5 K more than for UAH6.0.
Considering again the lapse rate of 6.5 K /km then gives an altitude of 2.9 km (3.7 km for UAH6.0).
Thus indeed, if all is correct, this shows that UAH5.6 not only has a higher linear trend estimate than UAH6.0 (0.16 / decade instead of 0.13); it is also a bit nearer to surface when evaluating O2’s microwave emissions.
Maybe the latter explains the former :-))
Anyway it is funny to observe that people who pretend that UAH is very well able to capture surface temperature information by microwave sounding, in fact are also exactly those who refute UAH5.6 because it is “too warm”.
Fig. 2 from the latest revision paper includes a dashed line that is the temp trends for radiosondes at different levels of the atmosphere. The near-surface trends have a slightly higher trend than most of the troposphere.
http://4gp.me/bbtc/1515330621970.jpg
barry on January 7, 2018 at 5:09 PM
The near-surface trends have a slightly higher trend than most of the troposphere.
*
barry, that’s a crude understatement…
Even the highly homogenised RATPAC radiosonde set shows, at least for recent years, far higher trends than the land surface measurements themselves:
http://4gp.me/bbtc/1515368201756.jpg
The radiosonde surface trend becomes even higher when you take for these 85 RATPAC stations the original, raw IGRA station data instead:
http://tinyurl.com/yc8nh6u7 (delta charlie)
And the average trend experiences a further increase when you take all 1500 IGRA stations into consideration; GHCN unadjusted is cool in comparison to that.
barry, thats a crude understatement
Based on Fig. 2, I’m not so sure. In any case, despite what some may believe, I prefer to be conservative with what I say.
at least for recent years, far higher trends
Short-term trends!
http://4gp.me/bbtc/1515368201756.jpg
For 1979 to present, the satellite period, the trends don’t look to be stunningly different, though near-surface RATPAC does run higher.
Wonder what my eye is like? I’m guessing a trend of 0.22 C/decade for RATPAC.
Gordon’s article is from 2010. UAH has used different channels and weighting for LT over time. The latest version uses a combination of channels that are also used for their mid troposphere and lower stratosphere products. One of the features of the new LT scheme is that there is more influence from the lower stratosphere on the radiance measurements. Surface radiance accounts for about 17% of all radiance measurements for LT.
Thank you barry; if I have understood moyhu commenter Olof R right, this is counterbalanced by integrating some little % of LS.
From
https://ghrc.nsstc.nasa.gov/amsutemps/
Altitude selection
135,000 ft 41 km 2.5 mb (ch14)
118,000 ft 36 km 5 mb (ch13)
102,000 ft 31 km 10 mb (ch12)
82,000 ft 25 km 25 mb (ch11)
68,000 ft 21 km 50 mb (ch10)
56,000 ft 17 km 90 mb (ch09)
46,000 ft 14 km 150 mb (ch08)
36,000 ft 11 km 250 mb (ch07)
25,000 ft 7.5 km 400 mb (ch06)
14,000 ft 4.25 km 600 mb (ch05)
Near Surface layer (ch04)
Is this explicit enough for Gordon?
barry…”You are finally seeing that MSUs measure radiance through kilometers of atmosphere, and not some vertically shallow near-surface band”.
Not likely, it’s much easier to remember your arrogance.
Since when did 2000 metres become ‘kilometres of atmosphere? Channel 5 is centred at 2000 metres (800 hPa) and it’s bandwidth stretches to the surface and up to about 100 hPA. However, useful bandwidth is measures at 0.707 peak which puts the useful bandwidth of channel 5 around 500 hPA, which translates to about 4500 metres.
You are in-fact quoting the upper bandwidth limit of channel 5 at 4.5 kilometres. What about the rest of the bandwidth that measures right to the surface.
You still don’t understand what bandwidth means. It means with an effective bandwidth of so many GHz, the AMSU unit on channel 5 can receive frequencies radiated by oxygen up to 4.5 km but right down to the surface as well.
If surface level oxygen is radiating at x Ghz, channel 5 will detect it. So will 4, 6, 7 and 8 to different degrees.
How UAH distinguishes radiation to altitude is a mystery to me but they must have a way of correlating expected temperature to typical altitude. I think it misses the mark to write it off as weighting features, as if a temperature is gathered at 4 km then correlated to altitude through weighting. Such a practice would render multiple detection channels superfluous.
If that’s what you think, I think you’re dead wrong.
I am hoping Roy will do an article on this one day.
Some days ago I wrote:
Bindidon on January 4, 2018 at 6:16 AM
Some food for betterknowers
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tidal_locking
It seems to me that the hint hasn’t lost any actuality yet.
Don’t ask me how it is possible that in 2017 people can stay so obstinately in denial of such things.
That people refute AGW I fully understand: despite amazingly stoopid opinions about me (expressed by some of the dumbest commenters visiting this site), I’m not at all sure enough to agree.
*
I stay since years on Roy Spencer’s line: half natural, half man-made.
That I call ‘sound skepticism’. As opposed to ‘skepticism’ as understood by people who in fact are in ‘denialism’.
*
But above that point, I see here every day that there are still people even dumb enough to believe that GHE warming as such doesn’t exist.
Probably because they think those who understand the concept would in turn believe that would be the same as the warming in real greenhouses, ha ha ha haaa, great!
More of that! Right now, afin que je puisse rire, rire et encore rire. Cela me fait tant de bien!
Oh soorry! I apologise, we are since a few days in… 2018.
Yeah Bin, learn what year it is. Then, learn about orbital motion. Then learn some thermodynamics.
The more learning, the better. You don’t want folks believing you’re ignorant.
Better you start learning… not only about tidal locking, but also about… heat transfer.
When I see your believer’s keyword ‘thermodynamics’ I remember this excellent textbook written by physics professors Lienhard Sr/Jr (Houston, MIT) within which we find this inconspicuous sentence in paragraph 1.2 on page 8:
The reader will recall that engineering thermodynamics might better be named thermostatics, because it only describes the equilibrium states on either sides of irreversible processes.
http://4GP.ME/bbtc/151536538098.jpg
One day you will start reading that book, I’m sure.
http://web.mit.edu/lienhard/www/ahtt.html
Poor Bin, he gets himself so confused. It must be the language barrier.
Bin, “tidal locking” is synonymous with NOT “rotating on an axis”. The Moon can NOT rotate on its axis because it is rigidly locked, with only one side visible from Earth.
(Maybe try google “translate”.)
g*e*r*a*n
Here is the established version of tidal locking. You can make up your own version (which you do).
https://www.spaceanswers.com/deep-space/what-is-tidal-locking/
“Tidal locking is the name given to the situation when an objects orbital period matches its rotational period. A great example of this is our own Moon. The moon takes 28 days to go around the Earth and 28 days to rotate once around its axis. This results in the same face of the Moon always facing the Earth. We see other examples of this in our solar system and universe.”
You just made up this idea that tidal locking means the Moon cannot rotate because it is rigidly locked. Make belief physics, your own fantasy. You like to do that don’t you. You make fun of Bindidon but you are the one confused that can’t understand definitions and makes up your own version of physics.
Con-man, you continue to con only yourself. You keep repeating the same nonsense, over and over, hoping it will somehow prove me wrong.
“Insanity is doing the same thing over and over, hoping for different results.”
Hilarious.
g*e*r*a*n
I already know you believe established science is nonsense.
The reason I continue to demonstrate you know nothing of science is not hoping you will change (you won’t). I saw another parroting your made up physics J Halp-less so if I see you posting one of your pseudoscience made up physics I will provide the real and valid physics. I can try to prevent your infection from spreading. With a scientifically illiterate population your unreal world may seem real to those that do not know the difference.
So tell me how you can walk around a square table without rotating on your axis?. If you don’t rotate on your axis you keep moving straight ahead.
I want anyone to notice that I am totally correct about you. I present real science and demonstrate how little you know and all you can comment is that the real science is “nonsense”. You can’t come up with any established science supporting your view.
binny…”The reader will recall that engineering thermodynamics might better be named thermostatics, because it only describes the equilibrium states on either sides of irreversible processes”.
What an utterly stupid thing to say. The author is apparently a theoretician raised on statistical mechanics rather than a student of Clausius as he should be.
And you should be defending Clausius. He was a very intelligent, great German scientist.
I have read the first few chapters of the book you reference (thanks) and the author’s description of heat is primitive and inaccurate. Heat does not flow, as claimed by the author, in radiative transfer. It can’t. Heat is a property of atoms and there are no atoms in a vacuum, through which radiation passes easily.
The author is one of those who has put forward the nonsense that heat is a mystical quantity which is more a mathematical aberration than a reality. I just hope he does not sit on a hot stove in an attempt to prove his nonsense.
Heat cannot flow through a vacuum. The author is obviously one of those who cannot distinguish between heat and electromagnetic energy. He even messes up the 2nd law by equating it to entropy.
He fails to acknowledge that Clausius wrote the 1st law, the 2nd law, and defined entropy. He obviously cannot acknowledge Clausius because what Clausius taught is not the same as the nonsense the author is trying to peddle.
Following Clausius, circa 1875, scientists like Boltzmann and Planck pursued statistical mechanics, trying to establish the 2nd law statistically. They failed, however, statistical mechanics fit the new quantum theory and has prevailed, ousting the teachings of Clausius. It does not matter to modern scientists that Clausius is right and that they cannot account for heat transfer through a vacuum by heat flow. They still push that nonsense.
Clausius defined the 2nd law with words relating to the fact heat cannot be transferred by its own means from a cooler body to a warmer body. He DID NOT equate entropy to the 2nd law, that came later from scientists who failed to get the meaning Clausius intended for the 2nd law.
Clausius was not interested in establishing the theory of entropy when he developed the 2nd law. His interest was in countering the claim by Carnot that no losses occurred in a heat engine. He proved there were losses with the work he put forward to develop 2nd law theory. If you look at those proofs, they involve detailed drawings of the processes in a heat engine involving temperature, volume, and pressure. That’s how he proved the 2nd law.
The author laments that dS cannot be used to quantify heat flow. Of course it can’t. According to Clausius, S, as entropy, is either +ve or 0. How could it be used for anything other than describing the likelihood that a process is reversible or irreversible?
Later, Planck equated entropy to probability even though from what I have read from him he never described what he meant by entropy. I mean, what is it? How can you assign a probability to something you cannot define physically? No matter, those in statistical mechanics persisted with there folly and now we are stuck with it.
Clausius described entropy in words as the integral of infinitesimal transfers of heat into or out of a body at a temperature T at which the transfers take place. The integral must be 0 in a reversible process and positive in an irreversible process. That’s all entropy can tell you, the degree of irreversibility. It has nothing to do with the 2nd law per se and Clausius introduced it as an aside AFTER he had defined the 2nd law.
There are many modern scientist like this author who just don’t get it. They persist in teaching crap that cannot be proved other than through strictly mathematical ideology.
Statistical mechanics cannot be visualized. Planck admitted that openly. So we are stuck with a ‘trust me’ mentality. I am the professor, I teach the course, and if you don’t give me the answer I expect on the exam, you flunk.
norman…”So tell me how you can walk around a square table without rotating on your axis?. If you dont rotate on your axis you keep moving straight ahead”.
A figure skater spinning, as they do, on a spot, could be claimed to be rotating around an imaginary axis. I hardly think that applies to someone walking around a square table, or to toy cars traveling in a constrained motion around a track.
An axis normally applies to a solid body rotating, like the Earth rotating around an imaginary axis. A body traveling independently by itself around a table does not lend itself to the idea of an axis.
An axis is imaginary. If those toy cars were tethered to a central axial point, like spokes on a wheel, you might have an argument.
Gordon Robertson
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”
If you walk around a table your body is rigid. You have a line that goes through you that all other points of your body can rotate around. You can stand in a spot and spin and you have an axis that the rest of your body rotates around. You are doing the same thing walking around a table. You have to rotate around or you will not go around the table. Say initially your face will be pointing North, when you are half-way around your face points south. It is no different than if you stood in one spot and turned half-way around.
It does not matter the axis is an imaginary line, your body will still rotate around this axis in order to walk around a table.
If you went on the Moon and had a camera facing the fixed stars and you located one like Polaris on Earth and aimed the camera at that star, all the other stars would move around this center star.
http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/files/2010/09/star_trails_sept_18-9_2006_9pm-6am-600×398.jpg
Gordon I hope you are not siding with g*e*r*a*n on this issue. He is wrong about it. I don’t think you are very intelligent and you have a limited ability to learn things but you don’t seem to be this ridiculous stupid person that g*e*r*a*n presents himself as
Norman, commenter Bart wrote a nice description of the tidal mechanism last month:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/12/uah-global-temperature-update-for-november-20170-36-deg-c/#comment-277412
Now, you should be able to see why, thanks to tidal locking, the moon doesnt rotate on its axis whilst it orbits. You want to consider the orbiting motion as incorporating one full rotation of the moon on its axis, with respect to inertial space, when each single orbit is complete. This is understood, but its simpler overall to see it that the moon does not rotate on its axis whilst orbiting, thanks to tidal locking, and therefore the term *synchronous rotation* is superfluous. If you have *tidal locking* already, and understand the difference between the apparent (but not actual) rotation of an object on its axis with respect to inertial space, vs true axial rotation whilst orbiting, you dont need it!
con-man asks: “So tell me how you can walk around a square table without rotating on your axis?”
Norm, you still confuse “orbiting” with “rotation on an axis”. The two are different, distinct, independent motions.
Please review lessons 1 & 2.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/12/uah-global-temperature-update-for-november-20170-36-deg-c/#comment-277084
Here again is SGW’s excellent model (with a bit of editing):
1. Pierce a round object with a toothpick. Grasp the toothpick between your fingers and twirl the toothpick. What you observe is called rotation. The object is rotating or spinning about the axis of the toothpick.
2. Now take that same toothpick and object and make a a circular orbit about some point on your desk or a table (but dont spin or twirl the toothpick in your fingers) This motion is called an orbit.
3. Now perform the orbit as described above, but at the same time rotate the toothpick between your fingers. The object is now doing TWO THINGS AT ONCE. It is performing an orbit, and it is rotating about its axis.
And yes, dear nitwits, an orbit and “rotation about an axis” are definitely two separate things, even when they happen at the same time.
Snape, its not nice to refer to Norman and SGW as nitwits. Im sure if they concentrate hard enough they will understand the message you are trying to put across:
S: And yes, dear nitwits, an orbit and rotation about an axis are definitely two separate things, even when they happen at the same time.
J: You have no idea how hard its been trying to get that across to them.
Halp
Step one describes an object rotating about it’s axis while stationary.
Step two describes an orbit, minus axial rotation.
Step three puts them together. When one axial rotation (a separate motion) TAKES THE SAME AMOUNT OF TIME as one orbit, this creates an illusion: one side of the object will always face the center of orbit, and will APPEAR to not be rotating all.
You, g* and Gordon, being nitwits, are mesmerized by this illusion.
Consider the moon when viewed from earth:
If it turned 90 degrees on it’s axis for each completed orbit, we would see it spin. If it turned 180 degrees, we would see it spin. If it turned 270 degrees, we would see it spin.
But because it spins 360 degrees on it’s axis during each orbit, it appears to not spin at all.
Oh, no I wasnt talking about either SGWs example or your version of it. I was just commenting about your post at 1:31pm.
Handily, it includes a version of the 2-plate black body exercise.
g*e*r*a*n may discover that a black body absorbs all incident thermal radiation regardless of the temperature of the source of that radiation.
Only if you are willing to bypass the 2LoT, which you obviously are anxious to do.
barry….”g*e*r*a*n may discover that a black body absorbs all incident thermal radiation regardless of the temperature of the source of that radiation”.
yes…but the theoretical blackbody only radiates a fraction of what it receives because it has a pinhole for emission.
The blackbody example proposed by Planck is poorly thought out.
If you are going to persist in using blackbody theory you need to get it that the Stefan-Boltzmann equation refers only to one-way radiation. Applying it to two bodies radiating against each other and claiming both bodies must heat each other is ludicrous and a total contravention of the 2nd law.
The two plate thought-experiment produced by Eli Rabbett is based on his lack of understanding of blackbody theory and thermal energy. The fact that you are still discussing the problem suggests you are in the same state of confusion.
A black body does not have a pinhole for emission. Thats just a simple example given in elementary texts. Again your lack of reading trips you up.
Its also a matter of textbook physics that two infinite parallel plates, exchanging energy via radiation alone, will be at the same temperature at equilibrium; as was discussed and agreed last month. End of discussion.
J Halp-less
What textbook physics makes this claim? You forget that one plate is powered and the other is not. You seem to be unable to comprehend that the two plates are not receiving the same amount of energy. This is a flaw in your thoughts.
The blue plate receives 400 watts/m^2 of energy. The green plate only receives 200 watts/m^2 of energy from the blue plate. The two will not be at the same temperature and could never reach the same equilibrium temperature in the set up.
You fail with your thought that the two together will have the same surface temperature, but you think when separated the green plate temperature will stay the same. You fail in rational thought to support you unsound and irrational thought process.
If the conduction is good the energy from the surface facing the “sun” will be rapidly distributed at a rate faster than it will be emitted away via radiant energy.
You must think somehow that 400 and 200 are equal values. Once the green plate is separated it will only receive 200 watts but the blue plate still receives 400 watts. Both have the same radiating surface area. How could they be the same temperature?
If you make this wild claim find some real physics to support it. As it stands you are just making up physics.
Con-man asks: “Both have the same radiating surface area. How could they be the same temperature?”
Norm, this is one of your continuing mistakes. You do not understand that the green plate is not able to move any heat energy to the blue plate. So, it must radiate all of the incoming (200 Watts) from one side only. To do that, it must have the temperature to radiate 200 Watts/m^2. So, it must warm until it reaches the blue plate temp.
Another mistake you continue to make is accepting that the green plate can raise the temperature of the blue plate. The highest temperature the blue plate can achieve is 244K. That is all the energy it is absorbing. The radiation from the green plate cannot cause a higher blue plate temperature.
You keep making all the same mistakes, over and over, expecting different results.
That’s just one of the reasons this is going to be a great year in climate comedy.
g*e*r*a*n
What you call mistakes on my part are actual physics. You are the one making up your own version to satisfy a deluded belief.
YOU: “You do not understand that the green plate is not able to move any heat energy to the blue plate. So, it must radiate all of the incoming (200 Watts) from one side only.”
You don’t understand even a little physics of heat transfer. What you wrote is completely made up. I have linked you many times to show your flaw. The green plate does not have to move any heat in order to radiate 100 watts toward the blue plate. This is a huge flaw in your understanding. Emitted IR is not moving “heat”. Heat is the NET energy transfer between surfaces. The blue plate radiates 200 watts to the green plate, the green plate heats up until it radiates 200 total watts. 100 watts from each side, one away from the blue plate and one toward.
The green plate is radiating a NET energy toward the blue plate of minus 100 watts. The blue plate is radiating 200 toward the green plate and the green plate is returning 100 watts, the blue plate is losing 100 watts.
g*e*r*a*n
This might be your most ignorant thought process. It is your own made up reality. You base it on nothing but a declaration on your part.
YOU: “Another mistake you continue to make is accepting that the green plate can raise the temperature of the blue plate. The highest temperature the blue plate can achieve is 244K. That is all the energy it is absorbing. The radiation from the green plate cannot cause a higher blue plate temperature.”
I will not even comment on this one. Provide evidence to prove your declaration. If you will not then SHUT UP about it. When you supply some evidence that would be a breakthrough with you. You don’t provide evidence because there is none that supports this absurd idea. Maybe J Halp-less your lapdog will think you are a genius and accept it as a steak bone to chew on. He is your only supporter.
You do not understand that the green plate is not able to move any heat energy to the blue plate. So, it must radiate all of the incoming (200 Watts) from one side only.
But the graphic you think works has the green plate radiating 200 W/m2 to deep space – it’s radiating from both sides.
If you agree that the green plate radiates to deep space on the right side, then it is losing energy at that rate.
If it is losing energy to deep space at 200 W/m2, it cannot lose energy towards the blue plate at the same rate, because 200 W/m2 is all the energy it is receiving. The same way the blue plate receives 400 W/m2 from the sun, and emits 200 W/m2 either side – each surface emits half the total.
The green plate can lose no more energy than it receives or we break the 1st Law by creating energy.
N: What textbook physics makes this claim? You forget that one plate is powered and the other is not. You seem to be unable to comprehend that the two plates are not receiving the same amount of energy. This is a flaw in your thoughts
J: It was discussed last month, Norman. Go and look it up, if you are interested. It was agreed (since its textbook physics) that two infinite plates exchanging energy through radiation will come to the same temperature at equilibrium. As to your response, see my reply to Barry, further down (January 7 at 6:25pm). You went in the predicted, *take it back to the beginning* direction.
It was agreed (since its textbook physics) that two infinite plates exchanging energy through radiation will come to the same temperature at equilibrium.
Why have you omitted the sun here?
It was not “agreed” that the 2 plates would have the same temperature if a sun was powering one but not the other.
You have a very poor memory of conversations past.
I didnt say that it *was* agreed, with the sun included. Please read what I write more carefully.
barry, your comment (Jan 8, 2:09am) is garbage. Please study the graphic, then reread your comment, to enjoy the humor you provide.
https://postimg.org/image/y9etf4d8p/
The con-man blabs: “I will not even comment on this one. Provide evidence to prove your declaration.”
Poor Norm will not comment, then he comments!
Hilarious.
Con-man, you do not want evidence. It has been provided to you several times, but you disregard it. You either don’t understand it, due to your lack of a science background, or you have been so corrupted that you fear the truth.
Worse case, it is both.
I agree that is the case for just 2 black body plates.
Disagree that this is the case when there is a sun providing energy to the 2-plate system, which is obscured from one plate by the other. Then the plate in view of the sun will be at a higher temperature than the plate hidden from direct sunlight by the first once the 2-plate system achieves equilibrium with the sun, in a steady state temperature gradient.
The great thing about this is that it is intuitively obvious. We’ve all experienced shade.
So have insulated box on earth: transparent window and blackbody surface at bottom of box.
1000 watts sunlight, blackbody should be about 80 C.
Bring it to the Moon. Black body surface with 1367 watts
should be about 120 C.
Now replace window with blackbody surface. So going two black bodies surface. What temperature of second black body surface in the box on the Moon?
“The great thing about this is that it is intuitively obvious. We’ve all experienced shade.”
Yes barry, but shade does not warm the object providing the shade.
(Wow, this year in pseudoscience is starting out GREAT!)
Well yes, but that has nothing to do with what has been said. The shade may be warmed by the heat source it is providing shade from, and the objects being shaded are less warm than they would be than if they were directly exposed to the heat source.
You will be cooler under shade than if you step out from underneath it and stand in direct sight of the sun. That’s intuitively obvious, and why it should be intuitively obvious that the blue plate is warmer than the green when it shades the green from direct solar energy.
Denying that shade works – that’s psuedoscience right there.
barry gets desperate: “Denying that shade works thats psuedoscience right there.”
barry, I’m not denying that “shade works”. So, that won’t work.
What you fail to recognize is the blue plate is more than “shade”. It is a “heater”, to the green plate. The source heats the blue plate, and the blue plate heats the green plate. No tricks, no sleigh-of-hand, no pseudoscience, just reality. Embrace it or not, your choice.
And if you are standing in the shade of a building, a few feet away from it, you are still standing in the shade of that building when you walk right up to it and hug the wall.
Thats only if you can really consider a perfectly absorbing/emitting, perfectly conducting, infinitely thin plate to be providing much in the way of shade from a thermal point of view, in the first place. But, I already know you do, so lets stick to the first paragraph.
What you fail to recognize is the blue plate is more than “shade”. It is a “heater”
So is ordinary shade in that respect. Just a less powerful heater on the shaded side than the source heating it.
As I introduced the 2-plate set up to this blog, I am in no doubt that the blue plate – and everyday regular shade, too – emits heat to the shaded object.
There is a negative temperature gradient sun –> black body shade –> shaded object.
That’s because shade works. I am glad you do not deny it.
barry, that entire comment, at 8:28pm is just rambling pseudoscience.
And, you probably know it.
And if you are standing in the shade of a building, a few feet away from it, you are still standing in the shade of that building when you walk right up to it and hug the wall.
A thin black steel shield is all that is between a black steel table beneath it and the sun.
According to you, the upper surface of the table will be at the same temperature as the underside of the tin shade. Pressed together, they would be. So, by your logic, they also will be when separated.
You really think this?
“So going two black bodies surface. What temperature of second black body surface in the box on the Moon?”
Answer: 120 C
So top plate [replacing transparent window] is 120 C and other plate at bottom box is 120 C.
And if add 6 more plates in box, the 6 additional plates will also be 120 C- assuming there are the mythical/magical perfect blackbody surfaces.
And non magical black body surface could give similar results.
Something like copper slab which say 30 centimeter thick and meter square if insulated and on lunar surface [which also insulates the bottom] it will get to about 120 C [the entire slab].
And occurs on the Moon because it has many hours of sunlight- but if make it a lot thicker slab of copper even moon doesn’t have enough duration of sunlight to warm it to 120 C.
{So rather than 1/3 meter, one has it being meters or tens of meter thick- and one make it thick enough so the surface only reaches say 5 C (rather than 120 C) during a lunar day- and that would slab of copper absorbing a lot of sunlight- hundreds maybe thousands more than the “natural” lunar surface absorbs- yet does get as hot as “natural lunar surface- and it would be warmer during the lunar night}
gbakie, will you be warmer, cooler or the same temperature if you stand beneath a black body shade instead of in the full light of the sun?
Barry skips taking anything in from what gbalkie is trying to explain to him.
gbakie has made a bunch of assertions. Is that what you perceive to be ‘explanation’?
“barry says:
January 8, 2018 at 2:13 AM
gbaikie, will you be warmer, cooler or the same temperature if you stand beneath a black body shade instead of in the full light of the sun?”
Well lets say had blackbody umbrella. Basically it turns direct sunlight into indirect light [IR light].
Direct sunlight at 1367 watts can travel a million km and remain about the same [1367 watts per square meter].
And the indirect light from the umbrella can’t do this- unless it was a very, very large umbrella [not something vaguely small enough to hold as an umbrella].
And this why blue and green plates mention the characteristic of the impossiblity of infinite size- so one ignore that aspect.
Though must say I can’t ignore anything of infinite size- I can’t help not thinking of masses involved, gravity and bending of space- it’s more of a distraction than putting my mind at ease.
Instead of infinite size one make say 10 meter square and be concerned about 1 square meter in the middle of it- effectively does the same thing if plates are close enough [say with 1 foot distance- and 1 mm or 1 cm makes more of the case].
So with this blackbody umbrella it matters how big it is, and how high it’s held above your head.
“So with this blackbody umbrella it matters how big it is, and how high its held above your head.”
Oh, also matters what material is absorbing the IR light- to be a black body surface would require much magic.
Water for instance responds much differently with IR light
as compared to direct or indirect sunlight.
Sweet dreams Halp.
Maybe when you awake you may remember the origin of your lunar hypothesis?
Creepy.
The green plate is still in the shade of the blue when the blue and green are pressed together. There is also still a sun providing 400 W input to the two plate system, and 400 W output. Exactly as there is with the plates separated by vacuum. Yet nobody has a problem accepting that with the plates pushed together they will be the same temperature.
Now, I predict we will go right back to the beginning again. Either that, or some reference to how conduction and radiation are different processes, as if that wasnt already known and understood.
I like it when they try to use a black body as a perfect emitter/absorber, insulator, or heat source, depending on what they require!
Hilarious pseudoscience.
Looking forward to a whole new year of it!
Yet nobody has a problem accepting that with the plates pushed together they will be the same temperature…Exactly as there is with the plates separated by vacuum
Introducing vacuum between the plates introduces another field that prevents conduction.
Either that, or some reference to how conduction and radiation are different processes, as if that wasnt already known and understood.
The “already understood” difference between conduction and radiation is why there is a thermal gradient in a purely radiative exchange in this set up.
Two black body plates stuck together, of infinitely small thickness, is the same as one plate. Your set-up basically removes the 2nd plate altogether and makes it one plate.
I like it when they try to use a black body as a perfect emitter/absorber, insulator, or heat source, depending on what they require!
A black body – by definition – is a perfect emitter/absorber.
Stars are near-perfect black bodies – yes, theoretical black bodies can be sources of heat.
Black bodies in a radiative exchange set up are not perfect insulators. But they can be insulators.
Black body definition is only that they are perfect absorbers and emitters. They can be and are utilised in a variety of ways in theories of thermal exchange.
Thats right, Barry. Conduction cant happen through the vacuum; radiation does. Not sure why you felt the need to point that out. Aside from pretending that two objects pushed together become one object (instead of being two objects pushed together), you havent really attempted much by way of rebuttal. Ill consider that you conceding the point.
0.infinity + 0.infinity = 0.infinity.
Yep, pushing 2 infinitely thin plates together is the same as having one plate.
I’d be curious to see how you manage to deny this.
OK Barry, you win. I guess if you have add one physically impossible object to another then you may as well still have only one physically impossible object. Or maybe none? Or 273. Why not!?
“Stars are near-perfect black bodies – yes, theoretical black bodies can be sources of heat.”
No barry, stars just radiate nearly perfectly in accordance with Planck’s Law, as does a theoretical black body. A star is NOT a black body. A black body is an imaginary concept. You just can’t get that into your head.
“Black bodies in a radiative exchange set up are not perfect insulators. But they can be insulators.”
No barry, a black body is NOT an insulator. At equilibrium it emits what it absorbs.
“Black body definition is only that they are perfect absorbers and emitters. They can be and are utilised in a variety of ways in theories of thermal exchange.”
But, the can NOT be used to violate the laws of physics.
A star is NOT a black body. A black body is an imaginary concept.
Can’t you think of a more creative lie than claiming I think black bodies are real objects?
Of course black bodies can be insulators. Think of any radiative insulation you can imagine in real life and turn the objects into theoretical black bodies. Viola! Same basic result but easier calcs.
I am waiting for you to say that insulation only works with conduction and convection, but never with radiation. That would be amusing.
barry get belligerent: “Cant you think of a more creative lie than claiming I think black bodies are real objects?”
barry, I will accept that as your admission that you now understand a black body is an imaginary concept.
Next step: Do you understand that an imaginary concept can NOT be used to violate the laws of physics?
Have you stopped beating your wife, yet?
An old rhetorical, trick, G. Good to see you’re staying with the classics.
Of course black bodies can be insulators. Think of any radiative insulation you can imagine in real life and turn the objects into theoretical black bodies. Viola! Same basic result but easier calcs.”
No barry, a black body emits as it absorbs.
“I am waiting for you to say that insulation only works with conduction and convection, but never with radiation. That would be amusing.”
Well, you will be waiting for a long time.
And, THAT is amusing.
barry impudently inquires: “Have you stopped beating your wife, yet?”
barry, if you must know, yes, I’ve stopped beating my wife, for today. …
Now, the question to you: Do you understand that an imaginary concept can NOT be used to violate the laws of physics?
B: “I am waiting for you to say that insulation only works with conduction and convection, but never with radiation. That would be amusing.”
G: Well, you will be waiting for a long time.
Excellent, G.
So let you imagine a situation where there is some object providing radiative insulation.
Now turn the object providing insulation from a non-black body into a black body.
Explain how the black body version of this insulator suddenly ceases to become an insulator.
barry tries more obfuscation: “Explain how the black body version of this insulator suddenly ceases to become an insulator.”
barry, you did not answer my question. I assume you can’t.
So, now you want to go down a new rabbit trail, trying to make an imaginary black body into a insulator. All in some futile effort to support the false solution to the plate problem.
Even if you use an imaginary concept, and allow it to become an imaginary insulator, you still can NOT raise the temperature of the blue plate beyond the S/B temp of 244K.
No matter what you do, not matter how many tricks you conjure up, no matter how many rabbit trails, you’re still stuck with your violation of 2LoT.
It’s fun to watch. (But, I’ve got to hit the sack. I’ll catch you later.)
barry…”Explain how the black body version of this insulator suddenly ceases to become an insulator”.
Number one, there is no such thing as a blackbody. It was a stupid thought experiment offered by Planck wherein all radiation could be absorbed by the BB but only a minute quantity could escape through a pinhole.
As Claes Johnson has revealed, a typical blackbody absorbs all EM but only emits a reduced spectra based on a cutoff frequency. EM is measured by its frequency. For example, the Earth as a blackbody absorbs all solar energy but only emits a constricted bandwidth of EM as IR.
The Sun is classified as a blackbody due to the wide bandwidth of its EM radiation but what can it absorb?
Number two, most insulation does not prevent radiation. In a home, the insulation is designed to prevent heat transfer by conduction. To prevent heat transfer by radiation you need to install special surfaces to reflect IR.
I have already given an example of that. If I wear a heart monitor strap around my chest, which radiates EM to a wrist watch receiver, it travels easily through multiple heavy layers of cloth even though the intensity of radiation can be measured in microvolts.
In the old days before cable, microvolts level radiation from TV and Radio transmitters came straight through the walls of homes, insulated or not. Insulation in walls won’t stop EM. Some EM, in the form of cosmic rays, goes straight through the Earth.
I didn’t answer your question because the 2nd law isn’t violated.
At all stages after the green plate is introduced Tblue plate is higher than Tgreen plate.
NET heat flow is always from hot to cold, even while radiation is exchanged between the 2 objects. This is apparent, as the intensity of blue plate radiation is always higher than green plate.
At no time is the NET flow of heat from cold to hot. No 2LoT violation.
In your thought-experiment, the green plate comes into thermal equilibrium with the blue plate, because you perceive that the radiative exchange between them must become equal. But this cannot be, because the blue plate receives energy from the sun while the green plate doesn’t. Blue plate loses energy sunward only to have it constantly replenished from the sun. Green plate loses energy to deep space but is not replenished by deep space. This imbalance yields a negative thermal gradient from blue plate to green.
I hope your dreams are pleasant, and that you awake refreshed to answer my question.
To prevent heat transfer by radiation you need to install special surfaces to reflect IR.
Insulation reduces heat transfer. Reflective surfaces make the insulator more effective.
A black body in place of a reflecting object would still insulate radiatively but it would be less effective. Black bodies do not transmit thermal radiation.
Number one, there is no such thing as a blackbody. It was a stupid thought experiment offered by Planck
And used in physics everywhere ever since. Physics theory is brimming with theoretical constructs like black bodies.
The Sun is classified as a blackbody due to the wide bandwidth of its EM radiation but what can it absorb?
It can absorb thermal radiation.
All matter with a temperature above absolute zero emits thermal radiation.
That last is as basic as the laws of thermodynamics. Hopefully no one will come along to deny that!
B: Blue plate loses energy sunward only to have it constantly replenished from the sun
J: This only occurs in one direction (perpendicular to the blue plate). There is an (almost) entire hemisphere of other possible directions leading from and to the blue plate on its sunward side, in which this is *not* the case. As has been explained to you countless times.
Number one, there is no such thing as a blackbody. It was a stupid thought experiment offered by Planck
Nope, Kirchoff, two years after Max Planck was born.
As Claes Johnson has revealed, a typical blackbody absorbs all EM but only emits a reduced spectra based on a cutoff frequency.
First, the weasel word “revealed,” likening Claes Johnson to some divine oracle. Let’s try “Claes Johnson says…” Yep, that’s more straightforward.
Hardly a revelation – theoretical black bodies emit in the frequency appropriate to their temperature, which is considered to be uniform.
Try this one:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/12/uah-global-temperature-update-for-november-20170-36-deg-c/#comment-277977
Paying close attention to the final paragraph, with the discussion of the sides that are losing energy.
This only occurs in one direction (perpendicular to the blue plate). There is an (almost) entire hemisphere of other possible directions leading from and to the blue plate on its sunward side, in which this is *not* the case. As has been explained to you countless times.
Irrelevant.
The blue plate receives at its surface 400 W/m2, constantly.
It emits from its sun-facing surface 200 W/m2.
That’s the set up.
The set up is perpendicular, solar radiation at distance is practically collimated, so there’s no need to bother with viewing angles or other irrelevancies to the thought experiment.
No Barry, view factors are not *irrelevant* to radiative heat transfer. If the setup requires that the sun is at a distance such that the rays are coming in collimated (it does), then we also know that it must be at such a distance (and hence viewing angle) that from the POV of the blue plate facing the sun, most of the radiation leaving the blue plate will not hit the sun. Only an infinitesimal amount will. This is why the 400 W/m2 reaching the blue plate becomes 200 W/m2 going space-bound (or green plate-bound) and 200 W/m2 going back the other way (with only an infinitesimal amount of that actually hitting the sun).
I paid close attention to the final paragraph. I’m already quite familiar with the way you see it. I’ve answered that a few times, you haven’t replied to my points. I’ll try once more.
With two plates pressed together the immediate thermal field into which both plates lose heat is space, and the other plate. Green plate of infitine thinness will come to the same temperature as the blue plate. The blue plate will lose no heat to the green plate, the green plate will lose no heat to the blue. They will be at equilibrium. Green plate will radiate 200 W/m2 to deep space on the right.
When separated, the thermal field between the 2 plates is now the vacuum. As soon as the green plate has more surface area (double the surface area) to radiatively emit from, its rate of heat loss will increase.
Green plate now has double the surface area from which to lose heat. When receiving 200 W/m2 from the blue plate, it will emit 100 W/m2 from the surface facing the blue plate, and 100 W/m2 from the surface facing deep space exactly like the blue plate does WRT solar energy. Each surface emits half the total power received by the plate.
The green plate is now radiating at 200 watts total, which is the energy it receives for every square meter of the surface facing the blue plate. It cannot rise above 200 Watts without absorbing additional energy. It cannot emit 200 W/m2 from both surfaces, because that would mean it is radiating at 400 Watts, which is twice the energy it receives from the blue plate.
Energy cannot be created.
If you continue to choose to ignore view factors, its no wonder you get so confused with this. Luckily, Im here to help. The blue plate can lose energy from both of its sides, as explained above. Hence the diving 400 W/m2 by two. The green plate, on the other hand, can only lose energy on the side facing space. Hence the dividing 200 W/m2 by one. To understand why, just consider the directionality of the heat flow, and the view factors between the two plates (F12=1, as Im sure you will remember). No energy is created or destroyed. 400 W in, 400 W out, of the two plate system.
*Dividing*, not diving, lol.
Ah, so your view is different from g*e*r*a*n, who believes the green plate emits 200 W/m2 to the blue plate – but that it is all reflected by the blue plate back, hence the blue plate cannot warm.
But you believe that the green plate does not emit radiation at all from the side facing the blue plate. Wonder of wonders. The green plate is transparent. This is odd for a black body, which, by definition, permits no transmission of radiation. It’s odd for any kind of body. As soon as an object receives radiation at higher intensity than it’s emitting surface it ceases to emit radiation? Good one!
I have to say, the critics are nothing if not inventive.
No, Barry, the green plate emits energy from both sides. But it can only *lose* energy from one side. Do stop with the straw men, and at least *try* to understand.
No, Barry, the green plate emits energy from both sides. But it can only *lose* energy from one side.
Emitting energy IS losing energy!
But let’s go with what you’ve said.
The blue plate receives 400 W/m2 from the sun. It emits 200 W/m2 from each side. This is the radiative balance.
Good so far? Tell me if not, because there’s a follow up. And here it is.
The green plate receives 200 W/m2 from the blue plate. It emits 100 W/m2 from each side. This is the radiative balance…
But you disagree. So why does the green plate behave differently to the blue plate? Conversely, why doesn’t the blue plate do what the green plate does and emit 400 W/m2 either side?
The side of the green plate facing the blue cannot be a side from which the green plate is losing energy, since that is the side on which it is *gaining* energy (from the blue plate), prior to equilibrium. *At* equilibrium, the sides which are losing energy are the ones as described in the comment I linked to earlier. This lost energy is continuously replaced by energy from the sun. *Prior* to equilibrium, the blue plate is losing energy from both sides, since the blue is warming the green.
As I said, to understand, just consider the directionality of heat flow, and the view factors involved.
Oh I think I can guess. Viewing angles.
Irrelevant.
The blue plate receives 400 W/m2 from the sun. Constantly.
The blue plate emits 200 W/m2 from each surface. It does not know that there is a sun or a green plate. All it ‘knows’ it what happens at its surface. Space conducts no information other than radiatively.
The green plate receives 200 W/m2 at its surface. It does not ‘know’ the blue plate is there other than the radiation received at its surface.
Viewing angle is irrelevant. If you make the sun a point source or another infinitely large plate, the radiative transfer remains the same, because the plates only experience thermal radiation immediately at their surfaces, not from some angle remote from them.
The blue plate gets 400 W/m2 at its surface. Doesn’t matter what shape the source, it will always emit 200 w/m2 in the direction of the heat source, and 200 W/m2 away from it.
The side of the green plate facing the blue cannot be a side from which the green plate is losing energy, since that is the side on which it is *gaining* energy (from the blue plate), prior to equilibrium. *At* equilibrium, the sides which are losing energy are the ones as described in the comment I linked to earlier.
Let me fix that for you:
The side of the blue plate facing the sun cannot be a side from which the green plate is losing energy, since that is the side on which it is *gaining* energy (from the sun), prior to equilibrium. *At* equilibrium, the side which is losing energy are the ones as described in the comment I linked to earlier.
Applying the same logic to the blue plate, it is constantly receiving 400 W/m2 at its surface, and can only lose energy to the non-sun side, so the blue plate emits 400 W/m2 square to the right and nothing to the sun.
This is exactly the reasoning you’ve applied to the green plate.
*sigh(
Let me fix that for you:
The side of the blue plate facing the sun cannot be a side from which the blue plate is losing energy, since that is the side on which it is *gaining* energy (from the sun), prior to equilibrium. *At* equilibrium, the side which is losing energy are the ones as described in the comment I linked to earlier.
Well, Barry, rather than guessing, all you needed to do was wait for my response. Its there now.
And on a separate matter, again; view factors are fundamental to radiative heat transfer. They are *not* irrelevant. Perhaps you just wish they were.
B: The side of the blue plate facing the sun cannot be a side from which the blue plate is losing energy, since that is the side on which it is *gaining* energy (from the sun), prior to equilibrium. *At* equilibrium, the side which is losing energy are the ones as described in the comment I linked to earlier.
J: Yes, the side of the blue plate facing the sun *can* be (and is) a side from which the blue plate is losing energy, overall. Prior to and *at* equilibrium. Since there is almost an entire hemisphere of possible directions, leaving from the blue plate, along which radiation emitted will not hit the sun. The plate can lose energy in any one of these directions, besides that one which is directly perpendicular to the plate.
Once again, just consider the directionality of heat flow, and the view factors involved.
Since there is almost an entire hemisphere of possible directions, leaving from the blue plate, along which radiation emitted will not hit the sun. The plate can lose energy in any one of these directions, besides that one which is directly perpendicular to the plate.
The blue plate receives 400 W/m2 constantly at its surface from the sun. Its whole surface.
Of course it will emit in a direct line to the sun. There is nothing preventing that. The blue plate does not ‘know’ where the sun is. Radiation does not collide with radiation.
There’s no physical mechanism that prevents the blue plate emitting directly towards the sun. no physical barrier. No sentient blue plate. Nothing.
What do you imagine prevents the blue plate emitting at a vector directly towards the sun? What mechanism? It can’t be ‘heat’, because that is not a physical property, and in any case that ‘heat’ is experienced by every square meter of the blue plate. It can’t be radiation, because radiation does not collide, and in any case every square meter of the blue plate is receiving radiation.
What is the physical barrier here?
Nothing. There is nothing stopping the blue plate radiating directly to the sun along that vector, and indeed it does. As I have repeatedly said. However, all of the other vectors miss the sun. And that means *nothing is coming back the other way*. So it is net loss from the blue plate along all those innumerable vectors, compared to the *one* vector where the blue plate receives its energy.
And that means *nothing is coming back the other way*
400 W/m2 is coming back the other way. Across the whole surface of the blue plate.
Blue plate does not know if its emissions are striking the sun or not. Neither does green plate. All they ‘know’ is that they are receiving a certain amount of energy at surface, and emitting energy. That’s it.
Do you see the radiation rebounding, as if from a mirror or something? Otherwise I cannot see what difference it makes. The plates only know what happen at their surfaces. There are no teleconnections in space!
B: 400 W/m2 is coming back the other way. Across the whole surface of the blue plate.
J: Along that one direction only. There are countless other directions in which the blue plate is losing energy (in all directions pointing away from the sun), since its not receiving anything back in those directions.
If I understand what you are saying:
If the sun was a huge plate filling half the view of the blue plate, instead of a smaller disc or point source, still emitting exactly 400 W/m2 to the blue plate, you would say that this would change the rate of emission of the sun-facing surface of the blue plate?
B: 400 W/m2 is coming back the other way. Across the whole surface of the blue plate.
J: Along that one direction only.
No.
Energy emitted from the sun spreads as it travels through space. This dispersion is why we only receive a fraction of the heat from the sun that it emits at its surface. It expands out much wider than the surface of the sun.
In or thought experiment the blue plate receives 400 W/m2 across its entire surface. From the sun. It does not receive that energy in only a sun-sized section of its surface. What a strange idea.
400 w/m2 is what the blue plate receives across its entire surface. That is what is constantly coming “back the other way.”
When calculating, do view factors affect what the equilibrium temperature will be?
Does the temperature of an object affect the amount of radiation it emits?
In your post of 6:30 am you seem to be coming up against the same problem Robert Kernodle had in his comment here:
https://climateofsophistry.com/2017/10/06/slayers-vindicated-by-additional-independent-researchers/#comment-31217
Which gets resolved here:
https://climateofsophistry.com/2017/10/06/slayers-vindicated-by-additional-independent-researchers/#comment-31223
Among other places.
I’m trying to see this…
The blue plate emits 200 w/m2 each way…
EXCEPT
for a sun-sized section that is perfectly perpendicular to the disc of the sun.
THAT section of the blue plate emits zero W/m2 sunward, and 400 W/m2 from the other side.
So there is a 1.4 million sq/km circle (diameter of our sun) in the blue plate that radiates differently to the rest of the plate?
Really?
No, you are not getting it at all. It really is like you are actively *trying* not to understand.
So basically the earth is incapable of losing energy radiatively in the direction of the sun.
I’d like to see any physics text in the world that corroborates that idea!
You’re good with posting links, J. have you got anything from a standard text book that comes close to corroborating this notion?
Or any standard text book or other authoritative text corroborating the idea that objects can’t radiatively lose energy from their surface in the direction of a warmer object?
You’ll understand that I won’t accept blog references or the like. I don’t think this stuff is in the ;least bit standard.
No, you are not getting it at all. It really is like you are actively *trying* not to understand.
I really am trying to understand. The idea that an object cannot lose energy radiatively in the direction of a warmer object is simply not standard physics.
Barry, objects emit energy from all over their surface. There are no sections of the plate not emitting. I already asked you to stop with the straw men, but still you persist.
Look, *you* do not understand something, which I *do* understand. I am trying to *help* you to understand what I do. Instead of accept my help, or try to assume I am correct (even just for an exercise in critical thinking, you could try this), and attempt to read through carefully and *try* to understand, you simply do everything within your power to reject every word I say.
Try this: *stop* writing defensive, knee-jerk responses to every single thing I write, go away for a while, and just read up on the concepts I am trying to explain to you. Read through the discussions again. *Try* to get it. *Then* respond if, and only if, you actually still genuinely do not understand, and wish to.
J, this is where I don’t understand your view.
the green plate emits energy from both sides. But it can only *lose* energy from one side
And
from the POV of the blue plate facing the sun, most of the radiation leaving the blue plate will not hit the sun. Only an infinitesimal amount will. This is why the 400 W/m2 reaching the blue plate becomes 200 W/m2 going space-bound (or green plate-bound) and 200 W/m2 going back the other way (with only an infinitesimal amount of that actually hitting the sun).
You’re saying that the blue plate can *lose* energy sunward because most of the energy doesn’t hit the sun, but the green plate cannot *lose* energy in the direction of the blue plate, because all its energy hits the blue plate.
But you say both can emit radiation towards the warmer object. Just not *lose* energy in that direction.
1) Emission of thermal radiation IS energy loss. It’s exactly how an object in space sheds internal energy. There is no other way.
So that’s my first problem with what you’re saying. Energy loss is occurring in whatever direction radiation is being emitted. At the same time, there is energy gain from whatever radiation is being absorbed, and that gain is happening across the borad surface of both plates, whether its coming from the sun or blue plate.
2) What is the difference between the energy being radiated (energy lost) from the blue plate directly to the sun, and that which is emitted past the sun? The blue plate does not know the difference or where the sun is. It only knows ‘sun’ due to the radiation it receives at its surface. Where the sun is makes no difference to the energy the blue plate loses at its surface.
You’ve made this distinction. Can you explain what physical, material difference this has to energy loss from the blue plate? I’m still looking to have the physical mechanism at work here explained.
Because if you can do that, it would help make clear what the difference is when talking about green plate radiative emission to blue plate, and why the green plate can “only *lose* energy from one side.”
Its just relentless. Now, there is no way you have taken any time, gone away, and tried to give it some more thought, before responding, is there? You have literally spent the entire time since I last wrote, writing that response, where you are still missing the same points. Its just another knee-jerk response! Do you think that I literally have all day to spend with you? Can you not try to fill in some of the gaps in your understanding for yourself? *Try* to make sense of it. *Try* not to just immediately assume the worst. Its called, *giving someone the benefit of the doubt*. I know you can do it! There is so, so much that has already been explained to you, which you can simply re-read. No need for questions, since the answers are already there. Just find them.
If it helps you to avoid knocking down any further straw men (even in your head, let alone out loud):
1) Yes, objects lose internal energy when they emit radiation.
2) There is no physical difference in the energy. There doesnt need to be. Its about what is coming back in the opposite direction (hint: if the direction is going off from the blue plate away from the sun, the answer is nothing).
So, when looking at 1), you could start by thinking…well, obviously when he says *losing energy*, he is still referring to the objects internal energy, just not only in relation to internal energy lost through *emitting* radiation. Perhaps what is being *received* also needs to be taken into account. Perhaps the word *overall* was a clue.
Just start along those lines. Where you come across a problem, instead of assuming the worst about me, try assuming that instead of thinking something stupid, perhaps Im actually thinking along different lines to where you might have thought I was going.
barry is in denial: I didn’t answer your question because the 2nd law isn’t violated.”
barry, when you raise the temperature of the system without adding new energy, you are violating the 2LoT. You just don’t understand thermodynamics.
Perhaps what is being *received* also needs to be taken into account.
It IS taken into account.
Blue plate is *receiving* 400 W/m2 from the sun.
Green plate is *receiving* 200 W/m2 from the blue plate.
After that I have no idea what you are talking about.
What difference does view factor make if this is the amount of radiation being received by each surface? Are you suggesting that there is more than that amount if the source emitting is larger?
I just don’t get it.
I just don’t see why it matters if blue radiation emissions almost entirely misses the sun, and green plate emissions entirely are received by blue late.
And you have not yet explained why it should matter, though I’ve asked.
I’m not out to get you. I’m out to understand you. You’ve stated that there is a distinction here, but you haven’t explained how it operates in physical terms. How is green plate energy loss any different (physically) than blue plate just because of the size of the surface they are emitting toward?
when you raise the temperature of the system without adding new energy, you are violating the 2LoT. You just dont understand thermodynamics.
The average temperature of the 2-plate system is in equilibrium with the energy it receives from the sun, per Eli’s equations. Energy out = energy in. What we disagree about is that one plate is hotter than the other. You think they are the same temperature (244K). I think blue plate is warmer than 244K, and green plate cooler. They average out to 244K.
I think that the green plate cannot possibly get as warm as the blue plate, because the blue plate is receiving energy directly from the sun, and the green plate is getting half that energy (initially) from the blue plate. There’s no way the green plate can be as warm as the blue, because the blue plate is receiving thermal radiation from 2 directions, and the green plate is receiving energy only from one direction.
Blue plate can definitely receive radiation from objects cooler than it, but the NET flow of heat between must always be from hot to cold. This in no way busts the 2LoT. NET flow of heat is from hot to cold. Always. But, like with insulation, a cooler insulating body can be the cause of a warmer body becoming warmer – if it reduces its rate of heat loss. Everyday examples abound, and this works for radiation, conduction and convection.
Blue plate temperature rises because its rate of energy loss is reduced by receiving energy from green plate. As J-Hap would say, you have to factor what is coming IN as well as going out.
You dont get why view factors make a difference. Thats OK, its a difficult thing to grasp, conceptually. Believe me, Ive tried pretty hard to explain it already, as have others, but I cant be sure I have written things out clearly enough, or if I might have taken you in some wrong directions along the way. This is why I continue to give you the benefit of the doubt, and continue to reply to you.
First of all, though, do you accept that the answer to this question, I asked earlier, is yes:
When calculating, do view factors affect what the equilibrium temperature will be?
I think thats Step 1. Even if you dont get *why* yet, if you accept that they do make a difference, then you should be more motivated to understand.
Halp,
It has been explained by so many above, and on so many other occasions that view factors are irrelevant for infinite plates but I must add the following to hopefully put this nonsense to sleep
Halp has assisted in this endeavour by hoisting himself on his own petard. See Halp’s comment here –
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/12/uah-global-temperature-update-for-november-20170-36-deg-c/#comments
The link you kindly provided showed (eqn 13.38) that for infinite parallel plates, the only relevant factors are the temperature difference (via the S-B law) and the emissivities of each plate (irrelevant for black bodies as emissivity is always one).
Nowhere, I repeat nowhere, does the view factor appear because it is a multipier that is always one for infinite plates. Multiplying by one, of course, means no effect.
The only remaining question is for Halp’s sake, how many times will this need to be repeated?
barry says, January 8, 2018 at 6:50 AM:
Of course it doesn’t lose energy in the direction of a warmer object. It GAINS energy in the direction of a warmer object. Standard heat transfer theory.
It can and does, however, thermally emit photons in the direction of a warmer object.
You fail to define your level of description each and every time, barry. How (in what way) are you saying a cool object LOSES energy to (in the direction of) a warm one?
When calculating, do view factors affect what the equilibrium temperature will be?
In this set up, no. The view factor is the proportion of radiation that leaves one surface and strikes another. In this case, all the radiation striking the blue plate from the sun is equivalent to 400 W/m2. It doesn’t matter how much of the radiation from the blue plate strikes the sun, because we are not determining the temperature of the sun.
All the radiation between the blue plate and green strikes the other surface.
And we agree that the set up has this 100% view factor between the plates for the purposes of simplifying the equations with our theoretical black bodies. We neither want nor need to complicate the equations with other dimensions.
400 W/m2 and 200 W/m2. Those are our starting points. View factor is irrelevant.
If you disagree, you’re going to have to explain what physical difference it makes for the purpose of this set up we’ve agreed on.
Well, that will do. Thats a start. Youve got it wrong (that the view factors make no difference in this example), but from your answer I can infer that you do agree that view factors make a difference. I will take that as a yes. So, you should hopefully be quite motivated to understand now *why* they make a difference. Its all out there, so get reading. I will be here to help if I sense something genuine coming from you.
How (in what way) are you saying a cool object LOSES energy to (in the direction of) a warm one?
All things in space lose energy by emitting radiation. As you have previously said, warm objects emit radiation to cold objects, and cold objects emit radiation to warm objects (and any other direction).
This shedding of energy via radiation occurs even as the same surface is receiving radiation from a warmer object, and even while emitting in the direction of the warmer object.
Of course, the NET flow of radiative energy is always from hot to cold.
Youve got it wrong (that the view factors make no difference in this example), but from your answer I can infer that you do agree that view factors make a difference. I will take that as a yes.
You may take that as a no, as I put rather clearly. View factor is irrelevant.
I have asked and am still waiting for you to explain what physical difference view factor makes in this set up.
I am waiting for you to explain what difference it makes that blue blue plate radiates mostly past the sun, and green plate radiates entirely to the blue plate.
Blue plate receives 400 W/m2 across its surface. Green plate receives 200 W/m2 across its surface. That’s the relevant information, and I’m wondering if view factor is an unnecessary complication/red herring.
Will you explain?
I will be here to help if I sense something genuine coming from you.
Something genuine? How’s this?
Fuck you and your condescending attitude.
How about you be genuine and answer the question I’ve been asking. It’s looking a lot like you are unable.
B: It doesnt matter how much of the radiation from the blue plate strikes the sun, because we are not determining the temperature of the sun.
J: To help point you (back once again) in the right direction, that is correct: We are not determining the temperature of the sun. So, you can leave that straw man alone too, from now on. What is of course important is that the blue plate can lose energy in (almost) the entire hemisphere of directions other than the one directly perpendicular to the blue plate, on that sun-facing side. It can also (prior to equilibrium) lose energy in the direction of the green plate, since the blue is warming the green. At equilibrium, the 2-plate system loses energy, 200 joules per second from the side of the green facing space, and 200 joules per second from the side of the blue facing the sun. This is matched by the input of 400 joules per second from the sun. Energy in (400 W) = energy out (400 W). On the sides of the plates facing inwards (towards each other), energy is emitted and thus exchanged, at equilibrium.
As I believe I may have said already; to understand, just consider the directionality of heat flow, and the view factors involved. You will get there. Any problems, I will check back tomorrow. Dont go expecting a response until then!
barry says, January 8, 2018 at 7:15 AM:
Precisely! Micro vs. macro, barry. “Energy” and “radiation” in a MICROscopic sense vs. “energy” and “radiation” in a MACROscopic sense. I’m surprised this still confuses you …
No, only the NET (macroscopic) exchange constitute a loss (or gain) of internal energy [U] from/to the body in question. Why? Because you measure a change in a body’s internal energy largely through a change in its temperature [T]. If a body’s T goes up, we know that its U is increasing. It GAINS energy. Conversely, if a body’s T goes down, we know that its U is decreasing. It LOSES energy. So, will the T of a cooler body go DOWN as the result specifically of its thermal exchange with a warmer body? No? Well, then we know that it isn’t losing energy “in the direction of” that warmer body either.
Earth’s surface is involved in TWO heat transfers at the same time: 1) Sun => sfc, and 2) sfc => atm/space. We want to know: Through which of these two heat transfers does the surface GAIN, and through which does it LOSE energy?
There’s an incredibly straightforward way to find out.
The sfc T goes UP during the day and DOWN during the night. But the atmosphere and space are there BOTH day and night, while the Sun is only there during the day.
So what happens when only the atm/space are there? The sfc T drops.
And what happens when the Sun is present also? The sfc T rises.
Simple conclusion: Earth’s surface GAINS energy from the Sun, and LOSES energy to the atmosphere and space.
How come? The Sun is warmer than the surface, while the atmosphere and space are cooler than the surface.
It’s that simple …
barry, you just keep saying the same things over and over, but demonstrate NO understanding.
You will say that your plate solution doesn’t violate 2LoT, when it clearly does. You believe you get to define science to fit your belief system. You want your “definitions” and your “interpretations” to supersede the laws of physics.
That’s why you made the list of top pseudoscientists!
View factors:
Look, in physics 2 we learn about electric fields with different shapes. Planar, spherical and cylinders. For plates we assume they are infinitely large, so it is easy to solve. The electric fields are constant and form parallel lines leaving the surface of a plate.
The point is we get a solution for infinite plates but it works fine even for finite-but large area plates, so long as you are close to the surface and not near an edge.
That is the situation with the BLUE-GREEN plates. We can treat them like infinitely large plates. Heat flux behaves like electric field lines in plate geometries. The radiative flux lines leaving or entering the plates are parallel lines.
So, as Barry tried to explain, the view factors are not important in this problem, because the plates are behaving like infinite plates. Nothing wrong with that assumption.
Nice try, Nate.
halp, nothing substantive?
Halp, the view factors issue is similar to G* saying that there are no true black bodies. Neither of you is able to pin down what quantitative difference these factors make.
For BB issue there are many materials that qualify as being close enough, absorbing 95% of IR over a wide range of wavelength.
For view factors, for large plates, the factors are close to 1. You havent shown otherwise.
So unless you guys can show what quantitative difference these factors make, they are just diversionary and not serious.
Yes, see above. You see, most people read through the discussion *before* they comment.
Im just waiting for the time that someone wants to debate honestly. Nate, please be aware that:
1) This discussion began with a simple back and forth between Barry and myself. These are the comments, here:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2018/01/uah-global-temperature-update-for-december-2017-0-41-deg-c/#comment-279615
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2018/01/uah-global-temperature-update-for-december-2017-0-41-deg-c/#comment-279620
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2018/01/uah-global-temperature-update-for-december-2017-0-41-deg-c/#comment-279624
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2018/01/uah-global-temperature-update-for-december-2017-0-41-deg-c/#comment-279625
Each of those comments have subsequently received so many replies that this conversation is now completely broken up, unless you read through following those links. You will see from the second link and will recall from last month it was discussed and agreed that its a matter of textbook physics that two infinite parallel plates will come to the same temperature at equilibrium. Link 3 and 4 go on to discuss the objection to that (so please, no need to make it again). You are aware that the calculations involve F12 = 1, thanks to my link last month, so its bizarre that you would bring this up, to me, as if you are making me aware of something new; something that I hadnt made you and others aware of in the first place!
2) We are now at the bottom of a chain of comments following link 4. Once you have read through, you should be up to speed. Make sure to follow any links along the way. Again, like I said to Barry, do *try* to read through and understand. Top tip: it isnt just about the geometry between the plates. The geometry between the sun and the blue plate is very different. Follow the links, there are even pictures to help with understanding.
When you are ready, if you have anything honest, it will be responded to accordingly. If you have anything dishonest, it will be responded to accordingly. Dishonest actions include: bashing straw men, any other misrepresentation of my position, lying about what was discussed previously, ignoring what has been discussed previously, and most importantly of all, bringing up points that have already been discussed before.
Halp, im being very honest, when i say that I have not seen you link, quantitatively, view factors to your solution. None of comments you showed do that. Point me to one, pls.
I have read your answers to Barry, and they are vague and evasive, IMO.
This illustrates what I have seen so far from you guys:
http://www.sciencecartoonsplus.com/pages/gallery.php
“Agreed that its a matter of textbook physics that two infinite parallel plates will come to the same temperature at equilibrium”
Already rebutted by Barry and I. This does not apply to scenario with 400 W/m2 input and output. Equilibrium occurs when all heat flows are 0. They are not in this case.
You are a liar.
“You are a liar”
Well that’s nice. Specifically about what?
I said that if I got anything dishonest from you, I would respond accordingly. I even, helpfully, gave you some examples of behaviour that would be considered dishonest.
If you are here to learn, start being honest. Comment in good faith, acknowledging what has already been discussed. If its simply the case that you cant think of a good reason why the number 1 wouldnt be featured in an equation, or how to rearrange an equation (even when it is done for you) then, Im afraid, that is also your problem. Im not here to teach you *everything*.
Halp,
When Barry says
“I have asked and am still waiting for you to explain what physical difference view factor makes in this set up.”
It is essentially what I am asking. This has obviously not been answered.
It has been explained. So, again, you are not being honest. Either that, or you just lack the capacity to understand. Everything is there for you. All the comments, articles, textbook references and in-depth discussions have been linked for you, here or elsewhere. Either read up, and understand, if you honestly want to; or, if you want to further demonstrate your dishonesty, you can continue to pretend that it hasnt been explained. Your next response should confirm for me whether you have any genuine interest, or are just here to dishonestly defend the indefensible through whatever means.
Halp,
If you believe view factors are all 1, then we dont disagree.
But then Barry’s question ‘what physical difference they make’ is not answered.
You are being dishonest.
Ah, thanks for the confirmation. You arent honest.
Halp fails to communicate his ideas clearly to 2 or more people. Fails to answer valid questions from 2 or more people.
Blames the other people. OK
Barry was absolutely correct when he said this:
“When calculating, do view factors affect what the equilibrium temperature will be?
In this set up, no. The view factor is the proportion of radiation that leaves one surface and strikes another. In this case, all the radiation striking the blue plate from the sun is equivalent to 400 W/m2. It doesnt matter how much of the radiation from the blue plate strikes the sun, because we are not determining the temperature of the sun.”
View factors for the sun make no difference in the problem. This is why Barry and I can ignore them.
But you claim they should not be ignored and they make all the difference. We ask what difference?
Asking questions you already know the answers to, isnt honest behaviour either.
For anyone honest, there is no discussion of VF between the sun and blue plate to determine the temperature of *the sun*. It is to determine the blue plate temperature. *Obviously*. And, as already explained.
Oh, then you agree that view factors are irrelevant in this problem?
You have some serious reading comprehension problems. Or, you are a compulsive liar. Or both! Either way, you do come out with some amusing stuff. Please continue.
Perhaps this is simply talking past one another. If so, I apollogize.
My view, and I believe Barry’s , is that VF don’t need to be formally considered because
1. we know the input to blue from sun is 400W/m^2. And input to sun from Blue is 0 (and irrelevant).
2. We know that all radiation from Blue to the right strikes Green and from Green to left strikes BLUE, so VF(BG) =1
3. We know that all radiation to right from Green and to left from BLUE goes to space.
If thinking formally about VF gives you the same 1,2,3, then we are in agreement. If not, you will need to explain the differences.
To those who are honest:
We know from the VF between sun and blue, and because blue receives 400 W/m2 on one side, blue warms to approx. 244 K. Would warm to 290 K if VF were as between blue and green plate. With VF as they are between sun and blue, and blue and green, green warms to 244 K. As discussed and explained extensively in discussions already linked to (those who are honest and have been following in the past will already be aware of these).
“Would warm to 290 K if VF were as between blue and green plate. With VF as they are between sun and blue, and blue and green, green warms to 244 K. ”
Now youve lost me. You are stating the temperature results, without explaining what the VF values are and how they lead to these results.
No no, Nate…I am addressing those comments to anybody honest. Anybody honest, if they dont understand something, goes and looks back through the discussions, follows the links, and work things out for themselves. They dont continue to act confused about something thats been explained several times already.
Halp, if you can’t explain your logic, in your own words, with clarity, and If you have to refer me to another bloggers post, then I have to conclude you dont understand it yourself.
Find out, and report back.
“Anybody honest, if they dont understand something, goes and looks back through the discussions, follows the links, and work things out for themselves. They dont continue to act confused about something”
If we seem confused, it is because the info given is not convincing. It has flaws (like 1LOT violations) that we have brought up, and you have not addressed.
You say View factors are key, but then you make only hand-waving arguments with them.
Find out, and report back. Theres probably enough, in this one thread alone, to understand, if you really put your mind to it. If not, theres countless others you have been involved in. Youll get there. I just know you will!
“Theres probably enough, in this one thread alone, to understand”
You see, Halp, I have no desire to unlearn physics in order to understand fake physics. Why is that difficult for you to understand?
Keep trying. Or rather, start trying. Stop lying, start trying. There you go, a new motto for you.
MikeR: Nowhere, I repeat nowhere, does the view factor appear because it is a multipier that is always one for infinite plates
J Halp: there you go, Nate, MikeR has explained it for you, explicitly. Where I said, earlier:
If its simply the case that you cant think of a good reason why the number 1 wouldnt be featured in an equation
You should now have a full and complete understanding of what I meant. MikeR can be very helpful sometimes, even though he doesnt mean to be. You will have to scroll up somewhat to see his comment, because hilariously his comments are not going in the right place. Its funny, because he said he wasnt going to comment to me in the New Year. Yet, here we are!
He will have to keep reading, of course, to get past his current stumbling block (thinking that only the VF between the blue and green plates matter). I mean, its also funny how everyone keeps repeating the exact same mistakes, but there you go. When there is a dedicated team of people, absolutely determined not to understand, thats what you get.
Halp, you want my comments here – I happily oblige.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2018/01/uah-global-temperature-update-for-december-2017-0-41-deg-c/#comment-280033 .
Halp’s comment is truly bizarre -” He will have to keep reading, of course, to get past his current stumbling block (thinking that only the VF between the blue and green plates matter).”
Who are you thinking of?
AS I pointed out in my comment , Equation 13.38 explains that the view factor has nothing to do with the energy transfer between infinite parallel plates!!!!!!!!!
It only depends on the temperature difference between the plates (for black bodies)!!!!!!!
My cat is so enraged by the stupidity of your comments that he is walking across my keyboard and entering exclamation marks.
So let me get this straight, Halp. Now you agree with MikeR, and me and Barry that:
“It has been explained by so many above, and on so many other occasions that view factors are irrelevant for infinite plates” because ” it is a multipier that is always one for infinite plates”?
Then I dont understand your whole point in bringing up and emphasizing how important view factors were at all. You said:
“You dont get why view factors make a difference.”
No, in this case, still dont.
“No Barry, view factors are not *irrelevant*”
In this instance yes they are.
“If you continue to choose to ignore view factors, its no wonder you get so confused with this.”
Nope we did ignore them, and that was the right thing to do..
So was all this a diversion, a sham, a lie? It appears so.
MikeR moves a link to his comment down, but pays no attention to the reply he has already received. Or any other comments. Nate is still confused, and despite the fact that MikeRs comment should has fully revealed to him the paucity of his understanding, he remains apparently certain I am at fault. Neither of them understand this:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2018/01/uah-global-temperature-update-for-december-2017-0-41-deg-c/#comment-279983
And will do no work themselves to try. Its all pretty funny.
Look, if you guys just think Im obviously wrong, stupid, etc, then you wouldnt be responding. Yet, here we are. Once again. With you, seemingly desperate to understand, yet unwilling to try to learn. Exactly like you are just doing it deliberately, because youre dishonest.
For anyone honest:
M: AS I pointed out in my comment , Equation 13.38 explains that the view factor has nothing to do with the energy transfer between infinite parallel plates!!!!!!!!!
It only depends on the temperature difference between the plates (for black bodies)!!!!!!!
J: The energy transfer only depends on the temperature difference between the plates (for black bodies) *because the VF = 1*.
And dont forget:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2018/01/uah-global-temperature-update-for-december-2017-0-41-deg-c/#comment-279983
Halp,
As I already responded to that comment:
“You are stating the temperature results, without explaining what the VF values are and how they lead to these results.”
A key confusion about VF of yours is illustrated by this comment:
” The green plate, on the other hand, can only lose energy on the side facing space. Hence the dividing 200 W/m2 by one. To understand why, just consider the directionality of the heat flow, and the view factors”
We agree that FBG =1. How does that prove that green can only lose energy on side facing space?
The definition of FBG means that 100% of energy leaving left surface of green strikes blue.
If it strikes blue, it must have departed from GREEN.
Logically, this means that GREEN can lose energy to the left, contrary to your statement.
This assumption MUST be made in solving the problem to find temperatures. I.E. one cannot assume equal temps before solving!
Dont forget, Nate: Stop lying, start trying. There are a lot of different, complex, elements. You are good at zooming in on tiny details to (perhaps deliberately) avoid the bigger picture. Of course, I wont play those games with you.
Now, putting it all together requires something called *joined up thinking*. Of course I cant be expected to repeat the entire argument through from beginning to end every time you stumble over one detail, taken out of context. So, you just have to try to think it all through, for yourself.
I had given you the perfect opportunity *not* to respond. Now, because you have, I can only assume you wish to understand again. This is contradicted by your never-ending, relentless passion for missing the point, and doing absolutely everything in your power not to understand. Its a job to know what to make of you.
I will play it safe, and keep with *dishonest*.
http://web.mit.edu/16.unified/www/FALL/thermodynamics/notes/node137.html
As noted here in discussion around eqn 19.4, if both surfaces have the same temperature,
“The net energy interchange from body 1 to body 2 is” zero.
I think we can agree on this?
Leading once more to the problem of how GREEN plate can have zero energy input, yet 200 W/m^2 output!
No way around this 1LOT violation.
There are no other sources of energy.
Nate, do you want to understand, or not?
I understand the way you see it.
You dont understand the way I do.
Would you like to? If so, take a deep breath, stop with the instantaneous knee-jerk reaction comments, walk away, do something else for a while. Clear your mind a bit. Come back to the discussion, reading only. Read through absolutely everything again, if necessary. Try the joined-up thinking thing. You will get there, if honest (with yourself). Whether you then choose to be honest (with me) remains to be seen.
“Clear your mind a bit.” Clear my mind of superfluous ideas like 1LOT? No thanks.
Already thought about all this. Have had > 20 y to do so since I took the courses.
And I have decided, that NOPE you cannot have continuous net emission of energy from an object and keep its temperature constant.
And NOPE there is no other source of energy available to get you out of jail for 1LOT violation.
There just aint.
You are welcome to conclude whatever you want. Now all you need to do is stop replying to me, and it will appear as though you dont want to understand. When you keep replying, it seems like you do want to understand, since you are trying to keep the conversation going.
“When you keep replying, it seems like you do want to understand”
You are not very good reading people are you?
I have been trying to show you the logical flaws in your thinking, and expose you to the correct science. Others like Barry have been trying as well.
We assumed that you had the ability–but you also have to be open to learning, and you are clearly not.
Yawn. You do go on, Nate. Look, how can you be exposing flaws in my thinking, when you dont understand it?
Seems like you want to understand, still. If not, just stop responding.
“when you dont understand it?”
Go ahead and explain it again if you like. I will read it.
But just know that if it involves magical energy sources and dragon-slaying techniques, I would rather watch Game of Thrones.
Scroll up. There you go. All done.
Seems like you want to understand still. If not, then stop responding.
Halp if you spent as much time reading up on physics as you do playing games and passing judgement, you might learn.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2018/01/uah-global-temperature-update-for-december-2017-0-41-deg-c/#comment-280121
Another opportunity to see more of your condescending BS. Cant get enough of it.
So condescending that it even pushed the infinitely patient Barry over the edge. Perhaps thats your only goal. If so just go back to hang with the dark lord JP.
‘This is contradicted by your never-ending, relentless passion for missing the point, and doing absolutely everything in your power not to understand.”
The way you use the word understand, it seem to be defined to be ‘agree with Halp’.
So when I do everything in power to ‘not understand’ it is you who are missing the point:
I understand what you are saying, but I know that it is fake physics, so I do not accept it.
*rolls eyes*
“You are good at zooming in on tiny details to (perhaps deliberately) avoid the bigger picture. ”
Very funny that you think this was a tiny detail (your misunderstanding of VF), because in doing so you get the wrong answer. the mars lander missed mars altogether!
Science is all about getting the details right, my friend, like not violating 1LOT.
*rolls eyes again*
Halp-
“Look, if you guys just think I’m obviously wrong, stupid, etc, then you wouldn’t be responding.”
No, I am just a curmudgeon that enjoys skewering the delusions of the deranged. My replies clearly indicate that I think you are obviously wrong, stupid, etc..
Is there any other way to interpret my comments?
Likewise, while I can’t speak for Nate, I definitely get the impression from his replies that he would agree with the above assessment of your capabilities.
My eyes are getting tired. Keep lying/baiting/trolling/boring, the pair of you, and Ill roll my eyes at you again at a later date.
Sweet dreams Halp.
Maybe when you awake you may remember the origin of your lunar hypothesis?
No, when the two plates are pressed together they exchange heat by conduction not radiation.
Yes, Eli. I never said otherwise.
binny…”That people refute AGW I fully understand: despite amazingly stoopid opinions about me (expressed by some of the dumbest commenters visiting this site), Im not at all sure enough to agree”.
It would be nice if you’d make it clear that you are offering above opinion based on your personal frame of reference. I am just trying to ‘edumacate’ you into seeing that you block yourself from seeing real science through your personal beliefs.
For example, your obstinate belief that NOAA is infallible and honest just because they are supposedly a scientific institute suggest you have a strong attraction to authority. One thing we learn quickly this side of the pond is to regard authority with suspicion. We are usually right.
No one thinks any scientific institution is infallible. But several of us here do think that you reject their findings simply because you dont like them, and resort to ugly terms like fraud Because you have no actual scientific critique. Thats just low and dirty.
Besides, their results agree with the four other groups calculating surface temperatures.
So what is causing the natural warming you claim?
Here is my nontechnical take on the argument:
The UAH product includes the Lower Troposphere, Mid-Troposphere, Tropopause and Lower Stratosphere.
Did Spencer and Christy forget to include a surface product, the one most relevant to life on earth? I think not!
Much more likely……it’s not feasible using satellites.
Snape, I’m sorry, but may I ask you: why should they have done that?
At the time thay began their work, who did the like, Mears and Wentz and a few guys at NASA / NOAA excepted?
I’m grateful for their work, even if their message differs from what you mean, namely that surface is where all we live.
RSS4.0 – woefully discredited as ‘karlization of satellite data’ by weather reporter Watts – is exactly what you miss: a bridge between tropospheric and surface measurements.
Bindidon
I’m not following. If a satellite surface product was feasible, don’t you think there would be one?
I have the same question. I asked above, but no one would touch it.
David Appell:
The word Science comes from the verb scire to know or its noun scientia. Sciences have been around well before the post Galileo era of empirical, objective evidence to test hypotheses. We have Social Sciences, Political Science and so on. These have little to do with orthodox science following the scientific method.
So either decide that Climastrolgy is science in the orthodox way or it is simply the wishy washy Social science type. I don’t mind. Don’t conflate the two and still call it science as in scientific method.
As to Geology you raised, and I will add Biology, both were questioned as to what they were doing in a Science Faculty. I mean classifying and naming rocks, and various life forms is hardly science. They earn their place clearly because Biology subsequently transformed markedly as did Geology. There are controlled experiments. There are observations based on non trivial predictions and mechanisms even though not under controlled laboratory conditions.
The practice of medicine may not be science but medical science in the form of hypothesizing, developing mechanisms, controlled, replicable testing is certainly science.
So let’s not be concerned about two earths. Every non trivial prediction ever made that is based on a supposed hypothesis is a test. Every failure is testament to a failed hypothesis. In science we only need one such failure to dismiss the hypothesis or at least see if it can be modified sensibly.
Failure to have a testable hypothesis and hence testing means there is no science.
So far Climastrology is a failure. It is not science. But it beats a big drum hiding behind the name of science. It is a usurper. Hansen himself claimed that for fast feedbacks sensitivity, which included all world processes, his physics was exact by empirical evidence. He contrasted this to limitations of models. Ho hum! So much for his exact physics. So much for his exact science!
What has been done is turn what could be an eminently sensible field to study and beaten the alarmist drum of BS in the guise of science but without science. No-one could have objected to the former; I and many others object to the latter.
Lindzen calls it a religion and wants it defunded and start again.
It is part of the world’s biggest gravy train ever that only serves the purposes of the would be masters and capitalists. The actual climatologists are pawns, the minnow, being used in a much, much bigger field of power and control.
Funny, they don’t see themselves in that light – as pawns. But look to see who makes the real money and who will gain the power; it is not the climatologists!
You cant do an proper experiment without a control. This is a basic part of the scientific method, yet you seem not to understand it
David:
Then desist from claiming this field is a science.
Obviously Hansen disagrees with you!
Your views support Lindzen where he claims Climastrology has become a religion.
Climate science is an observational science. It is applied physics.
Religion relies on faith. Science relies on observations, experiments, reasoning, and facts. More than anyone here, I provide links to the science I cite. Youre just trying to call it religion because you dont have scientific responses.
DA…”Climate science is an observational science. It is applied physics. Religion relies on faith”.
So how do you explain AGW with reference to the scientific method? You can’t, it is based on faith.
Besides, some people claim religious experienced based on observation. I know one guy who is a very intelligent university professor and he insists he had a personal experience with God. I don’t have the evidence to refute him just because I’ve never had such an experience, of which I am aware.
Perhaps at a more subtle level I have. I have experienced unexplained outcomes in life that I can’t explain as sheer coincidence. I cannot explain why they happened and putting it down to sheer chance leaves me feeling cold.
And how do you explain Isaac Newton, one of the foremost scientists in science? He was devoutly religious.
I think what tonym is talking about are religious types who go through the motions with no real conviction. They do it as a matter of ego, for self-centred reasons.
The root meaning of religious is ‘to be serious’. There are religious scholars, like Elaine Pagels, a professor in theology, who are very serious. She is a pleasure to read because she questions religious belief using evidence from the past.
She is challenging the structure of the Bible itself, claiming certain gospels were intentionally omitted from the New Testament. It appears that certain people in the 2nd century BC took it upon themselves to reject certain views, even though they came from the likes of Thomas Didymos (aka Doubting Thomas), a disciple of Jesus.
We don’t know enough about religion to write it off simply as a faith. There is ample evidence from independent sources that Jesus lived and was executed circa 30 BC. Whatever he did, he had a tremendous influence on those who followed.
I think it’s highly unlikely that an ordinary person walking around the Sea of Galilee could have had such a profound impact. I also think it’s worthwhile trying to understand why.
Simple: climate science is applied physics.
tonyM…”Your views support Lindzen where he claims Climastrology has become a religion”.
Lindzen uses that analogy effectively now but it was actually the late Michael Crichton who offered it first with regard to environmentalism in general. After all, it’s usually avid environmentalists who promote the notion of catastrophic AGW.
Crichton claimed, “Today, one of the most powerful religions in the Western World is environmentalism. Environmentalism seems to be the religion of choice for urban atheists”.
http://www.pe.tamu.edu/DL_Program/graduate_seminar_series/Documents/MichaelCrichton_evironmentalism.pdf
Although he used the word environmentalism, he was a staunch opponent of AGW theory. I saw him on a panel with Richard Lindzen debating AGW with the likes of Gavin Schmidt, who steered away from a one on one debate with Lindzen. I wonder if that’s where Lindzen picked up the notion of AGW as a religion.
tonyM…”David:
Then desist from claiming this field is a science”.
There are types of scientists like Roy and John Christy, who has a degree in climate science, who have integrity and take the field seriously. John Christy is forever commenting that climate science is a very complex field and he feels humbled at times by the complexity.
I enjoy Roy’s comments in his articles, not because I agree with him but due to his straight-ahead observations. I can identify with his kind of science.
Now, if I could just agree with him on the 2nd law and heat being transferred cold to hot. ☺ ☺
Let’s have Roy’s on words:
“The Wikipedia entry for the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics includes the following statement from Rudolph Clausius, who formulated one of the necessary consequences of the 2nd Law (emphasis added):
‘Heat can never pass from a colder to a warmer body without some other change, connected therewith, occurring at the same time.’
The statement by Clausius uses the concept of ‘passage of heat’. As is usual in thermodynamic discussions, this means ‘net transfer of energy as heat’, and does not refer to contributory transfers one way and the other.
The italicized words are important, and have been ignored by my critics: while it is true that the net flow of heat must be from higher temperature to lower temperature, this does not mean that the lower temperature object cannot (for example) emit radiant energy in the direction of the warmer object, and thus increase the temperature of the warmer object above what it would otherwise be.”
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2016/08/simple-experimental-demonstration-that-cool-objects-can-make-warm-objects-warmer-still/
What critics fundamentally do not understand is that classic thermodynamics only deals in bulk thermal transfer – beginning and end states – and is blind to anything finer than that.
One only violates the 2nd Law if one speaks of NET flow of heat being from cold to hot. As no one here has ever said that, no one violates the 2LoT.
Will critics finally attempt to respond to Roy’s italicised remarks?
Barry: unfortunately Roy Spencer’s experiment was poorly (not at all) controlled.
barry says, January 8, 2018 at 1:50 AM:
As always, what you and Roy fail to understand, barry, is what the “2nd Law problem” is really about.
Insulation as a physical EFFECT of course doesn’t violate the 2nd Law. Insulation works. What is in violation of the 2nd Law is only the claim (or implication) that there is a separate MACROscopic transfer of energy from cold to hot that directly and all by itself causes the net content of internal energy, and thus the temperature, of hot to go up from t0 to t1. It is only in DESCRIBING the physical effect of insulation as an extra, separate ADDITION of macroscopic energy to the (warmer) insulated system, to make it even warmer, that violates the 2nd Law. It’s all in how you EXPLAIN the effect, barry.
The 2nd Law doesn’t mind a bidirectional approach, as long as you always make sure to present those “contributory transfers one way and the other” as fully integrated into ONE instantaneous macroscopic (that is, thermodynamic/thermal) exchange/transfer of energy. You ALWAYS present them TOGETHER. As ONE. They haven’t – and can’t have – separate thermodynamic/thermal effects, only POTENTIAL ones (the effects they would have if the other one weren’t there, if they were in fact themselves heat fluxes). As it is, they only produce a thermal effect TOGETHER, integrated into ONE exchange/transfer.
As always, in the REAL world, and according to the principles of statistical mechanics, the (heat) flux is the net (macroscopic) movement of thermal energy, but this movement is the net, not of two separate net (macroscopic) movements or “hemifluxes”, but of all MICROscopic movements inside the ONE field. The probabilistic average. From omnidirectional to unidirectional, from quantum chaos to ordered bulk movement. Mathematically, conceptually, you might well view them as two macroscopic “hemifluxes”. But then you ALWAYS calculate their thermal effect TOGETHER, as ONE integrated quantity.
Kristian
It’s so simple, what do you argue about?
The blue plate was receiving energy from the sun, and eventually reached a steady temperature (emitting and receiving at the same rate).
When the green plate was introduced, the blue began receiving more energy than it emitted. (The same from the sun, but now from the green plate as well.) It’s temperature increased as a result.
All your talk about micro/macro quantum/thermal……….unnecessary gibberish. No need to pretend it’s the 19th century.
When photons flow in opposite directions, there is a heat flux in each direction. They can be measured. They are real.
Snape says, January 8, 2018 at 3:51 PM:
No, it is all-important. Essential to the understanding of this subject. You clearly don’t care, don’t want to understand.
The “unnecessary gibberish” is the incessant talk about two fluxes in one. All there is and all you ever need in order to explain what is happening is the ONE DETECTED (net) FLUX. So why not use it? Much simpler and much more internally consistent.
I don’t. Heard of “statistical mechanics”? It’s how we explain thermodynamic phenomena today. And it does NOT (!!!) claim the macroscopic reality of TWO fluxes (W/m^2) within one. It specifically and very clearly states that all observed bulk phenomena (processes and properties) are the probabilistic average of ALL – not two sets of all! – microscopic phenomena.
Kristian, thermodynamic is not the be-all and end-all of science.
But even it would agree about the two fluxes.
You claim is, frankly, plain stupid.
Which is why you can’t offer any experimental proof to back it up.
davie dreams: “thermodynamic is not the be-all and end-all of science”
All purveyors of pseudoscience would LOVE to have the laws of thermodynamics “repealed”. That would make their agenda so much easier.
DA…”You cant do an proper experiment without a control. This is a basic part of the scientific method, yet you seem not to understand it…”
Linus Pauling claimed a control is not necessary if an outcome is obvious. I have never seen a control included in any version of the scientific method. We tend to ‘control’ ourselves to death rather than getting on with encouraging results and trying to apply them.
Gordon
That was one of the dumbest comments I’ve ever read.
Nate,
I can’t comment on Meteorology as I don’t know enough about it other than to say I am impressed that they get it so close.
Your comment of consensus is quite different; the resultant predictions are being put to the test every day! Those tests then are used for further testing and experimentation on improving results. There is no consensus to stop the questioning. There is no blinkered view. There is no settled science or we have a consensus dismissal which is an anathema to science. I imagine it would be little different to Engineering as an applied science.
This is a far cry from alarmist consensus which is never tested. Try and find a cogent hypothesis let alone admission of tests in climastrology. Look at the people who have been ostracized for daring to question. Sad! In science!!??
Let’s take Lindzen. He has declared this to have become a religion which has taken over from some good science that was being done prior to the IPCC which has devolved into this religious garbage. He wants the field defunded and start again. This is a powerful statement from one of the greats in this field. Religion is not science.
A quick comment on the Meteorology tools used as you say. These so far are still very limited so that predictions beyond ten days I suggest are really stretching the friendships.
Climastrology pretends in terms of decades and centuries. Total garbage. Without a complete solution to the Navier Stokes equations it will always fail in my opinion. Clay Maths Inst offers a $1 million reward for solving the NV equations by maths or with computers.
If you have an interest then Gerlich et al examines this field from a Physics framework. Do include their reply to Halpern et al (i.e. Eli Rabbett). There are no green plates in the sky!
tonyM…”Climastrology pretends in terms of decades and centuries”.
The IPCC admitted in their TAR review circa 2001 that future climate states cannot be predicted. So, what are they doing?
You have to read the fine print. First of all, they are not making predictions, they are offering ‘projection’ based on several ‘possible’ scenarios. Unfortunately they did not include the scenario that nothing will happen.
The IPCC were offering them as predictions till expert reviewer, Vincent Grey, offered the observation that climate models are unvalidated hence they cannot predict anything. The IPCC subsequently changed prediction to projection.
It’s a big game, especially using climate models to offer probabilities of future climate states when the models are programmed using incorrect science. Two key basics in climate models are atmosphere/CO2 sensitivity and positive feedbacks. The models claim a 9% to 25% sensitivity (warming) factor when there is absolutely no proof of that. They also use a positive feedback quotient for ACO2 that has never been verified. In fact, it’s not possible in our atmosphere.
Take away those two factors alone and the catastrophic warming disappears.
Do you understand the difference between a projection and a projection? Seriously.
davie, a projection is a projection, and a projection is a projection.
Hope that helps.
Lindzen is one scientist, a retired one, who has now become a political activist. All of his MIT dept colleagues disagree with him.
http://climate-science.mit.edu/news/featured-stories/mit-faculty-working-on-climate-write-to-president-trump.
Who’s right? Unless you are yourself are an expert it is hard to judge. Any judgement would be based on biases. Is that the right way to decide?
All I know is if it were a medical decision, involving my child, I would go with the consensus treatment, rather than the view of a retired lone contrarion. You?
I also belief the scientific method is self correcting. Many many indepndent researchers are involved in climate research. Many many students. IMO, it is unlikely that many of them are being dishonest.
Climate scientists aren’t being intentionally dishonest, but neither are feminists that enter a women studies program. If you enter women studies, it is because you ALREADY BELIEVE that there is something inherently wrong with the status quo roles of men and women (you disagree with the stay-at-home-mom role for women for example, and want equal rights between men and women). You join the program BECAUSE of your current belief, not the other way around (ie. you don’t join women studies with a neutral belief, and then later become convinced that the traditional family structure has flaws).
Most people, especially these days, don’t enter climate science while believing AGW is fake. On the contrary, most people enter climate science with a biased opinion that something is very wrong with the world, and they are passionate to prove that idea by any means necessary. How could you become a climate scientist, if you did not believe that you had work to do?
The entirety of climate science is politically motivated, and those entering it today, are entering exactly because they believe AGW is real before they even begin studying. Even more so, Their professors only teach that:
1) climate change is real
2) it is 100% the result of societies actions (I argued with my prof on this point, but he refused the idea of natural variation as even being partly responsible for recent climate change. A.K.A. it’s all our fault)
3) it is a serious problem.
They do not teach their students other possibilities. I know this because I have taken several environmental classes. This is inherent bias for a large complex system, that is not yet possible to accurately model.
Climate science used to be a pure science, but now it is a political science. Climate science exists because of people, with certain personality types. These people get satisfaction for fighting for the moral high ground. They are drawn to ideas of social justice and climate change.
I have built many fluid simulations of groundwater. A system far simpler than the entire earth. I can tell you as a matter of fact that my groundwater model will have a significantly different outcome than other engineers making a similar model. The point is you would never get 97% of groundwater engineers to agree that groundwater of a particular reservoir should be drilled. This is because every engineer will use different assumptions when creating their models. These assumptions (some of which depend on interpretations of statistics) will lead to different values for groundwater flow rates, pressures, temperatures, depths etc.
Point being, complex systems should never have a 97% agreement rate based on models, especially if the changes to the system are small, the system is large and complex, and statistics must be used. It doesn’t make sense unless the conclusions of the models were chosen first, and the equations were adjusted after during the history matching step.
Interesting points. “The point is you would never get 97% of groundwater engineers to agree that groundwater of a particular reservoir should be drilled”
This example illustrates well what happens in any field when a specific issue is investigated. It applies to specific issues in climate science, like what was climate during LIA, how fast is glacier recession in greenland, etc.
Point is many investigators are looking at these issues, competing with each other, and dont want to be proven wrong.
Your statements 1,2,3 are blanket assertions, what evidence do you have?
Rephrase: what evidence do you have that is not anecdotal?
I would compare to biology teachers. They are likely to be very pro-evolution. Because the evidence for it is compelling. But at the same time they will advocate for the scientific method, and open inquiry.
DA…”It can never be that Gordon is wrong it always has to be the entire rest of the world that is wrong (and throughout history, too)”.
Oh, Lord, it’s hard to be humble,
When you’re perfect in every way,
I can’t wait to look in the mirror,
Cause I get better looking each day.
……….
………
Some folks say that I’m egotistical.
Hell, I don’t even know what that means.
I guess it has something to do with the way that I
fill out my skin tight blue jeans.
(Mac Davis)
Snape on January 7, 2018 at 9:03 PM
Bindidon
Im not following. If a satellite surface product was feasible, dont you think there would be one?
*
You misunderstood me.
Indeed: actually, as opposed to what trolls think, such a product indeed is not feasible.
See my comment reproducing Roy Spencer’s opinions and experiences:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2018/01/uah-global-temperature-update-for-december-2017-0-41-deg-c/#comment-279417
But the way RSS4.0 (and NOT 3.3) exploits its readings lets us think that it is a way to at least reconcile tropospheric and surface measurements.
Maybe I find somewhere for RSS, like for UAH, an absolute climatology allowing to compute the average over a year and thus to determine the average reading height for RSS4.0.
When comparing UAH6.0 (3.7 km) with UAH5.6 (2.9 km), one might suppose that this height might well be even somewhat below for RSS4.0.
David Appell:
David you are indeed a self imposed contradiction wanting to be taken seriously.
DA: You cant do an proper experiment without a control. This is a basic part of the scientific method,
So, because we don’t have two worlds as you have said, you are now saying it is not science as it can’t follow the scientific method.
DA: Climate science is an observational science
Really, still no science. Nurses observe too! Some are quite pretty.
DA: More than anyone here, I provide links to the science I cite.
Now you are back to claiming it is science, But still no testable hypothesis and hence no testing.
DA: it is applied physics.
Do you suggest no replicable testing is done in applied physics? Gordon is around here somewhere shall we ask him if he just foists his ideas on customers without any sort of replicable testing to draw on?
Perhaps you should give us these illustrations of applied science where no replicable testing is done and yet expect people to pay huge sums. What a successful industry it would make. Please, where does one find these customers?
So you must accept we are flying by the seat of our pants and there is nothing of substance, following the scientific method, to substantiate whatever alarmist view you hold. Yet you expect the world and major economies to furnish $ trillions. The World Bank asked for $89 trillion. Yes you read correctly!!! All neatly based on what? A prayer and song?! Parametized computer models; curve fitting junk by any other name.
To cover your suggestion that climastrology is applied physics or whatever, for I am not sure what you adhere to, then you have Gerlich et al to respond to as this has been analysed in the framework of Physics. Basically they conclude climastrology is junk. No rebuttal that can stand has been proposed. I might add a group of chemists also published a similar conclusion.
You make claims that you cite references etc. Sure you do. You may be easily pursuaded by it but over 97% is junk. I’ve made comment about the Tamino junk you posted for me above.
You referenced a paper by Shakun earlier. I didn’t respond but it is more reconstructed junk. It has been more than adequately covered by Don Easterbrook and others with references. Even your own reference had a pertinent negative comment; go read it. Does it not strike you as strange that it is a solo when all other studies show CO2 lags T?
I should be used to you by now. I recall having to drag you screaming and kicking re a CO2 experiment you cited. It was only when I was forced to continue to rub your nose into this most unscientific junk experiment that you went quiet somewhat. Do you wish me to resurrect it for you? I can find it! 🙂
So please perhaps fewer references are better unless you have thoroughly scrutinized it with skepticism. But if you feel just social science standards are acceptable then carry on.
Some prominent members certainly don’t agree with you that they are doing applied physics. Ask Hansen re his exact physics statement. Ask Mann with his statement to a Senate hearing saying he does follow the scientific method. On this I am in agreement with you; Mann has simply heard of it somewhere.
BTW I don’t operate in a vacuum. When Lindzen, who knows this field backwards, makes the religion claim and Happer talks about ‘chanting and having a glazed look in their eyes’ and a paper like Gerlich et al is not rebutted there is no need for me to hide behind “religion” as a counter. I have amply demonstrated that you foster junk science.
Is astronomy a science?
David,
Your question is irrelevant and addresses nothing that has been put forward.
It is typical diversionary ploy of conflation and obfuscation. Stick to the relevant issues raised.
Its a very relevant question to the discussion. Its too bad you dont understand.
If you understood the scientific method you would already know the answer.
But why bother with all this; you show total confusion in what you believe climastrology is whether it is science, meant to be science or just observations.
Is astronomy a science? Is geology?
Why no answer? I already know what I think. I want to know what you think.
David,
This is your typical diversionary ploy of conflation and obfuscation when it becomes too sticky for you.
Thus far you have shown total confusion in understanding what science and the scientific method is. That is certainly clear.
Stick to what was discussed rather than trying to run up the first blind alley you find seeking refuge.
Why wont you answer the question? It gets to the heart of the matter. Youre saying the observational science climate science is not a science. Astronomy and geology are observational sciences. So according to you they also are not sciences?
By the way, I dont recall ever discussing anything with you; I dont remember your name from anywhere. Do you have links to that?
Of course you don’t remember. Why constantly remind yourself that you are a troll fostering junk science and junk scientists which is what I said more than once.
I will dig it up for you in due course.
Meanwhile enjoy ur day.
You use a very generic comment name. It’s not memorable.
Twit!
Do you go by comment name or content???
Of course you don’t want to remember when it shows you are a ignoramus in science or a troll: cognitive dissonance
Here is some of what I said:
“You promote pseudoscience experiments as previously stated (by me):
This is a junk experiment, with junk commentary by a junk scientist to fool the ignorant.
You swallow and foster junk science!!
As previously put to you to show us your prowess. How is your effort to get that $10K prize going viz:
Accordingly, Peter Ward has issued a $10,000 challenge to anyone who can demonstrate by experiment that greenhouse gases are more effective at warming Earth than ozone depletion. ”
Now do tell us how much progress you have made with that challenge while I find some time to check the exchange.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/07/stephen-hawking-flies-off-the-scientific-reservation/#comment-253877
David says:
” It would be nice to have some people challenging me here.”
So I did offer that $10K challenge from Peter Ward to braggart Appell who is still stumbling around.
Tony, what is the link to this imagined victory of yours?
If you cant stop your gratuitous insults, Im not going to continue this discussion.
I have no idea who Peter Ward is, except for the scientist and popular science writer with the same name at the University of Washington.
David,
I really could not care less what you do.
Do you understand the meaning of the word gratuitous? It is rather an inappropriate use given my criticisms cover factual errors in science or are directed at your behaviour. You keep on trying to cover your arse by doubling down on nonsense.
You either don’t understand the points being made or you are simply a troll. Either way you try to dominate discussion with your nonsense and yet have the cheek to want to suppress REN who is quite factual.
The latest diversion nonsense from you (just below) is that pressure broadening allows CO2 to absorb all infra red. Again this shows either complete incompetence on your part or you are trolling with this nonsense.
Youre not good about explaining your points. And why are you might think theyre all correct, I dont.
David Appel:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/06/a-global-warming-red-team-warning-do-not-strive-for-consensus-with-the-blue-team/#comment-251329
That is the start of your nonsense about CO2 abs-orp-tion of infrared radiation where the experimenter
concludes all this by saying the CO2 is trapping THE heat and that candles warmth no longer reaches the camera. Instead it is ab-sorb-ed by the CO2.
Garbage when CO2 only absorbs in very limited frequencies.
Your cited experiment was here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SeYfl45X1wo&t=3s
See pressure broadening.
Dimwit Appell thinks pressure broadening covers the whole infra red spectrum. Only an absolute unscientific troll could want to make one believe that.
Heavens, this CO2 must have magic powers well beyond the understanding of science. Troll!
OK, so you cant converse without gratitudious insults, which says more about you than it does about me. Im not going to continue here.
Done with you. Good riddance.
Yet more nonsense.
1) This article confirms none the idiotic laughable claims.
2) It is even easier to relentlessly post bullshit in Spencer’s blog. Any idiot can do that since Spencer doesn’t really care about.
2) Of course molecules “have separate EM generators” than their constituting atoms. This is basic physics and so obvious and well-known since more than one century ago that one must be an utter moron entirely beyond redemption to ignore it and stubbornly deny it. Dunning Krger strikes over and over again.
O2 molecule emits around 60 Ghz and O atom doesn’t. If it were, both CO2, H2O and O3 would also emit microwaves around 60 Ghz. Yet they clearly don’t. Of course.
Whether the ridiculous idiots posting their bullshit here like it or not.
The microwave emission around 60 Ghz is a really very specific characteristic of the O2 molecule. It’s a rare feature among molecules. It is due to its paramagnetic ground state which is a triplet state with spin S=1. Usually the ground state of a molecule is a singulet state S=0.
What this means is that EM radiation in microwave range is not due (in a classical picture) to an oscillating electric dipole as in an ordinary antenna or for IR from CO2 or H2O but to an oscillating magnetic dipole. Microwaves from O2 is magnetic dipolar allowed emission in a quantum picture.
This property of the O2 molecule is well understood since the work done by famous physicist Van Vleck in the 1930-1940’s. Nothing to do with AGW, relevant alarmism or whatever wild imaginings of the deniers and idiots posting here.
http://dspace.mit.edu/bitstream/handle/1721.1/4963/RLE-TR-087-14236979.pdf
gamma, vous n’avez aucune chance de convaincre ce type de quoi que ce soit.
Cela ne sert rien en plus de le traiter d’idiot, car il reviendra d’autant plus a la charge avec ses inepties, en vous insultant de la maniere la plus grossiere qui soit.
Merci pour vos infos qui m’ont beaucoup appris.
Je sais, Bindidon, merci.
Mais si au moins a peut clairer d’autres personnes et les aider se faire leur opinion.
a peut eclairer
It is better not to use on this web site those special characters going beyond the traditional ASCII set, e.g. ‘c with cedilla’, letters with any accent, paragraph etc etc.
Of course you can enter them using HTML UTF-8 codes but that is tedious work.
gammacrux on January 8, 2018 at 9:37 AM
O2 molecule emits around 60 Ghz and O atom doesnt. If it were, both CO2, H2O and O3 would also emit microwaves around 60 Ghz. Yet they clearly dont.
This is a thoroughly clear, unambiguous statement. But I’m afraid the trolls de service will ignore it – for the obvious reason that if they would accept it, their whole denialist narrative simply would begin to break down.
Just like it is impossible to trolls to accept that never and never Rudolf Emanuel Clausius ever wrote: “No heat can be transferred from a cool body to a hotter one.”
*
The exact formulation by Clausius was as follows:
Dieser Grundsatz, auf welchem die ganze folgende Entwickelung beruht, lautet: es kann nie Waerme aus einem kaelteren in einen waermeren Koerper uebergehen, wenn nicht gleichzeitig eine andere damit zusammenhaengende Aenderung eintrift.
i.e.
This principle, on which the whole following development is based, is: heat can never pass from a cooler to a warmer body, unless another change associated herewith simultaneously happens.
*
But anyway, this is not the problem. The central problem rather is: why do denialists always refer to this 2LoT though people do NOT talk about heat, but about radiation?
The answer is: see the second sentence above.
Bin, do you have any clue what you are rambling on about?
You keep quoting a statement of the 2LoT, somehow believing it allows pseudoscience to violate it. You always put the “unless” in bold. Do you even understand the “unless” part?
The “unless” refers to ADDING heat energy or work energy to the system. Without that, “cold” can NOT warm “hot”.
So, keep putting up that quote, maybe it will help folks understand why the GHE is bogus.
g*e*r*a*n
Do us all a favor and just SHUT UP! You really are a stupid boring person. Your redundant repetition of your made up pseudoscience was so 2017. It is now 2018 and you should learn some real physics.
I have linked you to established science correct view of the 2nd Law of Physics. You are such a babbling idiot you can’t make sense of it.
Once again for the dumbest person posting on this blog (that is you g*e*r*a*n…J Halp-less is a very close second but I think he just adores you and wants your approval so he mimics your stupidity).
Real Physics (not g*e*r*a*n’s made up version): “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.”
You can read this and still not have a clue, you are really that dumb. Maybe you can’t read and that is the problem.
Norman says, January 8, 2018 at 9:19 PM:
2nd Law of Thermodynamics, Norman.
☺
Norman says, January 8, 2018 at 9:19 PM:
Yes, Norman. But in the MACROscopic realm (where all thermal processes occur, and where, therefore, the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics strictly applies) the ‘net transfer of energy’ is all there is. So when you simply write “energy” or “energy transferred”, the “net” is automatically implied.
“Radiative flux, also known as radiative flux density or radiation flux, is the amount of power radiated through a given area, in the form of photons or other elementary particles, typically measured in W/m2. (…) Radiative flux also acts as a generalization of heat flux, which is equal to the radiative flux when restricted to the infrared spectrum.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiative_flux
Kristian
Thanks but you already know I do not accept your version of reality. I can view things with Infrared camera FLIR. Each object in the view emits its own unique flux of IR to the camera. It is not a cloud and it is distinct and unique to each object only based upon the objects temperature. I just don’t agree with your theory of heat transfer and I have not seen any established science on heat transfer stating that there is just one flux or flow of IR. Everyone states clearly that each object emits its own IR based only upon its emissivity and temperature, it does not matter at all what other objects are doing and the FLIR shows this very thing. Nothing I know, except your strong opinion, would lead me to consider you are correct in your view and the established science is wrong.
Can you explain why an FLIR camera can see individual objects? Makes sense with my view, not sure how it makes sense with yours as there would not be any individual macroscopic flows from the objects. But the camera strongly indicates each object has its own macroscopic flux independent of any object around it.
g*e*r*a*n on January 8, 2018 at 7:07 PM
You keep quoting a statement of the 2LoT, somehow believing it allows pseudoscience to violate it.
No no.
Those who violate 2LoT are those who deliberately ignore the ‘unless’ part. They never mention it, and perfectly know why they do.
You always put the ‘unless’ in bold. Do you even understand the ‘unless’ part?
Yes yes.
I understand it.
Okay, it was I that did not understand that you understood!
(Try translating that into something that makes sense.)
☺
barry says, January 8, 2018 at 11:14 AM:
Yes, but cold thermally emitting photons (“radiation” in the MICROscopic sense) towards hot does not thereby constitute a cold LOSS of energy in the direction of hot. Some photons out of many don’t make a separate radiative flux, barry.
I can’t believe that I’ll have to go back to the dime analogy yet again!
But here goes:
There are two distinct ways of seeing this exchange, two ‘perspectives’, so to say:
#1 The MICROscopic (quantum mechanical) perspective, and
#2 the MACROscopic (thermodynamic) perspective.
Both are in a sense ‘real’, but they address very different aspects of reality.
What people – including you, barry – tend to do is mix them up, or rather somehow merge them into one and the same perspective. And that’s where the confusion arises.
It is outright claimed (by most), or just very much implied (by some), that the atmosphere (the person originally holding the single dime) ADDS energy to the surface (the palm of your outstreched hand, initially containing two dimes). However, this is only correct in the MICROscopic perspective, that is, IF – and only if – we choose to follow ONE particular photon (dime) through the exchange and ignore the other two; that is, the photon/dime originally held by the person in front of you, coming IN from ‘the atmosphere’.
THAT individual photon (and the specific packet of energy it carries) is indeed ADDED to the surface in this exchange. But this circumstance isn’t meaningful or relevant to what we’re actually trying to get a grasp of. Which is whether or not ‘energy’ (in the general/generic sense, not one particular quantum of energy) was added from the atmosphere to the surface during the exchange. The MACROscopic perspective. We’re, after all, talking about radiative FLUXES and their THERMAL effects, not individual PHOTONS and their QUANTUM effects.
What they’re doing is invoking a distinctly QUANTUM MECHANICAL quantity and/or process to justify or explain an inherently THERMODYNAMIC (thermal) effect. This confusion will inevitably cause their explanation to violate the 2nd Law. By mixing the two different perspectives into one.
Did the atmosphere ADD energy equivalent to the energy of a single photon to the surface during the exchange? No. It added one PARTICULAR photon, yes, but at the exact same time it received two DIFFERENT photons. From the very same surface. Your hand.
So what ACTUALLY happened? The energy associated with one of the two photons/dimes that you held in your hand originally was simply EXCHANGED with the energy associated with the one photon/dime originally held by the ‘atmosphere’ person in front of you. The other one was lost (removed and received by the ‘atmosphere’), without compensation.
The MICROscopic perspective looks at and follows ONE photon (dime) at a time. It cannot see the full process/exchange. And so there are no thermodynamic (thermal), only individual quantum, effects. The MACROscopic perspective, on the other hand, sees the ENTIRE exchange (the actions of ALL the photons) as ONE instantaneous occurrence – at t_0 you had two dimes, at t_1 (an infinitesimal period of time later) you had one (you NEVER had three, and you never had zero!).
And so, the NET effect – the THERMODYNAMIC (macroscopic) effect – of the thermal radiative exchange between sfc and atm is that the atmosphere doesn’t add ANY energy at all to the surface (zero dimes), while the surface gives IT some energy (one dime), but LESS energy than it would’ve handed to space in the same situation (two dimes) …
Let’s say I spent $800 on a new washing machine, and a few weeks later received a $100 rebate from the manufacturer. Kristian’s profound and sagely advice would be:
“You should not think of the rebate as ADDING to your net worth, Snape. That’s just the MICRO view. The MACRO reality is the washing machine only actually cost $700.”
Snape says, January 9, 2018 at 6:23 PM:
Yes, you set the problem up MATHEMATICALLY. We also treat radiative heat transfers mathematically, Snape. Nothing new there, and I have never said otherwise.
Kristian
“Yes, you set the problem up MATHEMATICALLY. ”
Exactly. It’s grade school math, and was able to set the problem up in two short paragraphs.
No need for a 1000 word manifesto, or to blather on incessantly about MICROscopic/MACROscopic or other such gibberish.
“Some photons out of many dont make a separate radiative flux, barry.”
Of course they do!
Where did you ever learn they don’t??
I’m still waiting for Okulaer alias Kristian to provide us with scientific articles confirming his very, very personal claims and assertions – especially those dealing with Thermodynamics.
And, experimental proof of his claims.
Bindidon,
They’re not “very, very personal claims and assertions” at all. They’re simply … thermodynamics.
The obvious fact that you don’t understand (or don’t want to understand) the very basic thermodynamic concepts and principles that I bring out, doesn’t mean that these concepts and principles thereby for some reason have to be mine. They’re everyone’s. Even yours. Live with it …
Then stop your talk-show, and show us your everyones concepts and principles, Okulaer!
Bindidon says, January 9, 2018 at 5:48 PM:
*Sigh*
Pick up and read ANY textbook on the subject. There’s your ‘everyone’s thermodynamic (macroscopic) concepts and principles’ described and explained right there!
Kristian: At this point, you need to offer experimental proof of your crazy claims in order to have any credibility.
I would also love to see if Kristian can provide some links to relevant articles also. He may even have to resort to a cavity search.
Kristian, I think one of the uncontroversial areas of our previous discussions here was your reference to insulation as a description of the process underlying the Eli thought experiment.
This is, of course, an appropriate description. Where we may differ, is that you appear to reject the notion of back radiation in general, even though you seem to be perfectly happy with the concept of forward radiation ( correct me if I am wrong).
I am amused by your latest straw man argument with your depiction of Eli’s experiment using a narrow laser beam see –
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/12/uah-global-temperature-update-for-november-20170-36-deg-c/#comment-278190 .
What is clearly being depicted in Eli Rabbett’s diagram, via the yellow arrow, is the illumination is from a source that is at large enough distance that the rays are effectively collimated.
The arrows clearly are not meant to represent single photons (despite in some limited circumstances they could) but the energy being transferred via EM radiation (waves or photons depending on one’s preference and/or context). The use of the term “average” suggests that what is being depicted is a stotastic process This is an over interpretation of a diagram that reflects steady state energy transfers.
Kristian, your modus operandi is try and employ smoke and mirror techniques to dazzle and unnecessarily confuse those whose background in physics is limited. Your full gamut includes your introduction of irrelevancies such as a photon gas, conduction for a black body plate , transient phenomena that are irrelevant to a steady state model and now a strawman armed with lasers.
What will come next, I hate to think? A post modernist interpretation via an interpretative dance perhaps.
I should include another more positive note, in that you agree with the consensus (the only exceptions being, you know who and his sidekick, mini me) is that the blue plate is at a higher temperature than it would otherwise be in the absence of the cooler green plate. The fact that you disagree with the concept of back radiation due to your belief that it violates the end L.o T. , is totally irrelevant as it has absolutely zero practical consequence.
I must say that it all might be a misunderstanding, as perhaps I am too dumb to comprehend the unique insights provided by Kristian’s quasi philosophical musings. In that case maybe he could assist by linking to a simple diagram that includes the plates with perhaps a few a few arrows indicating energy transfers (and including most importantly the net energy transfer). He seems to have the requisite drawing skills.
Additionally providing some even the most rudimentary mathematical underpinning would be useful. In the past when confronted with such a task he has fled the scene with an alacrity only exceeded by the dynamic duo, see –
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/12/uah-global-temperature-update-for-november-20170-36-deg-c/#comment-277659.
Maybe this would be a good opportunity for Kristian to generate something more substantial than waffle.
miker, what a great, long-winded, rambling comment. Sorry, I just had to quickly scan it. But I did catch that you were looking for a “simple diagram”. You did one for me. Your memory must have failed you.
https://postimg.org/image/y9etf4d8p/
Glad to help.
Kristian, I also suggest that you avoid the overused “h” word to describe the diagram . You wouldn’t want everyone to think that you are a total idiot
Possible alternatives could be “highly amusing” or “farcical” . If you do need a description starting with the letter “h” then “hysterical” might do.
Kristian I would also like to see, if you can find time, your detailed analysis of my diagram that clearly illustrates the delusions of the deranged one.
miker, you must not be feeling well–only 3 lines!
Also, when asking for other diagrams, you should specify they can NOT violate 2LoT. At this time, my solution is the ONLY one that qualifies.
Best of luck finding another solution that works.
mikeR,
What diagram is that? This one?
https://s20.postimg.org/av6u36vbh/I_m_with_stupid.jpg
Is that supposed to depict a steady state situation?
It would rather look like this:
1 Radiative flux from BP out (l): 266.67 W/m^2
2 Radiative flux from GP out (r): 133.33 W/m^2
3 Radiative flux from BP to GP: [266.67-133.33=] 133.33 W/m^2
-BP temp: 261.9 K (1.19x GP)
-GP temp: 220.2 K
https://okulaer.files.wordpress.com/2018/01/untitled4b.png
I believe g*e*r*a*n’s idea is that the two green 200 W/m^2 arrows between the plates in the first setup somehow cancel out, since the l-to-r one is just the r-to-l one reflected back.
Which is a strange idea, to put it mildly …
You get it right, Kris. The reflected “arrow” is effectively cancelled.
Now if you can just understand “rotating on an axis”, we can maybe get you off the “bad boy” list.
Kristain,
I am glad we have total agreement, as your diagram is the same as the one I posted on December 3 last year.
Just to refresh your memory I have linked to it again.
https://s20.postimg.org/fxekakdnh/Rabbet_Excel2.jpg .
My only concern is the green arrow going left towards the blue plate in both of our diagrams.
I gather we both regard this as a representation of the back radiation.
I am quite happy to regard it as a bundle (Macro) of photons (Micro).
A bundle of photons heading in the direction of the blue plate could also be termed as the radiative flux in that direction. Is that so or do you want to indulge in your passion for semantics?
So I will repeat once again ,
Your description of what the green arrow represents does not have any practical effect upon temperature of either plate. As the bard said “A rose by any other name would smell as sweet”.
By the way I suggest you post your diagram on Joe Postma’s site for another considered opinion. You seem to run hot and cold with regard to this gentleman.
mikeR says, January 9, 2018 at 5:25 PM:
No, mikeR. If you only managed to wrap your head around the rather fundamental distinction between “radiation” in a MICRO sense and “radiation” in a MACRO sense, then you would see that I have NEVER rejected the notion of back radiation.
How many times do I have to explain this to you!?
Kristian,
Ok my bad. I have been confused by your contortions and I confuse easily.
So you are happy with back radiation as long as it is in context of a micro description.
And yes, I am way too stupid to understand the unique implications of your distinction between a bundle of photons at a micro level and radiant flux on a macro level. I think nearly everyone else here (plus I suspect the entire physics community) are too stupid to understand. It may be a deficiency of my postgraduate education in optics, but I suspect the distinction is just a red herring, similar to your introduction of conduction, transient response to a steady state formulation, lasers etc. and other assorted irrelevancies
Perhaps a link to where someone has useful employed the distinction to solve an otherwise intractable problem would be convincing.
To emphasize. I have said before that this distinction makes sweet f… all in practice. Maybe if you could provide a case where it actually does something to illuminate rather than confuse, then I might be amenable to change my view. You could start with the two plate problem.
mikeR says, January 10, 2018 at 7:58 PM:
MY contortions!!!?
It is YOU and everyone else here that insist on contorting my arguments into something they’re NOT at every turn and opportunity.
I’m not contorting ANYTHING, mikeR. I have been perfectly clear and consistent from the beginning. I am saying the same bloody thing over and over in order to make you understand what I’m actually talking about. But you cannot help yourselves, it seems. You just HAVE to ‘misunderstand’ and ‘misrepresent’ (“contort”) everything I say. What I’m pointing out is among the simplest and most basic pieces of logic that a man/woman could ever learn – the fundamental difference between the reality level of your couch and the reality level of the individual atoms it’s composed of; the obvious distinction between, and unrelatability of, the MICRO (quantum) and the MACRO (mechanical/thermodynamic/statistical) realms …
Yes Kristian,
I agree that contortions may have been inappropriate term, as it suggests a change in position regarding your objection to a macro interpretation of back radiation (I hope I have got that right?).
Possibly a better description would be convoluted by the introduction of irrelevancies. See my comments above regarding red herrings.
Kristian, where is the experimental evidence for your claim?
You keep avoiding this question….
mikeR says, January 9, 2018 at 5:25 PM:
LOL! The opposite is of course true. I’m trying to straighten out their confusion, to make it MORE CLEAR what is actually going on, and what is NOT actually going on!
You’re the ones who do your best to spread and perpetuate confusion …
Kristian did quote textbook science here:
https://tinyurl.com/ya687kb9
It said:
“Often, split flux for axisymmetric field into up ( > 0) and down ( < 0) components:
F_v = F_v,+ F_v,-"
MACRO on the left and MICRO on the right, how hard was that?
And why is neither of these terms measurable?
Yes Svante, he might reply with another of his death by 1000 cuts (and pastes) by lifting chunks of textbook science, some of which is of marginal relevance.
However I fully expect another waffle sandwich devoid of any meat.
Kristian has *NEVER* offered experimental proof of his wild claim.
mikeR says, January 9, 2018 at 7:56 PM:
I really do wonder what you think is ‘waffling’ about what I’m saying on this topic. I feel I’m very clear. On the micro level, photons do travel from cold to hot, on the macro level, radiative fluxes do not. How hard is this to get? And how is this waffling!? Are you just too stupid to understand what I’m talking about, or is there something else to your behaviour …?
It seems IR radiative fluxes do travel from cold to hot, hot to hot, hot to cold at the macro level. I do not think MikeR is at all stupid. I think he sees reality. Same what I see
https://www.google.com/search?q=images+of+FLIR&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjq1J3mqs3YAhWK8oMKHaNGA-AQsAQIKA&biw=1920&bih=949
To see any macroscopic object you need to have a macroscopic flux of energy emitting from it to be detected. If no energy then no detection.
I think the FLIR confirms what all established physics says about the subject. Every object, with temperature, is a independent radiator of IR and its emission is NOT based upon the emission of any other object around it. The amount of FLUX (watts/m^2) depends only upon the temperature of the object and its emissivity.
I don’t think there are only two-way fluxes, each object emits its own detectable flux of radiant energy. It only moves away from the object and not back toward it as you think it would in a photon cloud. If you turn the IR camera away from the object it is no longer visible. If photons were moving in all directions from an object you would see it regardless of the orientation of the camera. People ask you to prove you point with established physics and you pull up some article on photon gas that has nothing at all to do with heat transfer.
Con-man, you won’t ever understand if you keep going down the wrong paths.
You keep believing that a photon emitted MUST be absorbed. You will deny that you believe that, but that is what you believe. That is one of the “worms” in your head that that makes you look stupid. And, that makes you frustrated. And then, you start yelping like a castrated chihuahua. We’ve seen it all numerous times.
So, when you state: “It seems IR radiative fluxes do travel from cold to hot, hot to hot, hot to cold at the macro level”, you are implying that the “travel” means the fluxes are absorbed. That thinking keeps you continually confused, and on the same path to more yelping.
Also, because of your weak background, you should forget references to a FLIR camera. That is a device designed to “capture” photons. It provides the “work” necessary to allow “cold” to warm “hot”. A FLIR camera will not work without external power. The blue plate is NOT such a device, so it confuses you even more.
Avoid confusion, deal with your “worms”, and try to move forward in 2018.
G*
Kristian doesn’t think there is a unique, one way flow of photons from a colder object on one side of the room to a warmer object on the other. Whether or not the photons are absorbed is a separate argument.
So, regardless of how the device operates, we see there IS a distinct flow of photons between one object and another.
In Kristian’s model of reality, a thermal imaging device would show a fuzzy cloud world, and not be of any use.
snake opines: “Whether or not the photons are absorbed is a separate argument.”
Sorry snake, but even if you try to move that to a “separate argument”, you still lose. “Cold” can NOT warm “hot”.
Snape says, January 10, 2018 at 10:53 AM:
Why? Do you know at all how these instruments work, Snape? Norman clearly doesn’t. Even after having been explained and shown on multiple occasions. Do you? Have you ever read ANYTHING about them and their principle of operation?
Kristian
This is a super short version (in my own words):
rays of light (emitted from the object/objects in view) pass through a lens in the device and are focused on an array of sensors. These are used to create the digital image.
If distinct rays of light did not travel from the object in view to the camera, you wouldn’t be able to see the object.
Is this a new idea for you?
Our eyes operate in a similar manner. Rays of light are focused on the retina. The input from millions of chemical sensors then travel through fibers in the optic nerve to the brain. The brain uses the input to form an image.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=E_OsK5_sElA
Snape says, January 10, 2018 at 10:46 AM:
I don’t THINK so. There ISN’T. There are PHOTONS moving from cold to hot. But they do not constitute a “unique, one way flow” from cold to hot. Because that would be a separate MACROscopic entity.
There is nothing inherently collective or unified about the movement of a bunch of thermally emitted photons flying through space. They are QUANTUM entities, for crying out loud! They were all emitted completely independently and ‘unaware’ of all the others, and each individual photon likewise travel completely independently through space. It doesn’t know and it doesn’t care where the others are going. That’s why we have to average them ALL into ONE overall perspective in order to see any ordered (macroscopic, bulk) movement at all. And that movement is … UNIdirectional!
So, no, there are no “subflows” of thermal photons within an actually observed (detected) flow of thermal photons – the net (average) movement of thermal radiative energy through space. Only in your head. Only on paper. In your particular mathematical model of reality. In reality there’s only the … flow. The net movement.
Kristian
An FLIR can create an image of an object based upon its IR emission. In order to do that it must receive a macroscopic flux of energy.
It does not matter that the IR calculates the actual energy based upon the sensor temperature. The energy of the incoming IR is variable, the instrument temperature is constant. It still builds images of objects. You must ignore the evidence presented and reality to believe there is not a macroscopic separate flow of IR from each object. You can use visible light. Each object you see is reflecting a macroscopic amount of energy that your eyes detect.
Snape
The problem with Kristian’s thought process is that he does not understand what Bosons are.
He can’t grasp, that with photons, you can have two separate flows of macroscopic energy that do not at all interact with each other in the form of energy exchange. They do not change direction, or exchange any energy when they encounter each other. I think he has the belief photons are like an atomic cloud, like air. Wind will only move one way based upon pressure differential. If the air were made up of bosons you could have multiple winds that could interact with matter and each cause macroscopic rotations in windmills.
Here: “Photons do not interact with themselves and hence do not experience this difference in states where to crowd (see squeezed coherent state).”
From this article on bosons:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boson
When I read Kristian’s posts on the topic it always seems if he behaves as if photons interact with each other, collide and change direction and exchange energy like air molecules do. Not a valid view of heat transfer.
All heat transfer descriptions from established science state that each object radiates at rates depending only upon their temperature and emissivity. Each object will radiate based upon that reality. Each object will absorb based upon its view factor of surrounding objects and their temperature. Nothing even close to Kristian’s description of heat transfer can ever be found in any valid science text. He took the concept of “photon cloud” and made up his own physics but he will not consider the actual physics. With him I think his ego is too strong for him to consider he may have gotten it wrong.
Norman
Of course I agree with you.
This is from an article you might find interesting:
“SEEING THROUGH DUST
Infrared waves have longer wavelengths than visible light and can pass through dense regions of gas and dust in space with less scattering and absorb*tion. Thus, infrared energy can also reveal objects in the universe that cannot be seen in visible light using optical telescopes. The James Webb Space Telescope (JWST) has three infrared instruments to help study the origins of the universe and the formation of galaxies, stars, and planets.”
https://science.nasa.gov/ems/07_infraredwaves
The con-man teaches poor snake: “When I read Kristians posts on the topic it always seems if he behaves as if photons interact with each other, collide and change direction and exchange energy like air molecules do. Not a valid view of heat transfer.”
Hilarious.
The con-man reads wiki and believes he knows all about photons interacting.
The yelping chihuahua never heard about “out-of-phase”.
Hilarious.
Norman says, January 10, 2018 at 6:58 PM:
Hahahahahahahahaha! Norman the Pretender once again puts his stubborn, stubborn ignorance and stupidity on this topic on display, for all the world to see.
And Snape, just as clueless, naturally agrees …!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wvVPdyYeaQU
g*e*r*a*n
No you are still wrong. Photons can interfere (the wave aspect) but they do not exchange energy with each other. The fluxes move through each other. Find established physics that makes a different claim.
They are doing research on high energy photons that may interact through quantum process otherwise it is not happening.
“According to the rules of classical optics, light cannot be affected by light. Photons, however, can interact with each other through quantum processes”
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/05/160519100717.htm
“When photons collide with each other, do they act like billiard balls, springing away from each other in different directions? Such a course of interaction between particles of light has never been observed, even in the LHC, the most powerful accelerator in the world”
eKristian
Demonstrate your superior knowledge and explain why you can see different macroscopic objects with your “photon cloud” understanding.
Also find one established science text that states heat transfer in your terms. Everyone I have read clearly states that the NET radiative heat exchange of a surface is the macroscopic amount emitted by that surface (in Watts/m^2) minus the macroscopic amount of energy that is absorbed by that surface. All real physics knows that emit and absorb are completely different processes taking place at different sites. An excited molecule will not absorb an IR of that resonant frequency.
You prove nothing. I think you are just a more intelligent version of g*e*r*a*n. You make declarative statements and use your own blog as a source.
http://web.mit.edu/16.unified/www/FALL/thermodynamics/notes/node137.html
Refer to this Kristian, all textbooks and articles on the subject of radiative heat transfer say this identical concept. You are the outliner and use your own blog as a reference.
Nice straw man, Norm. But where is the ranting lunatic that I so enjoy.
Photons can definitely interfere with other photons. This is well known, and is even used in many technologies. Do some research on “optical flat”, just to name one. Or, even easier to understand for a non-science person, look up “polarized light”.
You have so much to learn.
g*e*r*a*n
That may be the first intelligent thing you have said on this blog (I am amazed).
YOU: “You have so much to learn.”
Yes that is very true and correct. I will learn from actual established physics, however. I will not learn any valid information from your fantasy made up physics, based upon nothing but your own declarative statements. Most your ideas go directly against established physics.
Okay, but when you finally do learn some physics, don’t be surprised if you find I wasn’t making anything up.
g*e*r*a*n
The only thing you seem capable of doing is making up physics and false conclusions about posters that you do not know.
I will never find your stupid made up physics to be true. It is garbage. No matter how long I read or study the only fact that will remain is you are a stupid troll. That is the only solid reality from you. You are stupid (have little useful knowledge) and a troll (you like to provoke other posters).
Basically you are an idiotic person, that is one fact that I wish would change but after time it seems you will stay an idiot.
Read some physics. Might help you. I doubt it though, you are too stupid to understand the material so you need to make things up that make sense to your limited reasoning ability.
Norm, you may not have any background in science. And, you may not have much of a career. But, at least you can pound out almost the exact same comments, over and over, hoping that something will change in your life.
Doing the same thing over and over and over and over, hoping for different results. I think there is a word for that. ..
Stupid Troll
g*e*r*a*n
Your post to my comment demonstrates a stupidity on your part that is difficult to understand. If you were just a little stupid I could understand it, your level goes beyond what I am able to imagine.
You are so wrong on so many points why do you post? If you understand so little of physics and then post like you are an expert, it does make you look deranged. Most stupid people have some awareness of their limited thoughts. You do not have such an ability.
ONE POINT: “You keep believing that a photon emitted MUST be absorbed. You will deny that you believe that, but that is what you believe. That is one of the worms in your head that that makes you look stupid. And, that makes you frustrated. And then, you start yelping like a castrated chihuahua. Weve seen it all numerous times.”
What an ignorant response. Who said I believe an emitted photon must be absorbed? Where do you come up with your crap? Do you pull it out your ass, look at it and make a post in pride of how your turd looks? A object will absorb photons based upon if it is a good absorber. Why do you waste my time. At least come up with a good counter argument that can stimulate thought. You are so dumb it is just a waste of time.
Con-man, as you get more desperate, you get more hilarious.
I predicted you would deny your own beliefs about photon ab.sorp.tion, and you did! The blue plate can NOT absorb photons from the colder green plate. But, you believe it can. In fact, you believe the green plate can cause the blue plate to rise above its S/B temperature, “breaking the laws”.
Your only recourse is to make up lame assertions, ramble in circles, and use the vulgarities of a 10-year-old.
It’s fun to watch.
g*e*r*a*n
What you post goes direclty against estabished physics. You are just making it up. I am in no way desperate, just depressed that people as stupid as you are seem to believe they are genius.
Find one source of valid physics to support your lame claim: “The blue plate can NOT absorb photons from the colder green plate.”
This is made up physics and it goes totally against established physics. Declaring it valid only makes you an idiot. So your homework for today, since you are a 10 year-old, find one source of valid physics that supports you stupid made up physics. All I am asking for one. I already know you won’t provide it. It is amusing how dumb you can be.
g*e*r*a*n
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wvVPdyYeaQU
This video is exactly for you. He describes your mentality. You will not accept it. You are really a stupid human. I think most 10 year olds do posses more intelligence than you do. They would know they don’t know something and not post really stupid points and pretend they know what they are talking about.
Con-man, your rambling rants are getting even funnier. You act like a 10-year-old, then accuse me of doing the same! That just shows your desperation, even as you claim you are “no way desperate”. Hilarious.
It’s going to be a great year in climate comedy.
You can’t understand science, so you keep claiming no one is providing you any “evidence”. You can’t understand what people provide. You have to make up your own. Just like you had to try to redefine an “axis of rotation”. The moon/axis issue is not even very in-depth. It requires no real knowledge of physics or astronomy. It can be understood on your kitchen table, with simple objects. But, you still can’t grasp it.
You’ve never even had a real physics course. There is no evidence that you understand any physics beyond some “sub-wiki” level.
You’re a perfect example of a “climate clown”.
More please.
g*e*r*a*n
Watch the video. You don’t know anything about physics. I easily understand science. Your “evidence” is your own declarative statements. I said find a valid source. You can’t even do 10-year old homework.
You don’t know what an axis of rotation is. I have posted the established definition for you numerous times. In the experiments (which I viewed on YouTube) that you refer to, the axis of rotation is rotating. They fix the axis to the orbit and the axis rotates. With the Moon, gravity is not a tether that holds on to the Moon. I linked you to the ISS to demonstrate your ignorance. They induce a rotation to keep the same side facing the Earth.
I have had actual college physics (basic) and Chemistry. You are a moron that makes up stuff they do not know. You pretend you know things but really are an idiot. Most people know when they don’t know something and are making up garbage. Your pretend life is so delusional you are unable to see you make up all your physics you post.
What is your “evidence” that a hot plate cannot absorb photons from a cooler plate? You will never answer this so quit pretending you have a source or know of one. You will keep pretending that you know one, you don’t. You are delusional and dumb.
Now, that’s the comedy I’m expecting. Long, mindless, desperate yelping with nothing but denial.
Hilarious!
Just for some additional humor, where do you believe the Moon’s axis is located?
g*e*r*a*n
You still have nothing, huh? How long will you keep pretending you have some physics knowledge? How long will you make up phony and false physics. Do you realize you are exactly the same as the people you oppose? The extremists on climate side make up false and unscientific claims (like the cold wave in the US is a result of global warming) and you do the same. You make up this false and phony physics and try to pretend it is real. It would bother a rational person.
Did you watch the video? I will link it again. Are you afraid to look in the mirror?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wvVPdyYeaQU
John Cleese nails you!
g*e*r*a*n
Like I said, you don’t know what an axis of rotation is. I have given you the established definition. I can’t help you are too stupid to understand it. You are an idiot but don’t see yourself as one. You pretend you are smart, are out thinking all of us and in our own dull mind you think you are right.
If you put a camera on one of the Moon’s poles and pointed it up with a time elapse you would see the stars (known to be a fixed reference point because their apparent motions are far less than that of the Earth or Moon) rotate around the Moon’s axis. You can’t understand that. Too dumb to believe. Pretend you know something, it seems as this delusion gives you some comfort. The rest of us think of you as an idiot. You do have one lap dog you were able to convince. I was amazed that this blog found two of you.
Read this link moron and explain why scientists can see more of the Moon based upon it rotation vs its orbital rate.
https://www.space.com/24871-does-the-moon-rotate.html
Since you are too lazy to click on a link I will supply you with the information: “The orbit and the rotation aren’t perfectly matched, however. The moon travels around the Earth in an elliptical orbit, a slightly stretched-out circle. When the moon is closest to Earth, its rotation is slower than its journey through space, allowing observers to see an additional 8 degrees on the eastern side. When the moon is farthest, the rotation is faster, so an additional 8 degrees are visible on the western side.”
con-man, the reason the camera on the Moon would show the stars moving is because it is tracking the orbital movement. You still can’t separate “orbiting” from “rotating on an axis”. Two separate motions.
Your inability to reason is probably affected by the worms.
And, you STILL didn’t answer where the Moon’s axis is.
Now, more maniacal ranting, please.
g*e*r*a*n
Not a long rant. You are really stupid.
Nothing but ad-homs.
Hilarious.
g*e*r*a*n
You are very stupid.
ibid.
G*, Honestly if “The blue plate can NOT absorb photons from the colder green plate.”
Then how does BLUE know how much heat to send to Green?
Suppose Green gets even colder, the BLUE is now supposed to send more heat to GREEN, based on rad heat transfer eqn.
But its already sending sending all it can, and not receiving any. Hows it going to now send MORE?
Very puzzling…
flat tires, the blue plate radiates based on it’s temperature, which is based on the S/B equation.
If you want to make the green plate colder, that’s a different problem. Are you going to cool it below absolute zero?
Hilarious.
G* Not a different problem, its relevant to all previous discussion.
Two objects 1, 2.
2 colder than 1, how much heat goes from 2 to 1? It is well established that it will depend on temp of 2 and 1.
If plate 2 is 250K and plate 1 is 220K, so much heat flows. Now lower plate 1 to 200K, MORE heat flows from 2 to 1. Agree?
How does plate 1 know how much heat to send? If its not absorbing any photons from object 2 at 220K, then its not absorbing any at 200K either.
So, according to you same heat flow in both cases. Does not make sense.
Ehh damn, 2 warmer than 1, but i think you get the idea
Arggh Try again:
Two objects 1, 2.
2 colder than 1, how much heat goes from 1 to 2? It is well established that it will depend on temp of 2 and 1.
If plate 1 is 250K and plate 2 is 220K, so much heat flows. Now lower plate 2 to 200K, MORE heat flows from 1 to 2. Agree?
How does plate 1 know how much heat to send? If its not absorbing any photons from object 2 at 220K, then its not absorbing any at 200K either.
So, according to you same heat flow in both cases. Does not make sense.
You seem very confused. Just stick with “blue” and “green”. Re-naming the plates is just confusing to you.
Here’s the correct solution. If you have any responsible questions, I’ll be glad to respond.
https://postimg.org/image/y9etf4d8p/
I am asking about the general situation of two objects 1 and 2 at temperature T1 and T2. I know you have seen the Rad Heat Transfer equation a dozen times by now. It has T1 and T2 in it.
Now again
If object 1 is 250K and object 2 is 220K, so much heat flows. Now lower object 2 to 200K, MORE heat flows from 1 to 2. Agree or not?
If agree, and if object 1 absorbs no photons from object 2 (since it is colder), then how does heat flow increase when T2 is lower? The eqn requires it.
It is a pretty straight forward question.
Nate, thanks for a responsible question.
With the two objects un-powered, what you indicated is correct. Using the radiative heat transfer equation, the net energy transfer increases with the lower temp object.
But, you can NOT use that equation in the blue/green problem because of the incoming power. You must solve the problem realizing 2LoT must be satisfied.
Ok, good.
Then the question was about the mechanism for increasing heat flow.
If 1 does not absorb any photons from object 2, whenever it is colder than 1, how is it possible for heat transfer to have increased when 2 is even colder?
SB emission from 1 is remaining constant, only 2 has changed its emission.
Yes, Q2 remains constant. Q1 is less, from original case. So Q(net) increases.
Q(net) = Q2 – Q1
Ok so qnet = q1-q2.
It seems you are stating that emission from the colder is determining the net transfer.
So is emission from 2 absorbed in 1? If not explain how.
Sorry, I see you have object 1 as the hot one. That’s why I didn’t want to change identities–confusing.
Let’s try it this way:
H = hot object
C = cold object
CC = colder object
So, Q(net) = QH – QC
And, in the second case, Q(net) = QH – QCC
So, since QCC is less than QC, Q(net) in the second case will be larger.
OK so Q(net) = QH QC so lets say QH =100, QC =30 then Qnet = 70. OK. But for QCC = 20 Then Qnet = 80.
In both cases QH = 100, if Qnet =80, the hot object must have received and absorbed 20.
If Qnet = 70 then the hot object has received and absorbed 30.
Yes? No?
No. Q(net) is only the difference in the two fluxes. It tells you nothing about whether or not either flux will ever be absorbed.
OK, then it is difficult to understand whats going on.
Clearly if Qh =100 and Qnet =80 , its hard to understand how 100 is emitted (according to SB law) and yet the net output of energy from the hot object is only 80.
Simple way to account for this is 20 must be input. Otherwise the arithmetic simply doesnt work.
“Clearly if Qh =100 and Qnet =80 , its hard to understand how 100 is emitted (according to SB law) and yet the net output of energy from the hot object is only 80.”
The “net” is after emission. That may be what is confusing you.
“Simple way to account for this is 20 must be input. Otherwise the arithmetic simply doesnt work.”
No, the arithmetic works. 100 – 80 = 20. I’m not sure what you are confused with.
Ok math works-as always. The point is we know by SB that 100 is emitted by H, and say the net transfer is 80.
The H therefore must have an input of 20.
Where can that 20 be coming from? Obviously and most simply it is the 20 emitted by C, as SB requires.
Is there another way that makes sense?
“Net comes after emission” dont know what that means?
Nate asks: “The point is we know by SB that 100 is emitted by H, and say the net transfer is 80. The H therefore must have an input of 20. Where can that 20 be coming from? Obviously and most simply it is the 20 emitted by C, as SB requires.”
The 20 is NOT an “input”. The 20 is the “difference” between 100 and 80. The 20 does not exist in reality. Just as if you had $100, and I had $80. The difference is $20, but we did not magically create a new $20 that we can go spend.
Net asks: “‘Net comes after emission’ don’t know what that means?”
H emits 100, C emits 80. The net is then 20. First comes emission, then comes net.
Well phooey! I came back from supper and noticed I flipped the figures. Sorry, Nate.
Here is the corrected comment, just disregard the one above:
Nate asks: The point is we know by SB that 100 is emitted by H, and say the net transfer is 80. The H therefore must have an input of 20. Where can that 20 be coming from? Obviously and most simply it is the 20 emitted by C, as SB requires.
The 80 is NOT an input. The 80 is the difference between 100 and 20. The 80 does not exist in reality. Just as if you had $100, and I had $20. The difference is 80, but we did not magically create a new $80 that we can go spend.
Net asks: Net comes after emission dont know what that means?
H emits 100, C emits 20. The net is then 80. First comes emission, then comes net.
You had it right the first time.
“The 20 is NOT an input. The 20 is the difference between 100 and 80. The 20 does not exist in reality. Just as if you had $100, and I had $80. The difference is $20, but we did not magically create a new $20 that we can go spend.”
The 20 doesnt exist in reality? It certainly does. After all it is the amount emitted by the C, by SB law.
Again, i have to ask, how does the H know it is supposed to emit a NET of 80? Do the photons just know what the temperature of the other object is going to be?
There has to be a mechanism for the H to sense the temperature of the other object. There is. It receives and absorbs photons from it.
The H emits 100 photons for every 20 photons it absorbs, for a net emission of 80 photons.
If you tried to invent a mechanism it could not be as simple as this one. But feel free to try.
Nate: “Again, i have to ask, how does the H know it is supposed to emit a NET of 80? Do the photons just know what the temperature of the other object is going to be?”
g: H emits based on its temperature, H. It is emitting 100. That is fixed. CC is emitting 20, based on its temperature CC. That is fixed. The net is 100 – 20 = 80. The “net” is not emitted.
Nate: “The H emits 100 photons for every 20 photons it absorbs, for a net emission of 80 photons.”
g: No, H emits 100 (actually Watts/m^2, not photons). CC emits 20. So the net is 80. The 80 is a “difference”, not an “emission”.
Nate: “If you tried to invent a mechanism it could not be as simple as this one. But feel free to try.”
g: And now it is both simple AND correct.
80 is just ‘the difference’? What does difference mean to you?
‘Net’ was the word we were using. Net means something very precise. If we measure the reduction of internal energy of H we will find it is 80. Yes? If we measure the increase of internal energy of C it will be 80.
So if the Net loss from H is 80, but its SB emission is 100, there is no ambiguity here. There must have been an input of 20.
Pretty hard to find any other interpretation. And why do we need one?
Nate rambles: “80 is just the difference? What does difference mean to you?
g: “difference” is the “net”.
Nate rambles: “‘Net’ was the word we were using. Net means something very precise. If we measure the reduction of internal energy of H we will find it is 80. Yes? If we measure the increase of internal energy of C it will be 80.”
g: No, reduction of internal energy of H will be 100.
Nate continues his ramble into confusion: “So if the Net loss from H is 80, but its SB emission is 100, there is no ambiguity here. There must have been an input of 20.”
g: 80 is NOT the “net loss” from H. 80 is the “net heat energy transfer” between H and CC.
Nate ends in confusion: “Pretty hard to find any other interpretation. And why do we need one?”
g: No, it’s easy to find the correct “interpretation”. And, that’s why need it.
g*,
“g: No, reduction of internal energy of H will be 100.”
Ah, ok. Well then we’re back to square 1. Back to the where the.temperature Tc, doesnt matter, doest affect the rate of heat transfer at all.
No you cant redefine Net transfer as you please. Net has always been defined as net transfer, in this case 80 lost by H is gained by C.
Cleary learning such simple concepts can not get past your ideology.
Nate, I don’t know about “square 1”, but the temperature of C does not affect what is emitted by H. What is emitted by H is based solely on the temperature of H.
The “net” only occurs in the space between H and C. The “net” is a RESULT, not a CAUSE.
Does that help?
‘The net only occurs in the space between H and C.’
So according to you the rad heat equation does not allow you to find how much heat has been removed from a hot object and transferred to a cold object.
Then that is redefining what heat transfer means, and would make the equation pretty useless.
If you redefine common terms to suit your desired end result, then this can no longer be a rational discussion.
Nate, some of what you wrote is correct, but some still indicates you are confused.
You are correct in determining that the radiative heat transfer equation does not indicate now much heat energy has been transferred from H to C. The equation indicates the instantaneous net heat transfer.
And yes, the equation is fairly useless, in a real world situation. Like a black body, it is a useful teaching aid. To actually apply it to the real world, you would have to have a more in-depth understanding of radiative heat transfer.
I don’t know where you believe I have “re-defined” anything. Maybe you just did not understand about the equation. I remember when you were referring to it as the “S/B Law”.
You appear to be learning, so that is indicative of a “rational discussion”.
‘And yes, the equation is fairly useless, in a real world situation.’
No G*, it is extremely useful in the real world, not a teaching tool. What would be the point of teaching it to engineers? So they could NOT use it in the real world? Weird.
Just stop making stuff up, then we can have a rational discussion.
“The equation indicates the instantaneous net heat transfer.”
G* we have been talking about rates the whole time. What does a rate give you? An amount in a certain amount of time. So we can determine amounts transferred from rates, obviously.
So the eqn DOES allow us to determine an amount of heat transferred from object 1 to object 2. If it was just determining amount transferred to ‘space in between’ then that would be pointless, as was your comment.
Well Nate, it seems you are convinced the equation is useful in the real world. I’m sure you would be willing to prove that you know what you’re talking about. So, here’s a little problem, just so no one will think you built yourself a trap.
Object A has a surface area of 800 m^2, and a temperature of 400K.
Object B has a surface area of 100 m^2, and a temperature of 500K.
What is the net Q between the plates?
So as not to confuse you, make it “objects”, not “plates”.
As in: “What is the net Q between the objects?”
Nate, if you’re stumped, feel free to consult any to the other rampant pseudoscientists here:
davie
Norm, the con-man
T-ball, aka ball4, aka, trick, aka cabbage head
miker
barry
Tim Folkerts
Brad
Skeptic Gone Wild
gummycrud
snake, aka snape, aka Sir Isaac Snapelton, aka the 12-year-old
Kristian
Nate, aka flat tires (That’s you!)
des
You’ve got a lot of help.
(I’ll check back tomorrow.)
G*,
View factors were implicitly included at the start of this discussion when we stated Qnet = 80. They are now brought up as another diversion from fundamental issues.
You have decided to redefine NET heat transfer between object 1 and 2 to be NOT the heat actually transferred between object 1 and 2.
That is fundamentally wrong (and weird!) and if we cant agree about what basic quantities mean, then we cannot go any further and have a rational debate.
Nate, you claimed the equation was “extremely useful in the real world”.
I provided a simple problem for you to demonstrate your vast knowledge of physics. You don’t want people to think your “vast knowledge” is all imaginary, do you?
Also, I never “re-defined” Q. In the equation, Q is the instantaneous net Joules/sec between the two objects. Maybe you never knew that, so you “imagined” I was redefining it.
Don’t you think it’s funny how the “real world” smashes pseudoscience?
I think it’s hilarious.
G*,
A. Your little quiz cannot be answered with the information given, pls show us your answer.
B. Not gonna get sucked into diversions, when you have avoided dealing with the fundamengal issue I raised.
C. You have an ideology that requires you to change established facts and definitions to suit that ideology, to get you a result you want. As long as thats true, there is no way to have a rational discussion.
Nate: “A. Your little quiz cannot be answered with the information given, pls show us your answer.”
g: But Nate, you said that equation was “extremely useful in the real world”. You implied that you knew how to use it. So, it’s time to put up or shut up.
Nate: “B. Not gonna get sucked into diversions, when you have avoided dealing with the fundamental [sic] issue I raised.”
g: What “fundamental issue” have I avoided? It’s “put up or shut up” time.
Nate: “C. You have an ideology that requires you to change established facts and definitions to suit that ideology, to get you a result you want.
g: What “established facts” and “definitions” have I changed? Again, it’s “put up or shut up” time.
Just be responsible for the things you claim. That will make for a more “rational discussion”.
cant post
Nate
You are intelligent and understand real physics. You are debating with an idiot that does not know how stupid he is and he makes up physics to suit his own thoughts. If you debate with someone that makes up their own physics and calls established physics wrong, you will never make headway.
I have been debating with this idiot for a while, the only reason I respond to his stupid posts is to maintain the integrity of science. There are a couple people who might think he knows something (he presents his material as if he had some knowledge) and if I see his stupid make believe physics posts then I will respond to protect the validity of science. Nothing you can do to stop him from making up his own ideas and posting him, all one can do is present the truth and real physics. The few that he is able to convince are not interested in reality anyway and don’t actually understand science at all.
Con-man, you forgot to include your disclaimer:
Norm has no meaningful background in science. His chemistry “degree” was from an institution that no longer (maybe never) offers such a degree. He can’t understand basic physics, and can’t process facts or logic. He works at some state agency, dead-end job, that allows him to pound on his (state agency funded) keyboard about 6 hours a day. He suffers from several different mental disorders, as evidenced by his rabid, rambling rants.
Glad to help.
g*e*r*a*n
One thing about most your posts is that they are completely wrong. You have made up wrong physics, you know nothing about other posters but speculate and pretend you do.
You know so little about me or anyone else you are ridiculously stupid. A complete phony. You are the big Con-man on this blog. You make up stuff you know is not real and pretend it is.
You are a stupid troll with nothing of value to contribute to the advancement of science.
Con-man, you must have cleaned your mirror, this morning. You see your reflection so well. ..
g*e*r*a*n
Stupid troll.
I’m doing such a great job today, the yelping chihuahua has lost his yelp!
Hilarious.
Stupid Troll
” But Nate, you said that equation was extremely useful in the real world
Thats dumb, G*. Give me VF, readily available in real world, then the eqn is useful.
Nate, do you need instructions on how to place comments?
”
g: What established facts and definitions have I changed?”
NET Heat transfer. I have explained several times.
Net was the word we were using. Net means something very precise. If we measure the reduction of internal energy of H we will find it is 80. Yes? If we measure the increase of internal energy of C it will be 80.
g: No, reduction of internal energy of H will be 100.”
That is refining what everyone understands NET to mean.
Now you are revising history. Another reason no rational discussion with you is possible.
My last stab at explaining:
Bob owes me $80. He gives me a hundred dollar bill. I give him a $20 bill. What was NET transfer? Clearly $80.
What does NET mean? It means my wealth increased by $80. Bob’s wealth decreased by what? You would say $100. Everyone else would say $80.
Just to very very clear: replace $ with Heat and Wealth with Internal Energy, the definition of NET transfer should not change.
Nate:
1) It is YOUR responsibility to place your comments where I can find them. Failure to do so is YOUR problem, and indicates incompetency.
2) It is YOUR responsibility to address your claims, when challenged. Failure to do so is YOUR problem, and indicates incompetency.
Now, with respect the the only item you responded to, the “net” is merely the difference between the two fluxes. The “net” does NOT take on a life of its own. The H object is NOT emitting 80. It is emitting 100. The 80 is the difference between 100 and 20.
I have NOT redefined anything.
* You still have not solved the problem, which you indicated would be simple.
* You still have not shown where I “avoided fundamental issues”.
* You still have not shown where I changed “established facts” or “definitions”.
You have a lot of work to do.
G*,
“g: No, reduction of internal energy of H will be 100. is the issue.
Not the same as g:”The H object is NOT emitting 80.”
g: “The net does NOT take on a life of its own.”
G* quantities in the real world have to mean something. NET has a meaning, it is not an abstract ‘merely the difference between the two fluxes’. Science cannot progress unless everyone agrees on what things mean.
In a NET money transfer of $80 from Bob to me, do you or any of your family members disagree with ‘Bob’s wealth decreased by $80’?
Same definition applies to heat.
I already told you the answer to your ‘quiz’ G*. Not gonna play the ‘try to humiliate the other guy’ diversionary games with you. Just not.
I can’t tell what your problem with “net” is, because your comments are too garbled.
Just state, in ONE clear sentence, what your problem with “net” is, so that I have a chance of understanding.
AND, you STILL have not addressed the other issues.
G* if you dont understand at this point, then you are not trying very hard, and you are not looking back at your own previous responses.
G: “reduction of internal energy of H will be 100”
That is WRONG G* in the problem we discussed. The reduction of internal energy of H will be 80. Because the NET transfer of heat was 80.
That is what NET heat transfer means. It involves a real physical change in the properties (internal energy) of the two objects involved.
“Just state, in ONE clear sentence, what your problem with net is, so that I have a chance of understanding.”
G* I cant help you anymore.
Hilarious!
norman…”A object will absorb photons based upon if it is a good absorber”.
Neils Bohr claimed absorp-tion depends on the frequency and intensity of the EM to be absorbed. He also claimed the frequency and intensity is based on the energy level through which the emitting electron dropped.
Ergo, the EM from a colder object’s electrons cannot be absorbed by electrons in a warmer object, which are at a higher energy level.
The same applies right across the board in physics. Water can’t run uphill on its own, a rock cannot elevate itself onto a cliff, and electrons cannot flow against an electric field. In a similar manner, EM from a colder object cannot overcome the potential energy hill created on a warmer object.
Gordon Robertson
You are just wrong with your thoughts. I have linked you to enough valid physics places. You reject real science in favor of your made up science. Why do you continue to debate this point?
The con-man states: “A[n] object will absorb photons based upon if it is a good absorber”.
Norm, your “rule” only works sometimes. A surface may absorb a certain wavelength with no problem. But, increase the temperature of the surface, or increase the incoming wavelengths, and you can turn a “good” absorber into a “good” reflector.
g*e*r*a*n
I would like to see any supporting evidence for your point that a “good” absorber will become a “good” reflectors as the surface temperature increases.
Here is an actual experiment on steel to see how its emissivity changes with temperature. The test covers from 200 to 600 C. In no way does it show this drastic change in emissivity based upon temperature and it would not have much effect on room temperature applications.
Please support your declarations with a little evidence.
http://www.vtt.fi/inf/pdf/tiedotteet/2005/T2299.pdf
Easy Norm, just run the calculated spectrum for a black body at varying temperatures.
Watch the change in peak power vs. wavelength.
But, if you could understand that, you wouldn’t be asking.
Maybe it’s not so easy for you. ..
g*e*r*a*n
You describe Wein’s Law. This information does not change the emissivity of a surface. The surface emissivity covers all the frequencies of IR. If a surface has an emissivity of 0.95% in the IR band it will be able to absorb 95% of the black-body radiation that arrives at its surface.
I do not think your point has an bearing on emissivity changes with temperature.
An object with a 0.95 emissivity will emit 95% of the energy a black-body at the same temperature would emit. If you increase the surface temperature it will still emit about 95% of the energy a black-body would emit at the same temperature. The emissivity does change with temperature slightly but not as much as you indicate. A few % over hundreds of degrees C.
I think I am right to ask since I don’t really know what connection you are attempting.
Sorry my spelling was incorrect. Should be Wien’s Law.
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/wien.html
Con-man, you are trying to interpret things to suit your mis-understanding of reality. When you see the spectrum change, that means something. In a “perfect” situation, it means the ability of a black body to absorb varies with temperature. And, because the surfaces are “perfect”, the changes are dramatic.
You just can’t understand because your background and beliefs (worms) hinder you.
g*e*r*a*n
NO you are just plain simply wrong. You are making up your physics again and it is wacked.
YOU claim with no evidence (which is pseudoscience): “When you see the spectrum change, that means something. In a perfect situation, it means the ability of a black body to absorb varies with temperature. And, because the surfaces are perfect, the changes are dramatic.”
NO it does not mean this at all. Where do you get this nonsense from? A black-body will always absorb all energy that it receives. It does not change its ability to absorb based upon temperature. Where do you get your smelly version of reality from.
I have to go back to calling you Stupid Troll. When you are so incredibly stupid and ignorant and make up some crap and then have the balls to tell me I the one who can’t understand reality.
Why do you have to be so stupid? What drives you to this level of incompetence? You can read actual physics the same as me, why do you make up this garbage?
Con-man, a “black body” is an imaginary concept. You do NOT get to use a BB to work your con. You do NOT get to violate the 2LoT with an imaginary concept. You are a con-man, pretending to understand science. You have no science background. You wash dishes for some state agency where you have about 5-6 hours a day to try to con folks.
And, when your cons fail, you start yelping like a castrated chihuahua.
Hilarious.
g*e*r*a*n
You are a real dunce. You are the one who wrote in your post about the properties of a black-body. How dense are you getting?
YOU: “In a perfect situation, it means the ability of a black body to absorb varies with temperature.”
This is an incredibly stupid point. Why would the ability of the black body absorbing vary with temperature in a “perfect” situation. You are a stupid troll. Dumber than reason can cope with. NO you do not have even the slightest training in any physics.
I don’t know what you did for a living but it was not science. You are far too stupid to have a chance at this career. I think you conned whoever you worked for. You claim you had a significant income. Only through con, you are not smart enough to earn minimum wage.
con-man, I very seldom waste time answering any of your false accusations. Once, when you made some false statements, I offered you a sizable wager. You ran for the hills, with your tail between your legs.
So, here you state:
“NO you do not have even the slightest training in any physics.”
“I dont know what you did for a living but it was not science.”
“You are far too stupid to have a chance at this career.”
I make the offer again. Would you like to bet a sizable amount, on those three sentences?
If you are right, you can make some big bucks. Want to go for it?
Norman: “I would like to see any supporting evidence for your point that a good absorber will become a good reflectors as the surface temperature increases.”
G: “Easy Norm, just run the calculated spectrum for a black body at varying temperatures.”
G: (later) “Con-man, a black body is an imaginary concept. You do NOT get to use a BB to work your con.”
G* you are hopeless
Nate, you can’t stand by your own statements.
I guess such lack of character comes with your belief system.
Hilarious.
g*e*r*a*n
You are a dishonest liar and stupid. But very good at manipulation. This is a combination of characteristics that I would not take any wager against.
It is possible you took a physics course but you learned nothing. Your posts demonstrate that easily. You make up physics and reject the valid physics. You declare things as true that you just make up.
Again, not taking a stupid wager with a notable moron does not make me a conman at all. Your posts are evidence that you don’t know any science. If you present your theories to a University Professor trained in Heat Transfer he will consider you an absolute idiot and give you an F.
Rather than wager submit your ideas to a University Professor who teaches thermodynamics and post their reply. That would work much better than a manipulative wager with a dishonest person.
I take that as a “no”.
Looks like the slippery con-man slithered away, AGAIN.
This is going to be a great year in climate comedy!
“In a perfect situation, it means the ability of a black body to absorb varies with temperature. And, because the surfaces are perfect, the changes are dramatic.”
Have to agree with Norman, here, G*. You have repeatedly made this wild claim, but have yet to show any type of evidence.
As you said to me: put up or shut up.
Nate, you’re becoming one of my favorite clowns!
How about you standing by your claims before asking anyone else.
I’ll be waiting. ..
(Hilarious.)
g*e*r*a*n
You are the only snake slithering away. You are so confident you have a science background and know what you are talking about, send your wacky idiotic ideas to a University Professor that teaches Thermodynamics and share the reply with the blog.
You are the only con-man here that pretends to bet but won’t take a serious challenge. You know your bets are stupid. I have seen this tactic before. Do something real like email someone who actually teaches the material.
You could send them the idea that a black-body will change how it absorbs based upon its temperature. You can come up with your idea that the Moon does not rotate on its axis. You can tell them a plate that can emit 200 W/m^2 from one side cannot absorb any energy from a plate emitting 100 W/m^2. Let us all have a good laugh at your ridiculous physics and finally even you will find out how stupid you are. Are you afraid to do this? Are you a slimy coward as well as a stupid troll? I think that might be the case. You expose your ignorance here but are far too afraid to expose it to someone who teaches the material you falsely believe you understand. Run coward, hide in the shadows of your ignorance. Tremble at the thought of exposing your pseudoscience and false teachings. Run coward, Run. Run and hide!
Norm, apparently the rabies vaccine is wearing off. Maybe you should get another shot?
But, since you rejected a wager about my technical background, are you now suggesting a wager over whether I could provide an email from a “University Professor”?
Yeah, I’m interested. Let me know if you accept, and we can set it up.
g*e*r*a*n
Since you seem interested in the idea. The wager would be to each of send our ideas of Heat Transfer to a Professor who teaches this topic, if they are willing to engage us, and post the results of his/her replies of our understanding on the topic, on this blog.
g*e*r*a*n
Did you want to wager on my background? Let me know, if you put up some money I can get the transcripts.
con-man, you’ve already changed your direction. You’ve completely changed the wording of your original challenge. You started out with “Thermodynamics”, and then you switched to “heat transfer”, among other changes.
You can’t even stick with your own words for 24 hours!
I think you were the one that stated: “Run coward, Run. Run and hide!”
Hilarious.
g*e*r*a*n
Since it is more than obvious you are not a particularly bright individual (stupid to be honest), I will try to help you out a bit on that difficult problem you see with my posts.
YOU: “con-man, youve already changed your direction. Youve completely changed the wording of your original challenge. You started out with Thermodynamics, and then you switched to heat transfer, among other changes.”
Hmm…maybe because heat transfer is a subset of thermodynamics. It is just limiting the discussion to a subset of the larger study.
Surely with the deep knowledge you claim to possess I should not have had to point something so obvious.
Here I can help: “If you know Venn diagrams then we can say that heat transfer is a subset of thermodynamics. ”
From this source:
https://www.quora.com/How-does-the-science-of-heat-transfer-differ-from-the-science-of-thermodynamics
Does that mean you no longer want to accept the challenge? Worried about wording changes that completely confused you and now you have no clear direction to follow? Sorry little man for upsetting our limited thought structure.
Do you do that on purpose? Every post you just make it seem as if you just got dumber, less able to reason, less ability to think.
I think soon I will quit responding to you. You are getting super boring with each post. I think your creativity stands around 1% but will probably go down if you post again.
G*,
I stand by my claim, of course, and tried to explain it to you at least dozen times. I even explained in language a 5th grader could understand, G*. You could not dispute what I said. You had no answers to my queries.
If you still fail to comprehend after all that, that is not my responsibility.
con-man, I see you’re conning yourself again.
Hilarious.
There’s nothing funnier thnt watching you try to climb out of the hole you dug!
More, please.
Nate, one thing that may be frustrating you is that you try to take on more than you can handle. So, let’s deal with your issues one at a time.
Issue 1) You cannot work the problem I gave you. I accept that. You were wrong, when you claimed that equation had value in a real-world situation. If you agree, we can move on to Issue 2.
g*e*r*a*n
YOU: “Theres nothing funnier thnt watching you try to climb out of the hole you dug!”
Wow you must have a really low bar on humor if you can think of nothing funnier that me pointing out that you have little ability to think and reason. You still don’t even know why you are an idiot, amazingly stupid. Maybe I should link to the John Cleese video again.
I don’t think you know what a subset means.
You don’t know what emissivity means, you don’t comprehend what an axis of rotation means, you have no understanding of the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics so you insert your own version of falsehood, you think a highly absorbing object becomes a reflector after a small temperature increase (that might actually be funny if you told that one to a science instructor.
con-man, to get out of that hole, you need to be moving UP, not down.
Hilarious.
G*,
What part of
“Your little quiz cannot be answered with the information given, pls show us your answer.
did you not understand? Do I need to repeat a dozen more times in different wording. Its already one sentence.
You are repeatedly making a claim about black bodies are not always black, G*.
This is a forum about science. People here , mostly, understand that if you continuously make the same claim without providing evidence, a cite, a calculation, etc. then you lose all credibility.
Show us the evidence or stop making the claim.
Nate, the point was that the equation is of little practical use. So, since you agree, we can move on to the next issue.
Issue 2: You indicated that I “avoided dealing with the fundamental issue”.
What was the “fundamental issue”, and where did I “avoid” it?
g: ‘You were wrong, when you claimed that equation had value in a real-world situation.’
Sorry, G* cannot agree. What an odd statement. The radiative heat transfer equation has significant value in the real world.
I suggest for the sake of making friends and influencing people, to try to be a little more pro-science on a science blog.
Nate, you’re going in circles. You love the equation, but you don’t know how to use it. You believe it “solves” the blue/green plate problem, but you can’t use it on a similar problem.
Hilarious.
“What was the fundamental issue, and
Where were you for the dozen comments I made in the last thread G*?
So one sentence to summarize a dozen posts:
The result of a NET transfer of heat to another object is a loss of internal energy in the object equal to the NET transfer of heat.
where did I avoid it?”
You have said a number of things that disagree with this (Go reread). This is simply 1LOT BTW.
To illustrate what the common understanding of what NET transfer means, I asked you “In a NET money transfer of $80 from Bob to me, do you or any of your family members disagree with Bobs wealth decreased by $80?”
And you have no answer.
“You love the equation, but you dont know how to use it. You believe it solves the blue/green plate problem, but you cant use it on a similar problem.”
Pointless playground taunts G*. Nobody cares.
“What was the fundamental issue”
I answered your question, G* . So….
Nate, your phrasing is too garbled. See if this is what you are trying to communicate:
“If an object A transfers heat energy to another object, object A has a corresponding loss in internal energy.”
I never disagreed with that. If you believe I did, show me.
Nate states: “Nobody cares.”
Nate, if you don’t care about the accuracy of your statements, and won’t correct them when wrong, you will never learn.
“Nate, if you dont care about the accuracy of your statements, and wont correct them when wrong, you will never learn.”
G: Nate, a block has a force of 1000 N on it. What is its acceleration?
N. Don’t know, not enough information
G: I thought you knew physics. You said Newtons law was useful in the real world.
N: Give me the mass of the block, and I can solve it with Newtons law.
G: He He (Beavis and Butthead voice). You said you knew physics. You said Newtons law was useful.
G: ”
G: ”
G: ”
This is the crap you are pulling, G*. Very mature.
Nothing garbled, G*, you just have no reading comprehension.
If an object A transfers heat energy to another object, object A has a corresponding loss in internal energy.”
You are trying to make it less precise, and therefore easier to agree with.
How about this?
If an object A has a NET heat energy transfer to another object, object A has an equal loss in internal energy.
Nate (at 10:37AM), you need to avoid “cute”, mis-representation, and the attempted insults. All that just indicates you are weak in science, and must resort to inappropriate tactics.
You stated the equation had value in the real world. I gave you a simple problem, with all of the information needed in the equation–both surface areas and both temperatures. Yet, you cannot solve the problem.
That should tell you something.
“If an object A has a NET heat energy transfer to another object, object A has an equal loss in internal energy.”
Where did I disagree with that?
” I gave you a simple problem, with all of the information needed in the equationboth surface areas and both temperatures.”
Then solve it yourself, G*. You clearly do not understand how to use the eqn and what information is needed. Ridiculous!
As I wrote previously, this is the information you left out:
“Thats dumb, G*. Give me VF, readily available in real world, then the eqn is useful.”
VF: View Factors
Nate, the view factors are the same as in the blue/green plate problem.
Why are you trying to confuse things?
“If an object A has a NET heat energy transfer to another object, object A has an equal loss in internal energy.
Where did I disagree with that?”
For example:
“Nate rambles: 80 is just the difference? What does difference mean to you?
g: difference is the net.
Nate rambles: Net was the word we were using. Net means something very precise. If we measure the reduction of internal energy of H we will find it is 80. Yes? If we measure the increase of internal energy of C it will be 80.
g: No, reduction of internal energy of H will be 100.”
Last line G: Net heat energy transfer is 80, You say reduction of internal energy of H will be 100.
No, G. Take responsibility for your own confusions:
g:”So as not to confuse you, make it objects, not plates.
“Net heat energy transfer is 80, You say reduction of internal energy of H will be 100.”
Okay, now I understand your confusion. You’re assuming the 20 is absorbed. It’s okay to believe that, if it helps you understand what is happening. But, you’re on dangerous ground. You are setting yourself up to be conned into believing that “20” will raise the temperature of the plate.
That’s exactly how they work the blue/green plate scam.
You’ve been warned.
Let me get this straight. You agree with this for this problem?
“If we measure the reduction of internal energy of H we will find it is 80. Yes? If we measure the increase of internal energy of C it will be 80.’
And you agree that that implies that H must have absorbed 20? The 20 emitted by the C?
See Nate, you’re getting confused again. You’re now saying:
H -> 100 – 80 = 20
C -> 20 + 80 = 100
To understand how ridiculous this is, use temperature, which corresponds to internal energy:
H -> 100 K – 80 K = 20 K
C -> 20 K + 80 K = 100 K
I don’t think even a rabid, yelping chihuahua would agree with that. (But, you never know about a rabid, yelping chihuahua.)
Here’s “real-world”:
H -> 100 K – 60 K = 60 K
C -> 20K + 60K = 60 K
Should be:
Heres real-world:
H -> 100 K – 40 K = 60 K
C -> 20K + 40K = 60 K
(I’ll never learn to stop laughing before commenting!)
“See Nate, youre getting confused again. Youre now saying:
H -> 100 80 = 20
C -> 20 + 80 = 100”
Not sure what you mean here, you have not labeled what these numbers are.
What we were talking is Net Heat transfer = 80, Net reduction in internal energy of H =80.
Net increase in internal energy of C =80.
Now how does this NET come about
H emits 100 absorbs 20 20-100 = -80 net (- means reduction)
C emits 20 absorbs 100 100-20 = 80 net
“To understand how ridiculous this is, use temperature, which corresponds to internal energy:
H -> 100 K 80 K = 20 K
C -> 20 K + 80 K = 100 K”
Yes thats ridiculous -cant convert to K like that. that just leads to more confusion.
Nate: “Not sure what you mean here, you have not labeled what these numbers are.”
g: You dropped the units upthread, I followed.
Nate: “can’t convert to K like that. that just leads to more confusion.”
No Nate, the confusion is all on your part because you don’t have a background in physics. Here, since both objects are exactly the same, you can just use temperature as a representation of internal energy. (I just picked easy values, for demonstration. You could do all the actual calculations, and assume some realistic value of heat capacity, and the result would be the same.)
So temperatures make it easy to see the fallacy of your beliefs.
‘No Nate, the confusion is all on your part because you dont have a background in physics. ” Not sure where that came from? Weird.
Lets take one step back, since I am not sure where we’re at.
Do you still agree with this?
If an object A has a NET heat energy transfer to another object, object A has an equal loss in internal energy.
If you agree with that then the numbers for these (whatever unit) should be equal. So if 80, then 80.
I see what happened. No the conversion you used to get K is a bad choice, because it gives HUGE changes in abs Temp. The changes need to be small or else you will get absurd temps, as you did.
Suppose 80 energy leads to 0.8 K temp change. TH drops 0.8K and TC rises 0.8K.
Nate, your 3 comments (4:44, 4:48, and 5:00) are nearly incomprehensible. It appears you just had a quick thought, submitted it, 4 minutes later had another quick thought, submitted it, then 2 minutes later had another quick thought, and submitted it.
You did not take the time to make your thoughts clear to me. It is not my job to try to guess what you are thinking. I am not a mind reader.
Take your time, compose only one comment at a time, keep it as understandable, and concise, as possible.
Thank you.
How bout look at the first comment and answer the question. Otherwise ill just repeat it.
“So temperatures make it easy to see the fallacy of your beliefs.”
The fallacy derived from following the facts where they lead from the statement you agreed with,
“If an object A has a NET heat energy transfer to another object, object A has an equal loss in internal energy.”
but then making odd assumptions.
Your statement
“H -> 100 80 = 20
C -> 20 + 80 = 100”
Again this doesnt make sense to me.
I would say it this way:
H emits 100 absorbs 20 for a net transfer of 80
C emits 20 absorbs 100 for a net transfer of 80
so maybe could written as
H: 20 -100 = -80
C: 100 -20 = 80
Yes, “concise” and “understandable” this time, please.
Nate, it seems you have left without addressing the issues, AGAIN.
Obviously you were wrong when you stated that the equation was “extremely useful in the real world”. You gave it your best shot, trying to obfuscate and re-direct. But, you were faced with the fact that you accepted the solution of the original plates problem. You found the equation perfectly fine, in that imaginary situation, but you could not apply it to my simple test.
Hilarious.
So, since you’ve apparently vacated this sub-thread, I will too.
G*, you are deranged.
After baiting me into re-engaging on this topic of what NET heat transfer means, you’re now uncomfortable with the fact that you were proven wrong, so YOU are vacating, not me.
Now all youve got left is poor attempts at insults.
“Obviously you were wrong when you stated that the equation was extremely useful in the real world. You gave it your best shot, trying to obfuscate and re-direct.”
G* I dont know where you went while I was proving that YOU did not give enough information to solve your ridiculous quiz, and your playground taunts about that were were utterly stupid.
You did not understand view factors, and that they were not given by you. Therefore your ‘quiz’ could not be solved.
The radiative heat transfer equation is, of course, very useful in the real world.
Clearly you think any equation that you personally dont know how or when to use is, by definition, not useful in the real world.
You did not understand view factors, and that they were not given by you.
Here is the proof:
G: ‘So as not to confuse you, make it objects, not plates’
G:’Nate, the view factors are the same as in the blue/green plate problem.’
FYI, objects that are ‘not plates’ and not even of the same area, do not have VF ‘same as in the blue/green plate problem’
Nate; it is you that doesn’t understand view factors. I told you that you could use the same as the plate problem. View factors were not what messed you up. It was the fact that you couldn’t work the equation.
View factors just indicate how much of the radiation arrives the other surface. For example, if the VF is 1.0, that means 100% arrives. That was assumed in the plate problem, and I indicated you could assume the same.
You were just looking for excuses to evade admitting you were wrong. I see it all the time. But, you’re not fooling anyone, except yourself.
It’s fun to watch.
Now, what are you going to do, keep commenting here trying to mask your incompetence, or get a life?
Hilarious.
“I indicated you could assume the same.”
No, no you didnt, not until much much after the fact. Even then it is wrong. In plates problem it is not ‘assumed’ to be 1.0, it actually IS 1.0. For an arbitrary object it is not 1.0.
G, Just stop pretending you know what you are talking about. It just makes you look stupider.
And why give, and endlessly harp on, a quiz that has no purpose? What was your point?
We all know that the equation is useful in the real world, especially if VF are used.
Your insistence that it is not just confirms your anti-science attitude.
Nate, you relentless, rude, reveler!
You couldn’t solve the simple problem, proving my point that the equation is useless in the real world.
Get a grip on reality.
G* Here is your ridiculous problem that you’ve wasted so much of OUR time on as you stated it. If you think this problem is SOLVABLE as given, prove it. Go ahead and solve it for us.
“Well Nate, it seems you are convinced the equation is useful in the real world. Im sure you would be willing to prove that you know what youre talking about. So, heres a little problem, just so no one will think you built yourself a trap.
Object A has a surface area of 800 m^2, and a temperature of 400K.
Object B has a surface area of 100 m^2, and a temperature of 500K.
What is the net Q between the plates?
g*e*r*a*n says:
January 13, 2018 at 6:26 PM
So as not to confuse you, make it objects, not plates.
As in: What is the net Q between the objects?
You’ve not heard a single thing Ive said.
“You couldnt solve the simple problem, proving my point that the equation is useless in the real world.”
Not a solvable problem , G, you F*king idiot.
How far apart are the objects? Not given
Are the surfaces facing each other? Not given
Not plates, maybe spheres or peanuts? Not given
Just like the Newtons Law problem I gave you. Pointless.
Nate finally understands why the equation is of little value in the real world.
How far apart are the objects? Not given
Are the surfaces facing each other? Not given
Not plates, maybe spheres or peanuts? Not given
Of course, none of these matter using the same view factors as the original problem. But, poor Nate still doesn’t understand view factors.
And now, he’s even starting to foam at the mouth–“G, you F*king idiot.”
It’s fun to watch.
“Of course, none of these matter using the same view factors as the original problem. But, poor Nate still doesnt understand view factors.”
Oh I see. I didnt realize I was supposed travel forward in time a day, to find out that you meant something entirely different than what you wrote, G.
BTW, all of the ‘Not Given’ items affect VF, idiot.
Take responsibility for your own stupidity.
Dont put it on me.
‘And now, hes even starting to foam at the mouth’
I am pissed because you wasted so much of my time with a pointless stupidity, a ‘lets try to humiliate Nate’ game, but epically failing at it.
G thinks it is NOT POSSIBLE in the real world to know how far apart objects are, their angle wrt each other, their shape. Thats why he didnt specify these things, they just cant be known.
Hint G, all these things can be measured and known for objects. Then the useful eqn can of course be applied.
The only you proved is that you dont understand proof, and many many other things.
Nate, keep explaining how hard it is to apply that equation in the real world. You’re making my point for me!
Hilarious.
Actually, this discussion about lunar rotation around its own axis reminds me this:
https://theflatearthsociety.org/home/
I agree Bin. It’s the “cult mentality”. They “believe”, and facts and logic don’t affect them. They envision that horse rotating on his axis as he runs the oval track. Reality doesn’t phase them at all.
It’s fun to watch.
G*
The diagram you posted shows the green plate radiating 200 w/m^2…….to itself!
You’re OK with this situation?
https://postimg.org/image/y9etf4d8p/
You could, of course, ask MikeR to fix the problem and change the arrow’s color from green to blue.
Oh no!!! Then the blue plate would be emitting 200 watts to the left and 400 to the right.
Settle down, snake. The graphic is correct as is.
The green plate radiates to itself?
The green plate emits in both directions. The emission, to the left, is reflected by the blue plate, as indicated in the graphic. The emission to the left, and the reflection, effectively cancel. So the only way heat energy can leave the green plate is to the right.
g*
Got it. The green plate absorbs energy from the blue, but the blue plate cannot absorb energy from the green, even though both plates are the same temperature.
You don’t see a flaw with this?
Snape
If you choose to communicate with g*e*r*a*n you must first accept he does not know any physics at all except what he makes up. He is an idiot but is not aware of this.
He just makes up physics and everyone is supposed to believe him. He is a delusional idiot.
The only reason I post comments to him is to direct any readers to correct and real physics. In his delusional world anything he makes up is real.
He does not just do it with his make believe physics. He also comes up with really stupid theories about other posters then he thinks he is right about them. Blithering delusional idiot.
You should check out the John Cleese video I linked him to. It is very descriptive of this stupid troll.
The con-man must have finished washing the dishes.
Stupid Troll
snake, I didn’t see your comment above until now. Sorry
snake states: “Got it. The green plate absorbs energy from the blue, but the blue plate cannot absorb energy from the green, even though both plates are the same temperature. You dont see a flaw with this?”
There’s no flaw. You may be confused that energy is flowing between the two plates that are nearly at the same temperature. But, the energy is being forced from an external source. If there were no external source, and the plates were at the same temperature, then there would be no net energy flow between them.
A mysterious force prevents the blue from absorbing green’s energy?
Scary.
The g* – force
Sorry snake, there’s no “mysterious force”. It’s just that ol’ 2LoT that is so hated by purveyors of pseudoscience.
G* amends the 2LOT:
“When we consider two surfaces with the same temperature, one will absorb the others energy, and one will not”
???
g*
The 2LOT does not support the above statement, does it? But that’s exactly the situation we see in your diagram.
It seems you are confused by the fact that heat energy is moving between the two plates of nearly equal temperatures. I think it was either miker or Nate that had this same problem.
In this situation, you have to realize how the plates get their temperatures. They are heated by the source. The energy from the source flows first to the blue plate, and then to the green plate. The plate temperatures are NOT determined by each other. The plate temperatures are determined by the energy they each receive.
The blue plate reaches its equilibrium temp of 244K. That is the highest temperature it can reach, with only the 400 Watts/m^2 source. Its temperature is established ONLY by the source. The green plate does NOT affect blue plate temperature.
The green plate reaches it’s equilibrium temp, very close to 244K. That is the highest temperature it can reach, with only the 200 Watts/m^2 from blue plate. The green plate is “down stream” of the blue plate, in the energy flow. Consequently, its temperature is established ONLY by the energy from the blue plate. It receives 200 Watts from the blue plate, but can only transfer heat energy from one side.
There are NO violations of 2LoT, just a lot of misunderstanding and confusion.
Let’s summarize your analysis:
The green plate, at 244 K, is able to receive energy from the blue. Sadly, the blue plate, although also at 244 K, is not allowed to behave in kind, as that would be in violation of the 2LOT.
How is this poor plate able to deflect what would otherwise be considered perfectly acceptable radiation?
The answer lies in what has been described as a “source force”, which miraculously turned one side of the blue plate into a perfect mirror!
Nice work, g*!
A reference to myself by the deluded one has summoned me from my slumber so I will once again briefly break my resolution to not comment re this individuals remarkably ignorant contributions.
With respect to the green plate only emitting radiation from one side, Messrs Stefan and Boltzmann must be spinning around their respective axes in their graves.
The green plate is a single blackbody that by definition has the same temperature at all surfaces, see the end of the first paragraph of
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black-body_radiation .
and references 1 to 4 at the end of the Wiki.
Accordingly to S-B both plates emit equally in both directions.
Oh perfect! Just as I’m shutting down for the night, I see miker’s entry. He’s always good for a laugh, and a hearty laugh is great for a good sleep.
miker has to use “cute”, because he has no science. He believes he can get by on “cute”, and maybe throw in an immature insult, if necessary. It’s fun to watch.
So, in this comment, he forgets how many times I had him revise his graphic, just to get it right. He could not understand. And, even now, he is still confused. Like I said, he has NO science.
Here, he claims the green plate is emitting from only one side. But, his own graphic indicates it emits from BOTH sides. Like many of the confused, he just cannot learn. He always gets something wrong.
And, to add to the comedy, he links to wiki! The confused often link to wiki, because they believe that makes up for their lack of science. Hilarious.
Now, for a great night of slumber.
Sleep well Noddy.
My comment was related to your statement
” It receives 200 Watts from the blue plate, but can only transfer heat energy from one side.”
Do you now disown this statement? That would be progress.
By the way i commented above that the wiki has links to four papers. Have you read each of the four and found something that contradicts the Wiki? If so let us all know and then you can edit the Wiki accordingly.
What part of the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics makes the claim that a hot plate cannot absorb any energy from a colder plate. This seems what all the pseudoSkeptics base their rejection of GHE upon.
I want any of the alleged skeptics find one valid support of their mistaken assumption that the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics makes the claim that radiant energy from a cold plate cannot be absorbed by a hotter one. They will find none. They do not understand the Law and jump to a false conclusion from it.
The only thing stated by the 2nd Law is that HEAT will not flow spontaneously from a cold body to a hotter one. It makes zero claim that energy will not flow or that this energy will not be absorbed.
Only in delusion land is this a reality. In the real world of physics this claim is never made and the opposite is actually claimed. The deluded cling to their false belief and argue with the people who know better.
Here again: “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.”
It states it quite clearly. Will the skeptics be able to grasp this? Or will they maintain their deluded beliefs based upon nothing. Not one of the skeptics has provided any proof of their position. They repeat their point endlessly but NEVER support it with any valid science. I think this group of skeptics is really bad for the real skeptics like Roy Spencer. They smear the movement with their illogical and unscientific views.
miker treats us to more comedy.
He could not figure out that the green arrow leaving the green plate indicated that the green plate was emitting to the left!
Now, he can not figure out that the green arrow reflected from the blue plate indicates there is no heat energy transfer from green to blue.
And, then he tries to make it appear that I am the one confused: “Do you now disown this statement?”
The guy has absolutely NO understanding of physics.
But, he’s hilarious.
And the con-man returns with another long, rambling comment in which he asks for “evidence” that “cold” can not warm “hot”. He is always asking for “evidence”. He can not figure anything out for himself. His own comment includes the “evidence” he is looking for: “Work is required to transfer net energy to the hot object.”
But, he is blind to the truth.
2018 is going to be a GREAT year in climate comedy!
Young snake has now commented about 6 times. He is obviously confused about the physics of the correct solution to the plates problem. Unable to understand, he keeps coming up with new false interpretations:
* the green plate is radiating to itself
* the blue plate can not absorb, but the green plate can
* there is a “mysterious force”
* he believes the correct solution violates 2LoT
* and now, it’s a “perfect mirror”!
And, the funniest part is that he sees nothing wrong with the incorrect solution!
Hilarious.
Trying to pretend your own analysis is mine? Sad.
Here, again, is the nonsense your diagram asserts (nice summary, BTW):
* the green plate is radiating to itself
* the blue plate can not absorb, but the green plate can
* there is a mysterious force
* the author (g*) believes the correct solution violates 2LoT
* and now, its a perfect mirror!
And, the funniest part is the author sees nothing wrong with the incorrect solution!
https://postimg.org/image/y9etf4d8p/
Here, also, is my parody of his green plate analysis (from upthread). It seems to have touched a nerve:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2018/01/uah-global-temperature-update-for-december-2017-0-41-deg-c/?replytocom=280471#respond
g*e*r*a*n
Maybe if you would actually read something rather than scanning it to try and finding something you think agrees with you I will help you. I know you have a severe limit attention span.
From the link on the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics:
“Energy can transfer from the cold object to the hot object either by transfer of energetic particles or electromagnetic radiation”
Is that plain enough for you? That is established physics. You don’t accept it. Your loss and no one else’s.
Also explain to me how a horse’s head that is facing North (as it begins a race) faces South half way around the track can do this without rotation? How does a head point North and then South with no rotation?
snake, trying to deny those are your thoughts doesn’t work when your own comments are just above!
Not too bright, but that makes it even funnier.
G*
It’s your name on the diagram, not mine.
Not a big deal, though. I’m sure MikeR would be happy to correct any of its many errors.
con-man, you’re just as incompetent as the 12-year-old.
You’re trying to “spin” your own quote:
“Energy can transfer from the cold object to the hot object either by transfer of energetic particles or electromagnetic radiation”
You left out the rest of it:
“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.”
You’re as inept at “spin” as you are at physics.
Hilarious.
And poor Norm still confuses “orbiting” with “rotating on an axis”.
This is going to be a fantastic year in climate comedy.
snake spouts: “Not a big deal, though. Im sure MikeR would be happy to correct any of its many errors.”
g stated, upthread: “Settle down, snake. The graphic is correct as is.”
Congratulations snake, you made a complete 360 degree orbit.
(Next, you can learn about “rotating on you axis”.)
Hilarious.
Snape and Norman
With regard to
https://s20.postimg.org/av6u36vbh/I_m_with_stupid.jpg,
I now have some regret that I aided and abetted this intellectual atrocity which illustrates the shortcomings of its proponent. I am bemused that this ridiculous representation is now worn proudly as a badge of courage by the deranged individual.
The addition of a green arrow to represent radiation simultaneously leaving the green plate and re-entering the same plate (presumably leaving as, the colour coding was meant to indicate radiation leaving a plate of the corresponding colour, despite the direction of the arrow showing it entering) was a novel touch
However, maybe we can go with something more ornate. Perhaps more green and blue arrows (not sure about the colour scheme, I was always taught green and blue should never go together). We could have enough arrows traversing in opposite directions to recreate a medieval battle scene and commission a tapestry.
Additionally If we use a multiplicity of narrow arrows to represent the trajectories of single photons, or a single wide arrow to represent a bundle, then we could also cover Kristian’s distinction between micro and macro.
MikeR
I like your idea of a battle scene.
You could create a miniature “Game of Thrones”, where soldiers defend the blue plate from hordes of invading photons. G* would love it.
g*e*r*a*n
Despite some lame hope on my part (that you might possess even a little ability to think or reason or even understand what words mean) it appears with you there is not even the slightest of hope. Your stupidity has no limit! You really are stupid though and you can’t read at all.
You attempt (a rather poor attempt) to make fun of me.
YOU: “con-man, youre just as incompetent as the 12-year-old.
Youre trying to spin your own quote:
Energy can transfer from the cold object to the hot object either by transfer of energetic particles or electromagnetic radiation
You left out the rest of it:
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.
Youre as inept at spin as you are at physics.”
You can’t read. The part left out states NET you buffoon. Stupid human! You don’t know what NET means and I don’t have time to explain it to you.
You also don’t know what the word rotate means or what an axis of rotation means. You are just a stupid person and you don’t know how stupid you are. John Cleese can help you.
Wow, what a treat!
miker and the con-man, performing together (one night only).
miker: 0% science, 100% “cute”
Norm: 0% science, 100% desperation
Hilarious.
It’s going to be a great year in climate comedy.
g*e*r*a*n
100% total idiot
1% humor
Poor Norm doesn’t understand percentages. Just like he doesn’t understand physics.
Hilarious.
g*e*r*a*n
Since you are unable to understand that there can be more than one type of characteristic.
Intelligence g*e*r*a*n: 100% idiot
Humor g*e*r*a*n: After your last post you upped it to 2%
Keep going with your clever humor and you might actually get someone to LOL or even better ROFLOL. Based upon your creativity of 3% (I would give this a higher number but I don’t think you make up your own bad physics but get it from others) I would think in 100 or 200 years from now you might achieve a LOL from some poster. I wish you well in this endeavor. You have a much better chance of making a person laugh out loud than you do of understanding real physics.
G* – “he can not figure out that the green arrow reflected from the blue plate indicates there is no heat energy transfer from green to blue.”
No I cannot figure that out. Nor anyone with a basic physics education.
As others have pointed out to the deranged dimwit, that a black-body, again by definition, absorbs all energy (he must have wondered why it is called black) and reflects zero ( which is commensurate with the IQ of someone who would thinks that a black-body would reflect energy).
I think I might have worked it out. According to the deranged one, the blue plate cannot be a black-body because it is blue.
Perhaps it would help if you stopped conflating *energy* with *heat*.
miker explains some of his confusion: “As others have pointed out, a black-body, again by definition, absorbs all energy and reflects zero”
miker, a black body is used for educational purposes. But, even then, you can NOT use the concept to violate the laws of thermo. Doing so just throws you in the pit of pseudoscience.
If you ever come upon a situation where “cold” is warming “hot”, without new energy, then you need to reverse directions, lest you fall in the pit.
Halp, yes the distinction is often blurred and conflated in different contexts.
G ” combines them into the single term “heat energy transfer” (see my previous comment). Should I follow suit? I would likewise be happy to do so.
It would be a pityto get bogged down in semantics.
I know this has been done to death, but g* should show the courage of his convictions and take a trip outside for a couple of hours in light weight summer clothing. If he wants to be really adventurous he could go naked and risk frost bite to various appendages.
This would be a good practical test of his assertions.
That’s “cute”, miker.
It’s also Number 1 on the Pseudoscience LIst:
Putting on a sweater proves cold can warm “hot”.
Without “cute” and pseudoscience, you wouldn’t be able to make a comment, huh?
Well, heat is a type of energy, so *heat energy* makes sense. But, though heat is energy, energy is not always heat; and thats the distinction you dont seem to be making.
Halp,
Could you elaborate? What particular aspect of the plate calculations change if you consider heat and energy to be distinct entities?
G* your rapid response indicates you must have prematurely terminated the experiment. My suggestion was several hours so that you reach equilibrium. Maybe overnight could do.
It might be wise to take a down jacket with you. Even if the jacket becomes cold to touch even after a short while, it could be a better option than having your flesh exposed to the cold air.
Nope, I cant be bothered to play games.
Halp you seemed to convey such an air of authority. But when challenged you just take off with your (cricket/baseball depending on the local sporting paradigm) bat and refuse to participate. This is often referred to as behaving like a sore loser but i think we can dispense with the sore adjective.
miker, you’ve already used that “cute” and that pseudoscience.
Surely you can come up with something new?
I realize there is no hope for anything substantive.
Yes, those sort of games you like to play. Cant be bothered to play them. I just pointed out something to try to help. Dont worry about it, over your head I guess.
MikeR
Mike Flynn said clothes are only useful for keeping a person cool, and only a foolish warmist would suggest otherwise. It looks like g* and Halp agree.
Let’s hope they at least wear shorts.
No Snape,
I think nude below the waist would be the way to go. We could have one of the duo totally naked and the other clothed above the waist as a control.
Assuming they are both appropriately equipped, measurements of shrinkage of the relevant organ could be used as an indicator of each participant’s core temperature.
These two could finally be put to use in the service of science and if they don’t survive they could still be good organ donors.
I am getting the grant application ready.
Lol!
I think youve taken those *cute* comments the wrong way.
It’s fun to watch the little children play.
g*e*r*a*n says:
January 11, 2018 at 8:30 AM
I agree Bin. Its the ‘cult mentality’.
No, you certainly do not agree.
Because in fact I meant here your opinion (followed by some commenters).
I recall a link contained in one of my earlier comments:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tidal_locking
To refute that without any valuable scientific proof is exactly your ‘cult mentality’.
Bin, I can never tell if you are confused, or if you just have a problem with translation.
The “tidal locking” is just more proof that the Moon does NOT rotate on its axis. Do you not understand “tidal locking”? It means the Moon can NOT rotate on its axis. It “orbits”, but it does not “rotate on its axis”.
Does that help?
g*e*r*a*n says:
January 11, 2018 at 1:48 PM
A tidally locked body in synchronous rotation takes just as long to rotate around its own axis as it does to revolve around its partner.
*
Does that help?
So, in simple words, do you believe the Moon rotates on its axis?
So, in not less simpler words, do you deny the sentence
A tidally locked body in synchronous rotation takes just as long to rotate around its own axis as it does to revolve around its partner.
published above at at 1:56 PM, when it is applied to the Moon?
Bin, simple words like “yes” or “no”.
Do you believe the Moon rotates on its axis?
Maybe if I translate for you.
Est-ce que la Lune tourne sur son axe?
Oui ou non?
g*e*r*a*n on January 11, 2018 at 3:11 PM
So, in simple words, do you believe the Moon rotates on its axis?
*
One believes in God. One agrees to Science.
I do not BELIEVE what has been written, copied below:
Tidal locking results in the Moon rotating about its axis in about the same time it takes to orbit Earth.
I AGREE to it. That is different.
*
And now I ask you again: do you deny the sentence
A tidally locked body in synchronous rotation takes just as long to rotate around its own axis as it does to revolve around its partner.
published above at at 1:56 PM, when it is applied to the Moon?
Simple words like ‘yes’ or ‘no’.
No.
(See how simple that is? No equivocation, no wavering, no dodging, no delaying, just a straight-forward answer.)
January 11, 2018 at 1:48 PM
Okay, I shouldn’t try to confuse you anymore. You have trouble with the language, and that’s not your fault.
Let me see if I can un-confuse you.
When I answered “no”, I was responding to your “do you deny the sentence”. I was trying to be funny, and I shouldn’t do that, with our language problems. I do not deny that that is a sentence. But, I DO deny the content of the sentence.
Hope that clears it up. With our problems of communication, I won’t try to “mess you up” anymore.
But you don’t confuse me!
I need a lot more than your trivial denialist stuff to get confused.
Okay, good to know.
German?
Rotiert der Mond um seine Achse?
Ja oder Nein?
Ich stimme dieser Auffassung zu. (Ich kann nicht ‘Ja’ schreiben, da ich kein Astronom bin.)
This was the correct question, avoiding the word ‘believe’.
Ya, klar.
Und Frauen haben keine Schwnze, du Schwachkopf.
Ja.
That’s the full extent of my German but I have a number of Yiddish expressions that could be used to describe a deranged moron.
MikeR on January 12, 2018 at 1:58 AM
Norman on January 12, 2018 at 6:05 AM
To your replies to this strange, unsound skepticism let me add this (not for the first time on Roy Spencer’s site):
THE MECHANICAL THEORY OF HEAT
THIRD, REWRITTEN AND COMPLETED EDITION.
FIRST VOLUME.
SECTION XII.
The concentration of heat and light beams and the limits of their effect.
1. Subject of the investigation.
What further regards heat radiation as happening in the usual manner, it is known that not only the warm body radiates heat to the cold one but that the cold body radiates to the warm one as well, however the total result of this simultaneous double heat exchange is, as can be viewed as evidence based on experience, that the cold body always experiences an increase in heat at the expense of the warmer one.
Written by… Rudolf Clausius, 1887.
Interesting…. Link?
https://archive.org/details/diemechanischewr00clau
binny…it’s in German!!! David could not even understand it in English.
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”.
This has already been explained to you but you’re too daft to comprehend the explanation.
I read that when I read the book by Clausius and you have taken it totally out of context. In the days of Clausius and even as much later as the turn of the 20th century, he and Planck were referring to electromagnetic energy as heat rays. Neither understood at the time that heat was not being radiated through space, that heat was being converted to EM, which was radiated through space.
Electron theory did not begin till the 1890s, long after Clausius did his research. He was not even alive in the 1890s. It was not till circa 1912 that Bohr put it all together based on electron theory and demonstrated how electrons convert heat to EM.
The fact that you’d quote Clausius out of context is a testimony to your overall ignorance of the role played by electrons in EM transmission and to your failure to understand that heat is not exchanged via radiation. Heat cannot be transferred from a cooler body to a hotter body for the simple reason that electrons cannot absorb EM from a cooler source.
At no time did Clausius infer that heat could be transferred from a colder body to a warmer body, he stuck by the 2nd law even for radiation. Your quote is a tiny misstatement in an otherwise brilliant analogy of heat theory.
Norman:
Mark Twain “Never argue with an idiot. They will drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.”
Oh, most of us know not to argue with you, davie.
(Walmart is now paying $11/hr, starting! Never look a gift horse in the mouth.)
David Appell
I agree 100% that g*e*r*a*n is and idiot. One of the dumbest people I have ever interacted with. I know it makes me look stupid to argue with this idiot. Every once in a great while I seem to think one can reason with this moron, then he reminds me of how really stupid he is.
Have you seen John Cleese describe this babbling baboon?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wvVPdyYeaQU
g*e*r*a*n is so stupid with physics he is unable to understand how stupid he is. You have to know some physics to be able to know how stupid your ideas are. G*e*r*a*n has a zero science background. He pretends to know things by looking up some words on google. Push his knowledge and he runs away like a scarred rabbit screaming like a frightened child.
I do like that you ignore this idiot. I think if everyone replied to his posts with “Stupid Troll” he might get a clue, but with his limited thought process he would probably be proud of himself to get even one response. You are the smarter of posters to totally ignore this troll.
Con-man, I hope folks realize you are just performing as a climate clown. Otherwise, they might think that you are mentally disturbed.
g*e*r*a*n
The creativity of thought to come up with that original and unique comment will boost your creativity from a 3% to a 4%. Based upon my earlier projection of when you might achieve your first LOL from some poster (I had it between 100 and 200 years) I think you might get your LOL in 50 to 100 years from now. Keep working on that creativity and you might go as high as a 5%. Just think what physics you could make up then. You might get close to Gordon Robertson. I think your will have to get to at least 10% to get close to Kristian’s level. Good luck, I wish you well!
We catch davie and con-man “avoiding” me, AGAIN!
It’s fun to watch.
Norman, if I were you, I’d ignore him too. I know it’s not easy at first, but eventually it becomes easy & like a torture you are inflicting on him on a regular basis.
He’s a lying boob. He has nothing at all except snark. He will ever change. Rise above him and his level. He’s not worthy of you and your clear efforts to better understand the science.
$11/hr, davie.
That’s more than you’ve ever made, isn’t it?
mikeR says, January 11, 2018 at 4:47 PM:
No, it couldn’t. If you think that, you don’t understand what a “radiative flux” is.
Not “semantics”, mikeR. “Physics”. As opposed to “mathematics”. You know, physics and mathematics are NOT the same thing. As Feynman put it: “One helps the other.”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MZZPF9rXzes
You all consistently use a QUANTUM approach to solve a THERMO problem. You can’t do that. The approach (method) and the problem to be solved are at completely and fundamentally different levels of reality. They are totally unrelatable. They do not address the same phenomena, not even the same kinds of phenomena. Just like your couch and the atoms it’s made of. You simply cannot go down to the quantum level, look at an individual “couch atom”, and tell from how it behaves – quantum mechanically – that this is in fact a “couch atom”, rather than, say, a “human atom” or a “bug atom” or a “tree atom” or a “house atom” or an “earth atom”. Likewise, you can’t tell the temperature of a macroscopic object by looking at single (or a “bundle” of) atoms or molecules inside that object. Individual atoms and molecules DON’T HAVE temperature. “Temperature” isn’t a quantum phenomenon. It is not a property of microscopic entities. It simply doesn’t “exist” at the quantum level. And still it’s very much a real phenomenon. Just like thermal (by definition – bulk, macroscopic) transfers of energy in the universe don’t violate the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, that is, they never move spontaneously from cold to hot, even though MICROscopic (quantum) transfers of energy do so all the time. This is because the MACROscopic realm and everything in it exist IN “the thermodynamic limit”, while the MICROscopic realm and everything in it exist OUTSIDE “the thermodynamic limit”.
Whenever you “bundle together” (average) a number of photons beyond a certain point, you ‘cross’ the thermodynamic limit and enter the MACROscopic (THERMO) realm. At this point, individual photons and their individual influence on anything vanish from existence – from the particular LEVEL of existence that you have entered. You can’t hang on to the individual existence and relevance of your photons and STILL expect to operate within the THERMO realm.
A “radiative flux” (MACRO) is the equivalent of “air temperature”. A “photon” (MICRO) is the equivalent of an “air molecule”. The (statistical/probabilistic) AVERAGE velocity of ALL (!!) air molecules within a certain volume of bulk air gives the TEMPERATURE of that volume of air. Just like the (statistical/probabilistic) AVERAGE spatial direction and frequency of ALL (!!) photons within a certain radiation field gives the RADIATIVE FLUX through that radiation field.
Macroscopic reality doesn’t operate in “sub-wholes”. It’s either ALL or NOTHING. So whenever you see a thermo problem divided into macroscopic subsets of the whole, you KNOW that what you’re dealing with is simply a MATHEMATICAL METHOD, specifically employed to solve the problem, rather than an authentic physical description of the macroscopic reality itself. The most authentic physical description of the macroscopic reality of energy transfers is provided by statistical mechanics, not by simplified mathematical representations of reality such as the Stefan-Boltzmann equation. Which is why quotes such as this are extremely important to read and get:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/12/uah-global-temperature-update-for-november-20170-36-deg-c/#comment-276872
You find them irrelavant, mikeR, because you’re not getting what I’m talking about. You’re not getting what I’m getting at, what these quotes actually tell you. Because you don’t want to, it appears …
You claim I contort and confuse. I don’t. You’re projecting.
I maybe showing my age but I think the early 70s band King Crimson may have confabulators like Kristian in mind when they coined the lyric “confusion will be my epitaph” .
Kristian points out the self evident truth, that maths and physics are not identical. It just a fact of life that without a mathematical underpinning, physics is confined to primarily qualitive approaches such as hand waving. This is why the overwhelming majority of physics papers contain significant and sometimes copious amounts of maths. This can be also be a method to distinguish physics from metaphysics and most branches of philosophy,.
With respect to the converse, of course mathematics without physics is just pure mathematics.
To get back to more practical matters, I have to hark back to the parallel plate thought experiment that has dominated discussions here. I am really not sure why Kristian would insist on introducing material that is marginally or totally irrelevant, such as alluding to the temperature of air molecules (“are we going back to the smoke and mirrors of photon gases?) to a relatively simple scenario of blackbody plates in a vacuum.
Kristian also now appears to object to using the Stefan Boltzmann equation to calculate the total energy emitted by a surface at a particular temperature presumably because it is quantum based. Does he have an alternative quantum free pmethod? The material he back links to above , just involves the calculation of fluxes using geometry. This is at best marginally relevant to the case of infinite plates where all the radiation emitted by one of the plates is intercepted by the other plate. i.e the view factor is one.
For those with limited understanding of physics, the practical effect of the distinction Kristian is trying to make is confusing and for those who purport, like myself, to have a somewhat better understanding, it just as confusing.
Maybe we are all too dumb to appreciate his unacknowledged genius. However, if he could provide even a single link to where his pioneering approach, via “the most authentic physical description of macroscopic reality” has been of utility then I might reconsider my view that his skills should be employed elsewhere. A chef would be a good career in light of his latest strictly vegetarian waffle sandwich.
MikeR…”Kristian points out the self evident truth, that maths and physics are not identical. It just a fact of life that without a mathematical underpinning, physics is confined to primarily qualitive approaches such as hand waving”.
You are taking Kristian out of context. He did not say math was of no use or that physics could exist without math. He was referring to applying math without awareness of the reality being observed. Such practices have lead to ridiculous notions like the Big Bang, time dilation, space-time curvature, and such ridiculous notions that gravity is not a force related to mass but an anomaly in a space-time continuum.
In the early days of quantum theory, Bohr took the theory into the land of airey fairie mathematics, even though he had earlier done stellar work developing basic atomic theory. Einstein and Schrodinger refused to accompany him both claiming physics studied real entities and not mathematical obfuscations. Quantum theory as practiced today is unfortunately based on Bohr’s sci-fi post 1930.
When you study physics from a purely mathematical vantage point you stand a good chance of immersing yourself in distortions of the human mind. The notion that time is real and can be treated as a real parameter leads to nonsense like space-time theory. Space-time exists only in the human mind as an illusion in which time is real.
Time was invented by humans based on the period of the Earth’s rotation. All time is tied to that phenomenon. That came from Max Planck. He claimed further that the concepts of pressure, density and temperature were also invented by humans: pressure based on the atmospheric pressure at sea level, density on the gram weight and a cc volume of water, and temperature on the freezing and boiling points of water.
I value mathematics as does Kristian. However, physics and mathematics, as he claimed, enable each other. One should never trust conclusions reached by mathematics alone if a physical reality cannot be explained by it. On the other hand, propositions in physics should stand up to mathematical analysis.
Many scientists have claimed that from Feynman to Bohm and Einstein to Shrodinger. In fact, Bohm went so far as to claim that any equation that lacked a physical reality is garbage. Bohm was an expert in quantum theory and relativity.
When we study a gas, we go on the pressure the entire gas exerts on the wall of a container. We can install a piston and measure the exact pressure. Temperature is measured in a mercury thermometer in bulk with regard to how much air molecules causes the mercury to expand. The scaling depends on the freezing and boiling points of water. It’s actually the energy in the gas causing the expansion.
If you want to take it to an atomic level you cannot measure either pressure or temperature directly. Read Planck’s book on heat. He describes his methodology, which is essentially statistical mechanics, as a relationship of the entropy of the gas to probability.
That’s how atoms are studied in bulk, using the probability that an atom will behave in a certain manner. No one knows if a photons exists, however, to study EM using quantum theory there was a need to particalize it. A photon is a theoretical particle that was defined as a particle of EM with momentum and no mass.
Einstein admitted later in his life that no one knew if EM was a wave or particles. I have used analogies in which I have described individual electrons based on the Bohr model. I have tried to make it clear that I have no idea whether electrons really behaved like that. The only reason they are known to exist is by measuring the overall charge in oil droplets and filtering out the weight of the oil.
Having been raised on electronics theory, it serves the learning experience to visualize individual electrons. One should be careful to take the theory as theory and not reality.
MikeR…”Kristian also now appears to object to using the Stefan Boltzmann equation to calculate the total energy emitted by a surface at a particular temperature presumably because it is quantum based”.
I have no problem with S-B, which relates the cooling of an object and the EM it emits as it cools. The problem I have is alarmists applying it to suggest a two way heat exchange. S-B obviously describes a one way process that does not describe heat flow.
That’s the mistake Eli Rabbett made while creating this pseudo-scientific thought experiment, even though he was told by two experts in thermodynamics that EM is not heat. They told him the 2nd law must only be applied to heat transfers. Rabbett is trying to apply the 2nd law to EM using the alarmist pseudo-science that a mysterious net energy flow satisfies the 2nd law.
Trying to solve this problem by involving a two way transfer of heat is not only scientifically unsound, it’s a complete and utter waste of time.
The green plate has no effect on the blue plate whatsoever because it’s cooler. The 2nd law says so.
Rabbett, an uber-alarmist is trying desperately to lay the foundation of a cooler atmosphere raising the temperature of the surface via radiation. Can’t be done, 2nd law says so. Not only that, Bohr said so. Atoms/molecules can only absorb at specific intensities and frequencies which are themselves dependent on the energy levels of the emitting electrons on the atoms/molecules. Energy from CO2 in the atmosphere does not have the required energy to raise the temperature of the surface.
Gordon Robertson
NO the Second Law of Thermodynamics nowhere makes the claim “The green plate has no effect on the blue plate whatsoever because its cooler. The 2nd law says so.”
This is just something you made up based upon your own made up version of the the 2nd Law. It is not based upon anything at all and goes against established science.
I have posted this for g*e*r*a*n. He does not understand what it says. I have little doubt you will understand it but I will present it to show you that you are not correct. You can believe your made up pseudoscience and reject established physics. Don’t expect anyone to build equipment based upon your distorted view.
“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 directly contradicts your made up version.
Poor Norm, he can’t understand his own quotes.
The worms just won’t allow him to grasp the important last sentence (which he once tried to leave out): “Work is required to transfer net energy to the hot object.”
Hilarious.
The troll idiot chooses to respond with his drooling slop of stupidity pretending to have some knowledge. Idiot you don’t know how to read and comprehend. Go back to grade school and learn reading comprehension.
You can’t understand what the point is so please take your stupidity and take a hike. You only make Skeptics look like idiots with their stupid made up physics. Not one of you seems to read and comprehend valid physics. You all have to make up your own.
Idiot, if you can read (which is debatable) it states clearly “NET ENERGY” which is clearly defined as the energy emitted by the surface (in this case a blue plate) minus the energy it absorbs from the green plate. You are just incredibly stupid.
That’s a great rant, con-man.
Maybe this will spark some more juvenile raving: “Work is required to transfer net energy to the hot object.”
Notice the words “work is required”.
Maybe your eyesight is bad–“WORK IS REQUIRED”.
Glad to help.
g*e*r*a*n
After reading Mike Flynn’s posts on the other threads I can now see you are not the “Biggest Idiot” to post on this blog.
I will attempt, in vain, to reason with you. I have little hope you will be able to understand the point.
The quoted material you keep referring to: Work is required to transfer net energy to the hot object.
So you can’t see the word “net” in the sentence? Or you don’t know what that means. Does that sentence state that energy can’t be absorbed by a hotter object from a colder one? No it does not. It makes a simple statement. In the same quote, which you ignore completely, it clearly states: “Energy can transfer from the cold object to the hot object either by transfer of energetic particles or electromagnetic radiation,”
Energy can transfer from cold to hot: Yes
Net energy from cold to hot (energy emitted minus energy absorbed): Requires work to transfer. It requires work for the green plate to transfer NET energy to the blue plate, not energy. What do you seem to lack in your reading of basic English?
Con-man, see why you’re called a “con-man”?
You claim the blue plate absorbs 133 W from the green. You claim that is not violating 2LoT, because the “net” is going from blue to green.
But, you don’t stop there.
You then claim the 133 W arriving the blue plate adds to the incoming to produce 533 W. You have slipped around 2LoT. You are now allowing the blue plate to rise to a new temperature, even though no new energy (work) has been added to the system.
You violate 2LoT, claim that you don’t, and when caught, you blast off on some maniacal rant, hurling insults and false accusations.
It’s fun to watch.
g*e*r*a*n
Sorry you are just wrong. New energy is constantly being added.
YOU: “You are now allowing the blue plate to rise to a new temperature, even though no new energy (work) has been added to the system.”
In Eli’s idea, there is a constant input of new energy. If you change how much energy can leave the blue plate, you will increase its temperature.
You really do not understand the physics of powered objects. You seem to understand the physics of systems with no energy input. As soon as a constant supply of energy is added you lose your ability to understand this situation.
If you put really good insulation on the dark side of the blue plate (no green plate at all) do you think it will stay at the same temperature it did without insulation?
You can easily test your idea (and you will see it is really a poor conceptualization by you) and you will find it lacks.
Take a heating element and let it reach equilibrium temperature (measure this temperature) with its surroundings (room tempearture). Now put a sleeve around it and measure the temperature. Based upon your physics the temperature of the heating element cannot change since it has no new energy added to it. What a shock it will be to you when you measure a temperature increase. You might think it is because you have restricted convection. Fine, do it in a vacuum chamber and your world view will come crashing down.
Con-man, probably no one enjoys your hilarious pseudoscience more. I can always depend on you to get confused, yet believe, with absolute certainty, that it is the world that is confused.
Hilarious.
If you perfectly insulate the “dark side” of the blue plate, so that it can only emit from the “left” side, then its temperature will increase. It must increase so that it can emit 400 Watts. Basic physics.
But, what’s your point? Are you, like some others, trying to claim the green plate is an insulator?
I feel sorry for that poor green plate. It doesn’t know if it is a “perfect emitter/absorber”, or a “perfect insulator”, or a “heat source”! Identity crisis?
Hilarious pseudoscience.
Please continue.
g*e*r*a*n
You need to read some real physics. I will supply you with a link that easily shows you have not got even a clue and your knowledge of physics is really lame. I doubt this link can possibly convince you but you are still far smarter than Mike Flynn. I was going to give up on you until I read a Flynn post. There is some hope with you but it is very small. Anyway here is the link. If you take some time to read it you will discover the many flaws you repeat. Maybe you can learn, but the chance is very low.
http://scialert.net/fulltext/?doi=jas.2011.2238.2243
g*e*r*a*n
You are correct: “Hilarious pseudoscience.”
That is a perfect and correct statement about the physics posted by you, J Halp-less, Gordon Robertson. All made up. No supporting evidence. Not only made up but actually goes against working established physics. Yes it is truly hilarious that you can continue with your make believe science. Even a stubborn person might be able to see their mistakes after about 1000 links from actual science proves them wrong. Not with you three.
Again. “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.”
This is exactly what the three of you do. You have this belief that the blue plate cannot absorb any energy from the green plate. You don’t support it with any evidence. Your true belief in your own made up reality is all you need. Hilarious indeed. The one who accuses everyone else of pseudoscience (people that link to established physics) is one who uses it in nearly every post.
Con-man, maybe the meds are working. You’re just rambling again, but the “yelping chihuahua” is gone.
You’re much funnier without the meds.
g*e*r*a*n
First I do not take medications. Maybe you do so you assume everyone else does.
I will have to lower your already low creativity trait. I think I gave you a 3% rating. You repeat the same lines whenever you can’t understand a post. You conclude it is “rambling”. Your inability to use new or unique terminology to cover your lack of capacity to understand material lowers your creativity to 2%.
If you can’t understand a post maybe come up with some new terms to demonstrate a slight creativity.
If you keep going down on this list you might equal the rock bottom poster, Mike Flynn. He has maybe a 0.1% creativity. You could take a post from him 3 years ago and it would be the same as today.
You are very close to this level.
So, you think the vaccine cured your rabies, huh? I did notice the violent yelping had relented, somewhat.
But, the hilarious symptomatic outbreaks will be missed.
To all,
1)
What is the blue plate’s total *heat* input and what is its total *energy* input?
2)
In what way are these two quantities different from one another? What exactly distinguishes the one from the other?
When temperatures have settled:
1) Blue heat input=133 W/m, energy input=533W/m2.
2) Two way vs. one way radiation.
My simple view is that a heat source sends more energy to an object than it receives in return. The sun would then be the blue plate’s only heat source.
Heat input: 400 w/m^2 minus whatever energy the sun receives from the blue plate.
Energy input: 533 w/m^2
snape…”Heat input: 400 w/m^2 minus whatever energy the sun receives from the blue plate”.
Are you kidding??? The sun receives energy from the blue plate???
Where in the Stefan-Boltzmann equation does it say that? Do you see a two-way transfer of anything indicated let alone heat?
If the blue plate is in view of the sun, the sun is in view of the blue plate as well.
Just trying to be consistent with my definition of a heat source.
What is your definition of a “heat source”, snake?
Snape says, January 13, 2018 at 6:29 PM:
The even simpler (and more thermodynamically correct) ‘view’ is that a “heat source” is anything that heats, that is, anything that is able, directly and all by itself, to increase the internal energy [+U] – and therefore the temperature [+T] – of something else by transferring energy to it thermally [+Q].
Mathematically, this process could be expressed the way you describe it. Physically, however, it couldn’t. Or at least, it shouldn’t.
Something that SHOULD go without saying!
Yup.
Ok. But then you have yet to answer my question 2), which is the most important one. What is it about this quantity (533 W/m^2) that disqualifies it from being a HEAT input? Why is it that the blue plate receives 533 W/m^2 worth of “energy”, but only 400 W/m^2 worth of “heat”? And what is the significance of this distinction?
Kristian:
How is something “able, directly and all by itself, to increase the internal energy [+U] and therefore the temperature [+T] of something else by transferring energy to it thermally [+Q].”?
The simple answer: It sends more energy to the other object than it gets in return.
Kristian asks:
“What is it about this quantity (533 W/m^2) that disqualifies it from being a HEAT input? Why is it that the blue plate receives 533 W/m^2 worth of energy, but only 400 W/m^2 worth of heat? And what is the significance of this distinction?”
The distinction is nothing more than semantics. The green plate does not meet the above definition of a heat source.
Or more specifically, when heat is defined as the difference between energy emitted and received, then the energy from the green plate (133 w/m^2) would not meet the definition of heat.
Bottom line, the green plate could not raise the temperature of the blue plate without help from the sun (the blue plate would cool if it only received 133 w/m^2)
Painfully obvious and in keeping with the 2LOT.
Snape, please concentrate on answering the second question:
What is it about this quantity (533 W/m^2) that disqualifies it from being a HEAT input? Why is it that the blue plate receives 533 W/m^2 worth of “energy”, but only 400 W/m^2 worth of “heat”? And what is the significance of this distinction?
Answered above.
Snape says, January 14, 2018 at 11:42 AM:
Sorry, Snape. You will have to do better than that. This particular point is NOT about semantics. It is about the fundamentals of thermodynamics, probably the most central point of this entire discussion.
And still it is seen as providing the blue plate with a distinct thermal energy INPUT of 133 W/m^2. So why exactly doesn’t this particular input qualify as an additional HEAT input to the blue plate? And why is this circumstance important? What makes it different from the similar-looking input from the Sun? (No, it is NOT about semantics. It goes to the core of basic thermodynamic principles.)
Why not? What energy emitted are you talking about? We are only summing the inputs here, aren’t we? There are no outputs involved. They are apparently summed somewhere else, separately.
So why can we call the 400 W/m^2 from the Sun a HEAT input, but NOT the sum of the 400 W/m^2 from the Sun and the 133 W/m^2 from the green plate the same? And why is this a crucial physical distinction to make?
Why? There’s a direct thermal 133 W/m^2 INPUT of energy to the blue plate, on the face of it, fully equivalent to the 400 W/m^2 input from the Sun, and the blue plate would still cool as it absorbed it? How come?
How can you ADD energy to a thermodynamic system and still have the internal energy [U] – and thus the temperature [T] – of that system go DOWN as you do, that is, at the exact same time, simultaneously?
Say it!
Kristian
In the steady state, the blue plate emits 533 w/m^2. You’re wondering why it would cool if its heat source was removed? Serious?
The blue plate would then only be receiving 133 w/m^2. Energy out would be far greater than energy in.
Snape
It seems somebody has been reading actual physics.
Kristian comments on your post: “Why not? What energy emitted are you talking about? We are only summing the inputs here, arent we? There are no outputs involved. They are apparently summed somewhere else, separately.”
Yes emitting and absorbing are two separate processes. In fact they cannot be accomplished by the same molecules. Molecules that are close to emitting IR are already in an excited state and will not be able to absorb any incoming IR at the emission frequency. The molecules that will absorb the incoming IR at different vibrational states that can absorb this IR. Two very different processes. Kristian should read some real physics instead of his own blog.
He also points out: “How can you ADD energy to a thermodynamic system and still have the internal energy [U] and thus the temperature [T] of that system go DOWN as you do, that is, at the exact same time, simultaneously?”
Pretty easy to explain when the two processes are different. You have the green plate adding energy to the blue plate but you have the blue plate emitting more energy than it absorbs from the green plate. Not real hard to understand except if you have no conception that bosons fluxes can and do move through each other with no exchange of energy.
I do not think Kristian can grasp that you can have two separate activities going on.
If you remove the green plate the blue plate will continue to emit at the same flux as with the green plate present for awhile until it loses enough internal energy to cool down, in which case the emission will go down to the equilibrium condition it was at before the introduction of the green plate.
The emission process is separate from the process that absorbs energy. That is why the two can happen.
Norman
“The emission process is separate from the process that absorbs energy.”
If a person doesn’t understand that very basic idea, then the whole situation would be a confusing mess. I think that’s where Kristian is.
Snape says, January 14, 2018 at 7:06 PM:
You don’t understand why I ask? I don’t ask because I don’t know the answer, Snape. I ask because I want you to think. You’re not thinking.
Again, and try to pay attention now:
Why exactly doesn’t the separate 133 W/m^2 thermal input of energy from the green plate to the blue plate qualify as an additional HEAT input to the blue plate? What makes it different from the similar-looking input from the Sun? And why is the difference significant?
Why can we call the 400 W/m^2 from the Sun a HEAT input, but NOT the sum of the 400 W/m^2 from the Sun and the 133 W/m^2 from the green plate the same? And why is this significant?
You’re avoiding the questions I ask, Snape. Read what I ask.
Kristian
You’re just paraphrasing the same questions I already answered.
You ask, “Why exactly doesnt the separate 133 W/m^2 thermal input of energy from the green plate to the blue plate qualify as an additional HEAT input to the blue plate?”
I answered, “When heat is defined as the difference between energy emitted and received, then the energy from the green plate (133 w/m^2) does not meet the definition of heat.”
On the other hand, it IS an additional energy input compared to the previous situation – SPACE. The blue plate had radiated to space and had received a big goose egg in return. The 133 watts may not be “heat”, but it’s a lot more than NOTHING.
Then you ask, also for the second time,
” Why can we call the 400 W/m^2 from the Sun a HEAT input, but NOT the sum of the 400 W/m^2 from the Sun and the 133 W/m^2 from the green plate the same? And why is this significant?”
Energy from the sun meets the definition of heat, energy from the green plate doesn’t. So why would we call all 533 watts heat? Your not making sense, Kristian.
And BTW, the blue plate doesn’t give a rip what we call it. The wording is only significant to a stickler for proper semantics.
IMO, here is the flow of heat, when defined as difference between energy output and input (notice the movement is from hot to cold).
Sun to blue plate: 400 watts
Blue plate to space: 266.5 watts
Blue plate to green plate: 133.5 watts
Green plate to space: 133.5 watts
snake, you’re contradicting yourself. For the blue plate to be emitting 267 Watts, you must be treating the green plate as a “heat source”. But, you said it was NOT a “heat source”.
It’s fun to watch.
g*
The green plate is not a heat source, either are clothes:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2018/01/uah-global-temperature-update-for-december-2017-0-41-deg-c/?replytocom=280757#respond
Here’s another hint: 400 W/m^2 is the MAXIMUM heat incoming to the system. You can NOT arbitrarily add 133 to get 533 W/m^2. Trying to do that just indicates someone doesn’t understand thermodynamics. There are NO heat sources internal to the system.
Hope that helps.
g*
Yes, always 400 watts into the system.
Here’s a hint, girls: Incoming to the system is only 400 W/m^2, MAXIMUM.
Svante says, January 13, 2018 at 4:10 PM:
No. How did you come to that conclusion?
Heat flows from left to right in Eli’s example.
The right side has heat output.
Heat input is only on the left.
Heat is the net: 400 W/m^2 – 267 W/m^2 = 133 W/m^2.
Double check: the heat output on the right is also 133 W/m^2.
svante…”Heat flows from left to right in Elis example.
The right side has heat output.
Heat input is only on the left”.
Are these plates supposed to be in the vacuum of space or in the air of our atmosphere?
In either case, there is no heat output or input via radiation. The input/outputs are EM, which is not heat. You need to convert the EM to heat ‘INSIDE’ the body and you need a conversion constant like the Boltzmann constant to get the heat equivalent.
In our atmosphere, heat can be transferred via conduction and convection but only in one direction. Same with radiation via EM.
If you like. Vacuum is assumed. Why don’t you do Kristian’s quizz?
In our atmosphere, heat can be transferred via conduction and convection but only in one direction. Same with radiation via EM.
Here again, dumb, ignorant denialism of evidence.
1. Air is ine of the worst conduction media
2. Radiation takes place from any place to any other place.
Substances emitting EM radiation do not care of the temperature of their targets.
Once a troll, a troll you keep. For ever. Off that there is no escape.
Kristian,
Perhaps I should add that total heat transfer to blue is 0 W/m^2 because its temperature is stable.
Ditto for the other plate and both together.
The sun is different because it performs work.
Gordon and Bindidon, can we keep Kristians quizz clean and continue here:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2018/01/uah-global-temperature-update-for-december-2017-0-41-deg-c/#comment-281218
svante…”If you like. Vacuum is assumed. Why dont you do Kristians quizz?”
Because Eli Rabbett initiated the thought experiment and I think the underlying premise is wrong. There is nothing absorbed from the green plate because it’s at a lower temperature. 2nd law.
I respect the overall analysis of Kristian I just don’t want to elborate on a thought experiment that makes no sense to me.
binny…”Here again, dumb, ignorant denialism of evidence.
1. Air is ine of the worst conduction media
2. Radiation takes place from any place to any other place.
Substances emitting EM radiation do not care of the temperature of their targets”.
*******
I got 1) from Wood, a highly respected authority on IR. He was consulted by Neils Bohr for his expertise.
2) is a no-brainer. A body emitting EM only cares about the immediate temperature of its environment. If you had a closed system with a sphere or cylinder surrounding an emitting source in a vacuum, naturally the EM from that source would interact with the surrounding sphere or cylinder at a different temperature. That’s not because its targeting either, they are simply in the way of its flux field.
Do you not understand that? If a cooler sphere surrounds a hotter body radiating EM, the radiating body cannot absorb energy from the cooler sphere. If that was the case the body would warm and it would warm the sphere more. Soon, you’d have a positive feedback condition where each body would warm the other indefinitely.
If the surrounding bodies were much hotter than the body, then heat would be transferred from either surround to the body. If the body was hotter, heat would be transferred from it to the cooler surrounds.
That’s Stefan-Boltzmann in a nutshell. A one-way heat transfer that satisfies the 2nd law.
According to S-B there is no heat transferred from the green plate to the blue plate, only from the blue plate to the green plate. Actually, it’s not transferred physically, heat is reduced in one body and increased in the other via EM. The q in S-B represents the degree of cooling in a body not heat transferred from its surface. Only EM can flow from its surface unless there is air surrounding the body that flows away via convection.
Eli Rabbett, with a degree in physics, fails to understand that even though two experts in thermodynamics tried to explain it to him. He hates skeptics so much he is oblivious to any kind of scientific truth from them.
AGW is based on heat being transferred from the green plate to the blue plate and that’s why the theory is scientifically incorrect. Heat cannot be transferred from a cooler atmosphere to a warmer surface, especially not when the energy that heated the atmosphere allegedly came from the surface via radiation. That’s a closed loop system with gain without an amplifier…not allowed…perpetual motion.
Gordon Robertson
You should listen to Ball4. Since you use an older version of “heat” that is not currently used…Current use is energy in transit and NET energy of a surface. If you stick to just energy than you can avoid confusion.
The green plate emits energy toward the blue plate. The blue plate will absorb the % of energy based upon its emissivity. Since it has been designated to be a black-body (for ease of calcualtion) it will absorb ALL the energy the green plate emits toward it. This energy will be abosrbed and become part of the internal energy of the blue plate. This is valid and accepted physics. Your claim that the blue plate cannot aborb energy from the green plate is just something you made up. Something it seems a lot of “skeptics” believe. It is true pseudoscience and untrue. You pretend to understand the process of how EMR is emitted and absorbed. You are really messed up on the process. Many have tried to educate you with real established physics. You reject the real physics in favor of your pseudoscience made up physics that you fail to support with any evidence. You just proclaim it true over and over and hope that everyone will accept you as some type of Authority on the matter, the problem is it is wrong and you actually know it, you have been linked to enough real sciene to show you how messed up your thoughts are.
So the blue plate will absorb all the energy the green plate emits in its direction. The combination of the Solar input and the green plate’s input will raise the temperature of the blue plate until it reaches a new equilibrium temperature and can radiate away the same amount of energy it is taking in.
It does not continue to warm indefinately. That is another one of you totally made up conjectures and it demonstrates your complete lack on knowledge of the subject of heat transfer and your choice to learn none of it. Content with your babbling ignorant pseudoscience, made up from nothing and held together with nothing.
Svante says, January 15, 2018 at 12:40 AM:
Ok, so I see where you’re coming from now.
Heat is not the net of nets, though. “Heat” is a very specific kind of ‘net’. It’s not just any ‘net’. I was asking about the heat INPUT. That’s the net thermal energy exchange between the heated body and its heat source. The heat OUTPUT, on the other hand, is the net thermal energy exchange between the heated body and its cooler surroundings – its heat SINK. Two separate heat transfers!
What you’re referring to is the NET HEAT [Q_net], heat IN minus heat OUT. That’s a very different thing. That’s about energy balance. The blue plate loses 267 W/m^2 worth of heat from its left face, and 133 W/m^2 from its right face (facing the green plate), which totals [267-133=] 400 W/m^2, equal to the heat INPUT. There’s energy balance: Q_out = Q_in => Q_net = 0.
It’s the same ol’ “sing-song”.
The “perpetrators of pseudoscience” try to pervert a black body (imaginary concept), claiming it ALWAYS absorbs ALL infrared. The reason they do this is because they can then claim that the absorbed IR adds to the internal energy. And, that additional internal energy raises the temperature.
It’s called pseudoscience.
A black body (imaginary concept) can NOT be used to violate 2LoT.
Get a new tune, Perps!
The preliminary JMA global average temperature result is now available. 2017 was the third warmest year in their records, which go back to 1891 – O.75 deg C above the 20th century average.
https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10213223873330417&set=a.1209425994815.2031703.1203661283&type=3
Well, Doc: why don’t you simply present the original information of the Japanese Met Agency?
http://ds.data.jma.go.jp/tcc/tcc/products/gwp/temp/ann_wld.html
Five Warmest Years (Anomalies [wrt mean of 1981-2010])
1st. 2016(+0.45 C), 2nd. 2015(+0.42 C), 3rd. 2017(+0.39 C), 4th. 2014(+0.27 C), 5th. 1998(+0.22 C)
https://www.iceagenow.info/u-s-withdrew-record-amount-natural-gas-storage/
It seems that some people still can’t manage to understand the difference between this year’s unusually cold winter in the USA and the evolution of the global temperature during the last decade.
Yeah Bin, but you and I know the difference.
Record cold and snow negate the possibility of any continuing global warming trend.
But, let’s not tell anyone. ..
Record cold
Oh yes, look at what even tremendously fudged data shows!
http://4GP.ME/bbtc/1516123517133.jpg
Which record cold you you mean where?
The record cold in the link I mentioned. But, there are other sources also.
binny…”It seems that some people still cant manage to understand the difference between this years unusually cold winter in the USA and the evolution of the global temperature during the last decade”.
I can.
Pre-2010, everyone, including NOAA, agreed there was a warming hiatus since 1998. Then Obama came out with his uber-alarmist climate action plan and the EPA ordered NOAA to ‘fix’ the hiatus so warming would reflect the Obama plan.
NOAA went off, alarmists they are, and slashed over 75% of the real data they received globally, replacing it with manufactured temperatures from a climate model showing a warming that did not exist pre 2010.
Then they changed the confidence levels of the manufactured data to show record warming years. For 2014, they used a 48% cl to move 2014 into first place.
Great science!!
NOAA has manufactured warm temperatures and now it seems they have intercepted the UAH data and fudged it before UAH receives it.
As usual, dumbest, paranoid denialism mixed with ever repeated lies.
binny…”As usual, dumbest, paranoid denialism mixed with ever repeated lies”.
Ever occurred to you that you’re the one in denial?
O wad some power, the giftie gee us,
Tae see oorselves as ithers see us.
…Robert Burns.
For anyone who is interested, here is a series of video lectures (and notes) on Time Series Analysis for you to download:
https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1hSvtwtOr5DWY9mvbNpqC9FjJtQNgyhc7?usp=sharing
Sounds pretty good.
des…”For anyone who is interested, here is a series of video lectures (and notes) on Time Series Analysis for you to download:”
Thanks for link.
There is a ‘Download All’ button at the top right of the screen. Did not see it at first and d/l’d one at a time.
There are 60 mp4 files even though the Google zipper claims it has zipped 120 files.
There are 60 videos, plus a folder called “Notes” which contains another 60 files.
des…cool…thanks. I’ll look for the notes, maybe it’s a sub-directory in my download.
des…that’s what it was…there is a sub-directory called ‘Notes’ in the d/l. Thanks for heads-up.
Or is that heads down in Australia? ☺
Bindidon says:
“1. Air is one of the worst conduction media”
I suppose it has to be conduction at the surface boundary layer, is that what you mean Gordon?
Svante
“Heat flows from left to right in Elis example.
The right side has heat output.
Heat input is only on the left.”
Only 1/3 of the heat leaving the blue plate flows to the right. The rest immediately exits to the left (space).
You probably agree and I’m just nitpicking?
Grandpa says we are sisters, so I don’t mind your nitpicking.
Heat flows from warm to cold.
Like Norman just said: “Current use is energy in transit and NET energy of a surface.”
The net on the left side is 133 W/m^2. You can complicate it by splitting the left side into the sun and the background, but Kristian didn’t ask about that, he asked about blue input.
I took the word input to mean positive heat. If he meant both sides the sum is zero, which is evident since the temperature is stable and the plate does not perform work.
Svante
In my mind the amount of energy a 262 K plate would emit to the sun would be nearly irrelevant compared to what the sun would emit to the plate, in which case almost all of the sun’s 400 watts would be heat (net).
OTOH, I do see that your rational is in keeping with the rest of the diagram.
Yes, what hits the sun is irrelevant, but everything that is emitted by the left side of the blue plate must be deducted when you calculate heat input to blue.
That leaves 133 W/m^2.
What doesn’t hit the sun will hit the cosmic background, it doesn’t matter much when the question is about the blue surface.
So if you want to complicate it you calculate a positive heat from the sun and a negative heat to the cosmic background. At the blue surface they must be added. 133 W/m^2.
Svante
I chose not to complicate in a different way. By rounding rather than calculating.
If the blue plate were to emit 266.5 watts of energy (one way) to the sun, that would amount to 2/3 of what it receives in return. In that situation, the blue plate and sun would be nearly the same temperature.
Better, in my opinion:
*one way energy from sun to blue plate: ~399.999 watts rounds up to 400 watts
*One way energy from blue plate to sun: ~.000001 watts rounds down to 0 watts
Therefore,
heat from sun to blue plate would be ~ 400 watts
Heat from blue plate to space would be ~ 266.5 watts
Whoops! One way energy from sun to blue plate would be 400 watts. One way HEAT from sun to blue plate would be 399.999 watts, and would then round to 400.
I haven’t had coffee yet.
Hilarious pseudoscience!
(This is going to be a great year in climate comedy.)
Svante says, January 17, 2018 at 6:24 AM:
No. The heat input is the heat input [Q_in]. You’re talking about the NET HEAT [Q_in – Q_out = Q_net], Svante. And the net heat for the blue plate isn’t 133 W/m^2. It’s in a steady state, which means that its net heat is 0. 400 W/m^2 in, 400 W/m^2 out.
Svante says, January 17, 2018 at 12:52 AM:
Norman has never understood this, and he still doesn’t. And you seemingly don’t either, Svante.
This really is Thermodynamics 101. And the endless opinionated discussions on this blog about what heat might be and how to find it show just how little background knowledge you all have in this field. It’s quite painful to watch. This is SOOO basic! So introductory level material.
The heat input to the blue plate is the incoming radiative flux from the Sun. 400 W/m^2. Period. The Sun is the heat source of the blue plate, and so it is what provides it with its heat input. No more, no less.
Same with the surface of the Earth. Its heat input is the absorbed portion of the incoming solar flux (the net SW, that part which is not directly reflected back out), amounting to a global annual average of ~165 W/m^2. That’s the heat input to the surface of the Earth. Nothing more, nothing less.
What Norman and you don’t seem to understand is the meaning of a “heat transfer”. When you say that heat is the net energy of a surface, you’re confusing it with the energy BUDGET of that surface. The energy budget of a surface is the net energy (actually, the net HEAT) of that surface. And it includes MORE than one heat transfer.
You see, the blue plate isn’t transferring 267 W/m^2 back to the Sun. Just like the Earth isn’t transferring 240 W/m^2 back to the Sun. (And the Sun isn’t transferring 6.4 x 10^7 W/m^2 to the Earth either.) The specific heat transfers we’re looking at here are just the 400 W/m^2 (blue plate) and the 240 W/m^2 (Earth), respectively, of INCOMING. Those are the “SUN=>BLUE PLATE” and the “SUN=>EARTH” heat transfers.
The OUTGOING fluxes are DIFFERENT HEAT TRANSFERS ALTOGETHER. They are the “BLUE PLATE=>COLD SURROUNDINGS” and the “EARTH=>SPACE” heat transfers.
Heat coming IN to a system works towards HEATING (warming) that system. It’s a heat GAIN. Heat going OUT from that same system works towards COOLING it. It’s a heat LOSS. Strictly separate processes!!
https://okulaer.files.wordpress.com/2018/01/carnot_heat_engine.png
That red ring to the left, THAT’S the “heat input”. That’s what I’m asking for …
Kristian
“The heat input to the blue plate is the incoming radiative flux from the Sun. 400 W/m^2. Period. The Sun is the heat source of the blue plate, and so it is what provides it with its heat input. No more, no less.”
The blue plate is the green plate’s only heat source. In my opinion the heat flow between the two is calculated like this:
266.5 watts (from blue to green) – 133.5 watts (from green to blue) = 133.5 (heat…..blue to green)
Do you disagree? If not, why treat energy exchange between the blue plate and sun differently?
Energy
The sun is the only heat source, but e
I forgot to edit out those last few words. Please ignore.
Snape says, January 17, 2018 at 3:17 PM:
LOL! You’re not serious, right? Sorry, Snape. I’m not your teacher. I fear this is something you will just have to figure out for yourself. Like, read a book on the subject. That could help.
Kristian
I will have to figure out on my own if you agree or disagree?
Hmmm.. I think you’re like g*. Very confused and too stupid to realize it.
Best guess? You think the blue plate is able to calculate on it’s own the proper rate of heat transfer. You would therefore disagree.
That’s great, now we understand each other!
No. The heat input is the heat input [Q_in]. Youre talking about the NET HEAT [Q_in Q_out = Q_net], Svante. And the net heat for the blue plate isnt 133 W/m^2. Its in a steady state, which means that its net heat is 0. 400 W/m^2 in, 400 W/m^2 out.
OK, so Norman was wrong when he said: Current use is energy in transit and NET energy of a surface.
What youre referring to is the NET HEAT [Q_net], heat IN minus heat OUT. Thats a very different thing. Thats about energy balance. The blue plate loses 267 W/m^2 worth of heat from its left face, and 133 W/m^2 from its right face (facing the green plate), which totals [267-133=] 400 W/m^2, equal to the heat INPUT. Theres energy balance: Q_out = Q_in => Q_net = 0.
So we have a two-way heat flow at the left surface, and we should not combine them into a one way heat flow, but we can combine heat flows on opposite sides if they have the same sign, and we can combine all three heat flows into a grand net of zero (which we already agreed on).
Same with the surface of the Earth. Its heat input is the absorbed portion of the incoming solar flux (the net SW, that part which is not directly reflected back out), amounting to a global annual average of ~165 W/m^2. Thats the heat input to the surface of the Earth. Nothing more, nothing less.
So there’s a two way heat-flow there as well, since we must keep the negative upward heat flow separate.
The OUTGOING fluxes are DIFFERENT HEAT TRANSFERS ALTOGETHER. They are the BLUE PLATE=>COLD SURROUNDINGS and the EARTH=>SPACE heat transfers.
OK, two way heat transfer.
Heat coming IN to a system works towards HEATING (warming) that system. Its a heat GAIN. Heat going OUT from that same system works towards COOLING it. Its a heat LOSS. Strictly separate processes!!
Gain/loss in internal energy, not heat, to be precise, since heat is only energy in transfer, except at a surface, only between objects, right?
Heat is not the net of nets, though. Heat is a very specific kind of net. Its not just any net. I was asking about the heat INPUT. Thats the net thermal energy exchange between the heated body and its heat source. The heat OUTPUT, on the other hand, is the net thermal energy exchange between the heated body and its cooler surroundings its heat SINK. Two separate heat transfers!
Yes, two way heat transfer. And if the blue plate sees multiple warm/cold objects you have multi-way heat flows.
What Norman and you dont seem to understand is the meaning of a heat transfer. When you say that heat is the net energy of a surface, youre confusing it with the energy BUDGET of that surface. The energy budget of a surface is the net energy (actually, the net HEAT) of that surface. And it includes MORE than one heat transfer.
What a great simplification it was when they discovered two way radiation and the Planck curve.
Just one outgoing spectrum instead of a list of object-to-object heat flows.
Not to mentionen all the random looking combined spectra.
Once again the correct explanation was the simple one.
PS. I see now that you and Norman say the same thing.
I have rarely seen any faults from him before, so it did seem a bit strange.
Svante says, January 17, 2018 at 6:38 PM:
No. We simply have two heat flows. Two discrete heat transfers. There’s no “two-way” about it. They’re not in any way part of some greater whole. They’re completely separate thermodynamic processes.
Of course not. Thermodynamics 101.
I’m not sure what you mean by this. Yes, we can mathematically add them together as a ‘total heat input’ or a ‘total heat output’. But they are not thereby physically part of the same heat transfer.
Sure. That’s the budget. Again, maths vs. physics.
No. There is NEVER any “two-way” heat flow. A heat flow is – by definition! – UNIdirectional. There are only different (separate) heat transfers.
No! Where do you get the “two-way heat transfer” idea from!? Those heat transfers are NOT occurring between the same systems, Svante. Does this look like a “two-way” heat transfer to you? Or does it simply look like two separate heat transfers?
https://okulaer.files.wordpress.com/2018/01/carnot_heat_engine.png
Of course. However, I’m referring to the thermal process of losing U. Which is called a HEAT loss (or output), because U of the system is lost by the system transferring energy as Q (rather than as W) to its surroundings, as a simple consequence of those surroundings being cooler than the system. Conversely, a thermal process that leads to an increase in U is called a heat gain or input, as opposed to an increase in U as a result of a performance of WORK on the system. So we don’t say “internal energy loss” or “internal energy gain”, even though that’s what’s actually happening. Because we’re focusing on the PROCESS.
Svante, two separate heat transfers do NOT (!!) make one two-way heat transfer.
No, you just have multiple different heat transfers.
They didn’t discover it. They postulated it. In order to simplify mathematical analysis. The idea of two-way thermal radiation is ONLY a mathematical concept. A result simply of choosing two DIRECTIONS in which to look. You mentally split the integrated thermal radiation field into two directional hemispheres. It’s a mathematical trick. You’ve seen the relevant quotes. We start out with the one-way radiative flux, what we can actually detect/observe, then we make an analytical DECISION to split it into two directional components, before we put it on paper.
And take note:
These two components are ALWAYS to be seen merely as ‘halves’ of the full flux. They are NEVER to be seen as separate macroscopic entities, like the full flux. This is where the widespread confusion on this topic arises. The two “hemifluxes” can not independently produce any thermodynamic effects. Only potentially so. They represent thermodynamic POTENTIALS, that’s all. Only the full flux possesses any kind of thermodynamic “credentials”, a realised capacity to change thermodynamic state functions, such as the “internal energy” [U] of a system.
Kristian, can you help me simplify this summary?
You asked:
“1) What is the blue plates total *heat* input”.
We had three different relations:
a) Sun => Blue (left).
b) Blue => Space (left).
c) Blue => Green (right).
I bundled a) + b) since EM source/target does not matter at the blue surface.
You said b) + c) must be bundled (although “they are not thereby physically part of the same heat transfer”).
How does that not leave you with a two way heat transfer at the left surface? Even more clearly for the earths surface, where c) is zero (just about). I agree it’s weird.
Error number two, I should have been more careful with the word ‘net’.
Kristian: “NET HEAT [Q_net], heat IN minus heat OUT”.
Norman: “NET energy of a surface”.
I think EM is real and heat is a mathematical concept, but let’s leave that for later.
“I think EM (energy) is real and heat is a mathematical concept”
Yes.
When a cat sits on a hot stove, it learns not do so ever again by virtue of a temperature difference.
For two objects, NET energy exchanged in each object by virtue of a temperature difference [Q_net] = energy IN minus energy OUT
If the two objects in view are separated by a near enough vacuum such as the earth and sun, then NET energy exchanged in each object by virtue of a temperature difference [Q_net] = EMR energy IN minus EMR energy OUT until steady state since the sun is powered (~plugged in). Some cats have yet to learn this.
svante…”OK, so Norman was wrong when he said: Current use is energy in transit and NET energy of a surface”.
Please don’t get caught up in that obfuscation of heat. Heat is not energy in transit, ‘heat transfer’ is energy in transit, specifically thermal energy.
You are missing an important point. If EM ‘in’ is heat then why is it measured in Watts/m^2? Only a flux can be measured in W/m^2, it makes no sense to refer to heat as a flux since it is associated with atoms. Heat is measured in joules, calories, or BTU.
There is a conversion factor missing from W/m^2 to joules.
http://www.800mainstreet.com/2/002-24.html
“The calorie, cal, is defined as the amount of energy (heat) needed to increase the temperature of one gram of water by 1 C”.
How many calories of EM would that take? ☺
Alternately, how long would it take the EM energy emitted by the surface to raise a gram of water 1C? How long would it take the EM emitted by a block of ice to raise itself 1C?
Svante says, January 20, 2018 at 2:20 PM:
Because it doesn’t. There is no such thing as a “two-way heat transfer”. If you have two bodies at different temps, there is ONE heat transfer between them. There can never be two. If you have THREE bodies interacting, then you might have up to three separate heat heat transfers, if they all happen to “see” each other (1-2, 2-3, 1-3). There are STILL no “two-way heat transfers”. It simply doesn’t happen. By definition.
You can’t “bundle” a) and b), because a) is a heat INPUT and b) is a heat OUTPUT. And they’re not operating between the same two systems. As you yourself point out.
I don’t really get what’s so confusing about this?
No, you said Norman claims HEAT to be the “NET energy of a surface”. It isn’t. The NET heat [Q_net], which is a purely mathematical concept (heat in minus heat out), is the net energy of a surface.
Well, in a sense you’re right, and in another sense you’re wrong.
EM is certainly real. However, you always need to be careful with defining the level of observation you’re at when DESCRIBING electromagnetic radiation. Either you describe it MICROscopically, OR you describe it MACROscopically. You do NOT conflate the two.
When you’re at the microscopic (quantum) level, you’re dealing with individual photons, or “(heat) rays” as Planck called them*. The “brightness” of a single quantum “ray” of electromagnetic radiation (a photon) is defined by the monochromatic intensity, I_v of that ray.
*“All heat rays [thermally emitted photons] which at a given instant pass through the same point of the medium are perfectly independent of one another, and in order to specify completely the state of the radiation the intensity of radiation must be known in all the directions, infinite in number, which pass through the point in question; for this purpose two opposite directions must be considered as distinct, because the radiation in one of them is quite independent of the radiation in the other.”
https://tinyurl.com/y8segjqo
(pp.2-3)
When you’re at the macroscopic level, however, where the Laws of Thermodynamics apply, you are no longer dealing with photons. And this is a crucial point to bear in mind. They simply do not exist as individual entities in the macro realm. Rather, “radiation” exists only as a radiative FLUX, the resultant bulk manifestation of the intensity and directional movement of ALL individual photons at any time present within the radiation field under study. The radiative flux is the average (the net) of ALL the photons in the field; no more, no less. Just like the temperature of an ideal gas is the direct resultant bulk manifestation of the velocity of ALL gas molecules within the gas; the average of them ALL. There are no inherent subdivisions here. No partial ‘nets’. You can’t average half of the microscopic entitites present. They’re all integrated into ONE. All or none. There’s nothing in between. If you want to divide the total into subsets, you do so for specific MATHEMATICAL purposes only.
Heat is very much a real physical phenomenon. As real as they come. You can feel it. Detect it. You can observe its impact and effect on macroscopic systems directly. It doesn’t get more ‘real’ than that.
On the other hand, heat is also defined mathematically, and it is very much a physical (thermodynamic) concept. You can calculate it. It describes both a process and a quantity.
OK, now I see the difference:
Which implies you have more than one heat flow (in and out), but I shall refrain from calling it two way (in and out).
Don’t you agree it would have been less confusing to discuss energy (micro), two in and one out?
Svante says, January 21, 2018 at 10:35 AM:
Good. Because calling it “two-way” implies one road with two lanes running straight between two locations rather than two separate single-lane roads leading independently into completely different directions, with three locations involved.
Earth’s INCOMING heat flux of 240 W/m^2 is coming from the Sun, while its OUTGOING heat flux of 240 W/m^2 is going to space, not back to the Sun. So there are two separate heat transfers, not one two-way heat transfer. The NET heat (incoming minus outgoing) is 0. But this doesn’t mean that the Sun isn’t transferring heat to the Earth. The heat input isn’t 0. The NET heat is.
Absolutely not! That’s the whole point. Portraying the exchange like that is PRECISELY what’s confusing everyone!
You effectively end up confusing mathematically defined (and derived) directional components of heat fluxes with real heat fluxes. Because the second incoming is treated as a separate macroscopic (thermodynamic) entity, when it’s not.
The 133 W/m^2 arrow from the green plate to the blue plate isn’t a real incoming radiative flux to the blue plate. It is merely one of the two conceptual components of the radiative flux from the blue plate to the green plate, the heat LOSS of the blue plate towards the green plate.
OK on the first half Kristian.
In this case I think it’s conceptually clearer to say that everything radiates according to its temperature, and just sum it up, and that is also the physical reality.
Heat is surely a useful concept as well, so let’s agree to disagree, after all ones preference is a matter of opinion. The result will be the same.
Svante says, January 21, 2018 at 4:53 PM:
Depends on what you mean and how you do it. You will not get a meaningful, physically real result if you ignore the 267 W/m^2 “hemiflux” from the blue plate to the green plate, and only include the opposite 133 W/m^2 “hemiflux” from the green plate to the blue plate. For the reasons I’ve provided above.
This simple concept is the only one you need to remember, Svante. Once you’ve managed to internalise it, you’re fine. Then you will never go wrong. No violations of any thermodynamic laws in sight. If, however, you insist on treating each “hemiflux” as separate/independent macroscopic entities (thermodynamic fluxes), you will remain forever confused when it comes to this topic, especially as to cause and effect.
It’s not just a useful concept, Svante. It is a NECESSARY concept in thermodynamic considerations. You will get nowhere with just looking at “hemifluxes” (partial heat fluxes), because none of them will ever independently be able to affect any thermodynamic parameters such as U and T. Only heat (and work) can.
It is not a matter of preference or opinion whether to use heat [Q] in thermal processes or just components of heat, Svante. Get used to it.
Only if you know how to treat the “hemifluxes” properly. ALWAYS together as ONE. Never separately as independent thermodynamic quantities. You never split them apart and put them on opposite sides of the equal sign. That is the recipe for cause/effect confusion …
Or just “physically meaningful” result …
Svante:
“In this case I think its conceptually clearer to say that everything radiates according to its temperature, and just sum it up, and that is also the physical reality.”
Kristian:
“he 133 W/m^2 arrow from the green plate to the blue plate isnt a real incoming radiative flux to the blue plate. It is merely one of the two conceptual components of the radiative flux from the blue plate to the green plate, the heat LOSS of the blue plate towards the green plate.”
Sorry Kristian, what Svante says here sums it up well, IMO, matches both common sense and SB law, and is more practical to apply.
Nate,
Rather than reading that older comment, read this very recent one for clarity, right above yours:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2018/01/uah-global-temperature-update-for-december-2017-0-41-deg-c/#comment-282238
I’m not trying to find what is simpler. I’m describing what is more physically CORRECT. The mathematical method using two “hemifluxes” is of course simpler, because that’s what it is – a simplifying MODEL of reality. That doesn’t mean it IS reality.
The S-B law is a mathematical model. And if you only use it correctly (most people here don’t know how to use it), there’s no problem.
“You will not get a meaningful, physically real result if you ignore the 267 W/m^2 hemiflux from the blue plate to the green plate, and only include the opposite 133 W/m^2 hemiflux from the green plate to the blue plate.”
I dunno what this refers to, but ignoring any flux would not be consistent with Svantes statement.
“the 133 W/m^2 arrow from the green plate to the blue plate isnt a real incoming radiative flux to the blue plate. It is merely one of the two conceptual components”
I know you’ve been arguing this with people ad-nauseum, and I dont want to continue the argument, but I dont agree with this statement, and I don’t believe there is any experiment that can support it. If you have one, of course, pls cite it.
Nate says, January 22, 2018 at 10:23 AM:
Hehe, it would help if you included the entire paragraph, Nate.
Svante’s statement:
“In this case I think it’s conceptually clearer to say that everything radiates according to its temperature, and just sum it up, and that is also the physical reality.”
And my response:
“Depends on what you mean and how you do it.” And only THEN the lines you quoted above.
I’m just pointing out how you need to do it in order to make it physically meaningful.
It’s not about agreement, Nate. If you knew what a “radiative flux” is and how it is physically defined, you would know that what I’m doing isn’t arguing. I’m just pointing out basic physical facts.
It reveals ignorance on your part, arguing against it. It shows your confusion.
And the opposite is of course true: There is no experiment to support the strange and un-physical idea that there IS a real, separate incoming radiative flux to hot from cold.
No, YOU please cite one that supports YOUR idea. THAT’S the alternative one. Not mine. Because a “radiative flux” is very clearly physically defined. And I’ve cited sources and quotes regarding this particular issue multiple times, Nate. You just don’t read it. It’s called “statistical mechanics”.
“It reveals ignorance on your part, arguing against”
Bing condescending is not a winning argument. Arguing means i disagree with you.
The fact that there is no experiment that can make your case is telling. It means your statement is not falsifiable. That is problem.
Kristian,
Astronomers understand that celestial sources of radiation have emitted that radiation long ago. The radiation (photons) has independent properties that can be determined from measurements with detectors here on Earth. But the detectors have no influence on what was emitted from the source, long ago.
This is a one-way flux, that can be detected. Of course, as always, one has to understand background influences in the detector. This could be done by pointing the detector at empty space, for example.
Nate says, January 22, 2018 at 6:08 PM:
Mine is not a condescending comment, Nate. If all you’ve got is the “I’m offended!”
argument, then it means you’ve got nothing.
No, it means you don’t know what you’re talking about. Pointing this out isn’t a
matter of condescension. It’s a matter of fact.
So you want me to provide a link to an experiment that proves a NEGATIVE!? How
ignorant are you? Prove your POSITIVE, and be done with it!
*Facepalm*
Nate says, January 23, 2018 at 8:40 AM:
*Sigh* What has this got to do with anything!?
For the millionth time!!! I am NOT talking about PHOTONS! I am talking about RADIATIVE FLUXES!
I am not saying that photons aren’t moving from cold to hot. I am saying that radiative fluxes aren’t moving from cold to hot. Because that would be in direct violation of the 2nd Law!
Do you have an experiment showing that the 2nd Law is wrong, Nate?
It seems you’re discussing with yourself at this point. Maybe you are, for all I know …
Kristian,
” I am saying that radiative fluxes arent moving from cold to hot. Because that would be in direct violation of the 2nd Law!
Do you have an experiment showing that the 2nd Law is wrong”
Well, there it is. You just revealed your Achilles heal.
Second law is all about NET heat flowing from hot to cold. It is! Even when some radiation (yes photons) is flowing from cold to hot.
If my celestial source is colder than my detector, am I unable to detect its radiation? No. Am I suddenly violating 2nd law? No.
Get over yourself, and your ‘facts’.
‘NET heat’ should say ‘NET energy flux’.
Nate says, January 23, 2018 at 6:49 PM:
Hehe. No, Nate. You’re just continuing to show your ignorance in this field.
Indeed. And you are claiming that a RADIATIVE FLUX will move from cold to hot, Nate. That would constitute a direct violation of the 2nd Law.
Do you know the definition of a radiative flux, Nate?
Sorry, botched it.
Nate says, January 23, 2018 at 6:49 PM:
Hehe. No, Nate. You’re just continuing to show your ignorance in this field.
Indeed. And you are claiming that a RADIATIVE FLUX will move from cold to hot, Nate. That would constitute a direct violation of the 2nd Law.
Do you know the definition of a radiative flux, Nate?
But “some radiation (yes photons)” does not constitute a radiative flux, Nate. Which is specifically what we’re discussing here.
You will certainly not detect a radiative flux from this colder celestial source. You will, however, still be able to detect PHOTONS from it.
Not if what you’re detecting are photons. If you were, however, to detect a thermal radiative flux from the same source, then you WOULD have proven the 2nd Law wrong. And congrats to you!
I’m over myself. I will NOT get over the facts, however. They’re facts for a reason. And you won’t get past them, I’m afraid.
Kristian, Lets go back to your original statement:
the 133 W/m^2 arrow from the green plate to the blue plate isnt a real incoming radiative flux to the blue plate. It is merely one of the two conceptual components”
My IR detector is pointing at empty space, I measure a background of thermal noise etc.
Now when I point it at a cool IR celestial source (maybe Neptune), my signal increases above the background. Is this due to a purely ‘conceptual’ source of IR radiation? Or is a real source of IR radiation?
Science is ultimately about measurements. My measurements show a source of IR radiation in that location. I conclude it is a real source producing real radiation.
The source could be warmer than my detector and red-shifted because it is moving, or it could be cooler than my detector and stationary. Or it could be an alien on Neptune shining an IR laser at me. Whatever the source is, it is not conceptual.
Is this ongoing argument only about correct labeling? Is it about when to use ‘whom’ vs ‘who’? Or is an argument of more consequence than that?
BTW, Net radiative flux is a term I have seen often used. If flux is only flux when its NET flux, then that usage is redundant.
Point is I can find the one-way radiative energy flux term used as I am using it.
E.g. Here, under Radiative Heat Transfer section.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermal_radiation#Interchange_of_energy
Kristian,
‘Is this ongoing argument only about correct labeling? Is it about when to use whom vs who? Or is it an argument of more consequence than that?’
I guess I have my answer, No consequence.
svante…”I suppose it has to be conduction at the surface boundary layer, is that what you mean Gordon?”
I am basing it entirely on what Wood claimed. Please note that he was highly regarded at the time as an expert on IR radiation.
Also note that the article was posted by William Connolley a computer programmer and uber-alarmist who hangs out at realclimate. He is asking the reader to suggest why this quote below is wrong. Seems to me Wood is a far better source of truth on the mater, as an eminent authority on IR, than a computer programmer steeped in AGW rhetoric.
http://www.wmconnolley.org.uk/sci/wood_rw.1909.html
“Is it therefore necessary to pay attention to trapped radiation in deducing the temperature of a planet as affected by its atmosphere? 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.
I do not pretent to have gone very deeply into the matter, and publish this note merely to draw attention to the fact that trapped radiation appears to play but a very small part in the actual cases with which we are familiar”.
The ‘contact’ means it’s the boundary, so Norman is right elsewhere.
Gordon, look up “surface budget fallacy”.
Svante, look up “pathological science”. (The “science” of things that aren’t so.)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pathological_science
Thank you!
“Langmuir said a pathological science is an area of research that simply will not ‘go away’ long after it was given up on as ‘false’ by the majority of scientists in the field.”
Like 97%.
“The ratio of supporters to critics rises and then falls gradually to oblivion.”
Like from ngstrm to today.
Angstrom.
svante…”Like 97%”
Hopefully you’re not quoting that cartoonist who runs skepticalscience. His 97% theory was dismissed long ago.
Besides, why would you take someone seriously who has been caught impersonating physicist Lubos Motl and being caught dressed in a Nazi uniform?
I mean the horrible stigma of the Nazis is still with us. Why would someone trying to be taken seriously in science go to the trouble of buying or renting a Nazi uniform, have himself photographed wearing it, then be careless enough to allow the photo to appear on the Net?
Why would anyone want to put a Nazi uniform on?
‘nazi uniform’ – cant refute opponents, lets try character assassination, good job Gordon!
nate…”nazi uniform cant refute opponents, lets try character assassination, good job Gordon!”
So you think it’s OK for a guy claiming to be a scientist, and the source of your alarmist information, to parade around in a Nazi uniform? Does it bother you that he’s a cartoonist, likely because he can’t find work in physics?
Gordon,
You have no idea what the context was for him to be in a nazi uniform. Was it because he is a neo nazi? Does he advocate genocide? Unlikely. Was it halloween, a play, a comic-con convention? I dunno. Who cares? I assume there was some reason.
What he does in his personal (unless its criminal) is none of my/your business, and irrelevant to the science.
You disagree with his research findings. The problem is that he worked with several collaborators. The findings have been reproduced by others. You’re gonna need to dig up personal dirt on all these people.
And then there’s this:
Andy Skuce volunteers this: John Cook is not dressed as a Nazi in that picture, its a Photoshop image. It was done as a joke, by one of the Skeptical Science regulars, in response to people calling us SS and Nazis. Of course, it is in very poor taste and should have been deleted, rather than left lying around on the server.
So youve been propogating fake news all this time.
I was curious about the background on that, thank’s for finding that out Nate.
svante…”Gordon, look up surface budget fallacy”.
I wish you’d told me it was realclimate featuring Pierrehumbert. I read the entire article out of courtesy to you, but it’s the same old, same old pseudo-science that permeates the AGW theory.
You seem to presume that someone with a Ph. D in physics must know what he’s talking about. That depends largely on how much the Ph. D was immersed in a paradigm and his character with regard to ‘wanting’ to understand rather than regurgitating pap through desperation to get a degree. Believe me, there are many of those types in a university.
There are very few Feynman’s, Ph.D’s who are willing to look very closely at what is going on. There are a whole lot of Pierrehumbert’s who get themselves locked in psychological concepts about what is going on.
At your link he claimed, “Adding CO2 to the atmosphere is a bit like turning up the dial on a heat lamp you are lying underneath”.
I mean, that’s just plain stupid. It’s like Hansen, another Ph.D, raving about a tipping point by comparing the Earth to Venus, then changing basic thermodynamics to fit the model. For one, how do you turn up the dial on a heat lamp, has he ever used one? Heat lamps don’t come with controllers you can dial up so how would he know what happens when you increase the output of a heat lamp.
Another, why would you lie under a heat lamp? You’d perhaps lie under an ultraviolet lamp to get a tan but why a heat lamp? There are far better ways to warm yourself. My point is that the types at rc offer the most ludicrous, poorly thought-out examples. It suggests to me they lack the ability to think with any degree of clarity.
We know that a heat lamps is a specially designed lamp that converts electrical energy to IR radiation. All lamps do that to an extent but with most lamps, we want to get a higher frequency EM that gives us visible light. Heat lamps are designed to feature lower frequency EM.
What has that got to do with increasing heat on the surface? I am not being obtuse, no one, including Arrhenius, has ever proved that the amount of CO2 in our atmosphere can warm the atmosphere significantly let alone heat the surface more than it can be heated by solar radiation.
I could allow for that if Pierrehumbert offered it as a theory to be tested. However, he and his rc colleagues offer it as an absolute truth based on a theory that is over 100 years old. They do it with supreme arrogance. If you or I went to an rc blog and argued the opposite they’d ban us.
No one at rc has ever proved that CO2 in the atmosphere can warm anything significantly yet here we have their resident guru preaching propaganda, comparing increased CO2 to a heat lamp.
Hanson’s first atmospheric models were for Venus. The truth is he modified his Venutian models to fit the earth.
Heat lamps do come with controllers.
https://www.amazon.com/Wild-Wolf-Reptiles-Adjustable-Lighting/dp/B01M711HER/ref=sr_1_2_sspa?ie=UTF8&qid=1516674536&sr=8-2-spons&keywords=adjustable+heat+lamp&psc=1
Mr Spence – will you please answer my question on another thread:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/12/first-annual-list-of-banished-climate-change-terms/#comment-281009
des…from your link….”I would certainly hope someone who claims to be a rational scientist would not go around quoting mantra without providing some kind of justification”.
It’s hardly rational scientists who are promoting terms like climate change. Certainly, the term means something with reference to a localized climate but not to the planet as a whole. Applied as a generic term, surely its sole purpose is to frighten people.
I understand your concern with ‘they’ as a reference but somewhere along the line, global warming lost its prominence to climate change. That has happened largely in the past decade. I don’t think it is a coincidence, all temperature reporting agencies were noting a global warming hiatus post 1998. It was becoming apparent that catastrophic global warming was not in the near future and whoever it was began pushing the term climate change over global warming.
Believe it or not, there are groups out there actively trying to shape the minds of the public. The late climate modeler Steven Schneider said as much in a statement:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_Schneider
“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”.
If scientists are admitting to that, it gives more credence to ‘they’. Modelers do not adhere to what Schneider claimed in the first part of the statement. In fact, John Christy of UAH approached a modeler with evidence from UAH data that his model was in error only to receive a rebuke claiming, I don’t care, my model is right.
ps. some are claiming both global warming and climate change as terms date back to 1975, from Wallace Broecker. From what I have read of him, however, he was prone to using the term ‘climate system’, which makes far more sense. I guess climate system change is not as sexy or scary as a generic climate change.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wallace_Smith_Broecker
The IPCC was formed in 1988. You DO know that the CC stands for CLIMATE CHANGE, don’t you?
From the first IPCC report in 1991, I did a word search on the Working Group I report on the scientific assessment of CLIMATE CHANGE (NOT global warming), since science is what we are here for.
It has 86 mentions of “global warming” and 361 mentions of “climate change”. So it was 80.8% “climate change” 27 years ago.
“somewhere along the line, global warming lost its prominence to climate change.”
As I’ve just shown, “global warming” NEVER had such a prominence – not even close.
des…”You DO know that the CC stands for CLIMATE CHANGE, dont you?”
Yes…I have no problem with the term climate change when used in the proper context. That’s hardly how it is employed these days by alarmist. They have coined the term climate change denier, what does that mean exactly?
How does one deny that climates change? What they are after is a much larger fear factor that the entire planet will change drastically climate-wise. No one has demonstrated how that might happen because no one has ever seen it before.
You are aware of the political motivation behind the IPCC? It was a formed out of a brain child of an advisor to UK Tory PM Margaret Thatcher. They were having grief with coal miners in the UK and the adviser suggested taking it to the UN and having Thatcher, with a degree in chemistry, bamboozle the hoi polloi at the UN with with climate mumbo jumbo related to how coal emissions are dangerous.
She was assisted by people like John Houghton, a climate modeler who became the first IPCC co-chair. Houghton brought some serious modeling propaganda to the table and the IPCC has featured it while barely mentioning the contradictory evidence from UAH satellite data.
The IPCC has gone to great length to push the view of politicians like Thatcher. For one, lead authors are politically appointed. After 2500 reviewers go over the evidence and submit a report, 50 lead authors get to submit their report first, called the Summary for Policymakers. Before the main report is issued, it is amended to reflect the Summary.
Of course, any of the 2500 reviewers can complain about the amendments of the 50 lead authors but evidence from the IPCC annals makes it clear most of the complaints are ignored or over-ruled.
Following the 2007 review, Lindzen revealed that the 90% confidence level issued on the Summary, that it is likely humans are causing global warming, came from the 50 lead authors. The main report had stated a ‘wait and see’ attitude but it was over-ruled and the views of the 50 politically-appointed lead authors was accepted.
That’s not science and you can bet the CC in IPCC is politically loaded to suggest a global climate catastrophe. At least, the IPCC has convinced politicians that is likely.
des…”As Ive just shown, global warming NEVER had such a prominence not even close”.
In which context was climate change mentioned? Would you care to sift through the 361 mentions to see exactly how the term was applied?
Again, what does it mean? Unless you are referring to a specific region’s climate the term has little meaning. Maybe in a climate model you can change certain parameters that affect the entire planet but not on the real planet. The IPCC is largely about the virtual world of climate models.
Precisely what application of the term “climate change” would disprove my point?
Here is a sample:
(A) Headings
(1) Time-Dependent Greenhouse-Gas-Induced Climate Change
(2) “What will be the pattern of Climate Change by 2030?”
(B) Ones where “global warming” could easily have been used:
(1) “… clouds, which strongly influence that magnitude of climate change”
(2) “We need to know future greenhouse concentrations in order to estimate future climate change”
(3) “We can calculate the forcing with much more confidence than the climate change that results …”
(4) “How quickly will climate change?” … answered only in terms of temperatures
(C) Effects other than temperature
“What will be the effects of climate change on ecosystems?”
MOST significantly, and the fact which puts the entire matter to rest:
Of all scientific papers referenced in WG1, 53 referred to “Climate Change” in the title while only 8 referred to “Global Warmning”.
The VAST VAST majority of scientists have been using “global warming” since the year dot.
And another unrelated point from WG1.
You guys have all been claiming that the IPCC has predicted an increase in the FREQUENCY of tropical storms (eg. hurricanes)
…
“Although the theoretical MAXIMUM intensity is expected to increase with temperature, climate models give no consistent indication whether tropical storms will increase or decrease in frequency or intensity as climate changes …”.
I would love to know where you guys (including Mr Spencer) pull these claims from …. denier websites? It’s clear you have never actually READ an IPCC report.
Yeah des, it’s time to flee the sinking ship.
More and more folks are learning about the failed pseudoscience of the IPCC/AGW/CO2/GHE nonsense.
Now calling it “climate change” allows you to claim every season is due to humans. Heck, even day and nights could be claimed to be caused by humans.
Claiming seasons and days/nights are caused by humans also fits in well with the “flat-earth” pseudoscience. That theory cannot explain those observable phenomena very well. So, the causes must be anthropogenic!
Hilarious.
Gordon – feel free to return us to topic after your friend’s off-point rant.
des, are you now denying that you’re denying that you were denying global warming?
I hope you don’t get too confused.
dea…”Precisely what application of the term climate change would disprove my point?”
I wasn’t trying to disprove your point I was adding to it. You dug up the number of references and I ‘asked’ you what the IPCC were talking about each time they used the reference.
I have told you I think the IPCC is a politically-based outfit but I was wondering exactly how they have applied the term climate change.
I also informed you how the IPCC came to be. The impetus behind it was an uber right-wing Tory trying to deal with socialist miners. I’m a left-leaner myself although I have worked in my own business as well. I have nothing against anyone making a fair profit or even living a wealthy lifestyle.
I wonder why people are so quick to blame lefties for AGW when it began with extreme Tories.
Mind you I draw the line at wannabee lefties, the posers. I walked the walk on picket lines with cops harassing us. We had some hard-boiled types ourselves who stood right up to them and there were times I thought we were off to jail.
A left winger is basically a working type who is willing to scrap for better wages and conditions. You get all forms of philosophical wannabee lefties who are willing to reap the benefits without walking the walk. They enjoy the philosophical benefits of identifying with lefties without understanding what it’s really about. Left to philosophy alone, no one would ever have gotten better wages and conditions.
The IPCC was set up mainly due to US support, NOT Britain.
And YOU don’t get to decide what is a proper left-winger and what is not. Both left and right are an amalgamation of different political factions with different outlooks and priorities, and no single faction is “right” for that side of politics. The concept of left-right is just for the simple-minded who are incapable of considering complexity, and because of our political system which needs to have only two strong sides in order to function optimally. Those factions align themselves with left/right differently in different countries.
Anyway – I’ll take the fact that you had to go off-topic with a political rant as an admission that you were wrong. The 1991 IPCC report shows that “Climate Change” has ALWAYS been the dominant term amongst climate scientists.
des…”And YOU dont get to decide what is a proper left-winger and what is not. Both left and right are an amalgamation of different political factions with different outlooks and priorities, and no single faction is right for that side of politics”.
We who stood up and walked the walk in face of intimidation from employers certainly deserve the right to speak out about those who have not. There are people calling themselves left-wingers who want to see unions disbanded.
When I was in my early 20s, I thought Russian communism was cool. I was basing that on stuff I’d read from Aristotle or Socrates and reckoned, quite stupidly, that Russian communism must be the same Nirvana described by the Greeks.
It was not till I read Solzhenitsyn that I clued into what a load of barbaric ***holes were running Russia. They were no different than German Nazis. That was never a communism and to make matters worse, the Bolsheviks running Russia were putting real communists, unionists, and socialists in concentration camps.
There are idealists out their who are left-wingers in thought only. Unionism is the epitome of the left wing and no unionist ever got something for nothing. They had to claw and scratch, sometimes being beaten or killed, and many people today who are not left-wingers reap the benefits of their struggles.
And they did it all under democracies.
Up here, the US government has recently been shut down by the Democrats who represent what there is of the left in the US. Why??? They claim it’s over DACA but they have been whining about losing to Trump and setting up obstacles to his governance since he won.
I say, as a left-winger, let the guy govern. He won fair and square. If left-leaners in the US don’t like it, they have ballot boxes to change that.
des…”The 1991 IPCC report shows that Climate Change has ALWAYS been the dominant term amongst climate scientists”.
And the IPCC are corrupt. What does that tell you about them incorporating climate change in their name?
The US may have funded the IPCC more than others but the idea was started by the UK. The first co-chair was John Houghton and he was quoted by Aussie columnist Piers Akerman of The Daily Telegraph as saying, “Unless we announce disaster, no one will listen”. He was a good friend of Margaret Thatcher who pulled strings for him.
I have heard Houghton speak and he is a rabid propaganda machine. The entire IPCC is a propaganda machine, they return results in their reviews that meet the requirements of their political masters.
“And the IPCC are corrupt. What does that tell you about them incorporating climate change in their name?”
Please explain how including ‘climate change’ is a name is in any way related to corruption. Are you claiming they knew the fake “pause” would be claimed a decade or more down the track?
des…”Please explain how including climate change is a name is in any way related to corruption”.
It misleads people into thinking anthropogenic warming will lead to catastrophic climate change of a universal nature. Furthermore it misleads people as to the intention of their mandate, which is to find evidence of CO2 warming only. They have no intention of studying climate change, they are only looking to prove CO2 causes global warming while completely ignoring any natural causes.
The IPCC have NEVER been about finding evidence for CO2 warming. That was already an established fact before the IPCC came along.
The IPCC is ONLY a reporting body. Although individual members take part in individual research, the IPCC doesn’t do ANY of its own research.
des…”The IPCC have NEVER been about finding evidence for CO2 warming”.
Sorry to have to inform you that finding evidence of CO2 warming is the IPCC mandate. They call it anthropogenic warming.
The IPCC are not allowed to step outside that mandate. They must focus only on anthropogenic warming, which infers CO2 warming. They do consider other forms of anthropogenic warming but that’s kind of a joke. There are no other inferred, significant sources of anthropogenic warming.
From the IPCC charter (NOT ‘mandate’):
“The role of the IPCC is to assess on a comprehensive, objective, open and transparent basis the scientific, technical and socio-economic information relevant to understanding the scientific basis of risk of human-induced climate change, its potential impacts and options for adaptation and mitigation. IPCC reports should be neutral with respect to policy, although they may need to deal objectively with scientific, technical and socio-economic factors relevant to the application of particular policies.”
NO mention of CO2. And NO mention of “looking for evidence” of the GHE of CO2.
Why do you have no problem pulling claims out of your butt?
Of course, you will now turn that charter paragraph around to make yet another ludicrous claim.
des…”IPCC reports should be neutral with respect to policy…”
I guess that’s why they have a policy of releasing the Summary for Policymakers, written by 50 politically-appointed lead authors, before the main report from 2500 reviewers, then amend the main report to fit the Summary.
Seriously, Des, how can you support such chicanery? You’re not related to Barry, are you?
So now you abandon your ridiculous claim without even a hint of an admission that you were WRONG, and make yet another idiotic claim.
I assume you can provide EVIDENCE that they “amend the main report to fit the summary”. Come on Gordon – SURPRISE ME.
des…here’s your evidence but somehow I think no amount of evidence will ever satisfy you.
https://www.rossmckitrick.com/uploads/4/8/0/8/4808045/mckitrick-ipcc_reforms.pdf
page 7 – Lead Authors can defeat the review process either by overruling reviewers or by waiting until after the close of expert review and then rewriting the text. Material changes to important sections of text have been made in this way in past assessment reports.
Read bottom of page 16 of 49 (actual p.14) for complaints from lead authors about their peer lead authors selected. Continued on 17 of 49.
Page 20 of 49 (on Adobe reader)
There are two main problems with the IPCC structure. First, the IPCC Bureau has complete control over the selection of Lead Authors and Coordinating Lead Authors, and it has demonstrated preferences for choosing authors with openly-declared sympathies toward environmental activist groups, thus giving them effective control over the contents of the report drafts. Second, the checks and balances of the review process are minimal because LAs can overrule critical reviewers and rewrite the text after the review process has closed. These problems interact, since biases arising from the selection of LAs are not kept in check by the weak review process. In the next part I illustrate these points using four case studies.
Page 24 of 49
Here, the author shows direct evidence of corruption involving a paper her had co-authored:
“One of the Climategate emails is from IPCC Author Phil Jones to his colleague Michael Mann on July 8 2004, in which Jones confides that he and IPCC coauthor (Kevin) Trenberth were determined to keep this evidence out of the IPCC Report:
I cant see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin [Trenberth] and I will keep them out somehow even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!”
So your “proof” is a denier with no connection to the IPCC, citing other deniers with no connection to the IPCC. You really have a low “proof threshold” don’t you.
Snape says, January 15, 2018 at 12:50 AM:
You again manage to tiptoe your way around the most important question:
“What makes the 133 W/m^2 input from the green plate fundamentally different from the similar-looking 400 W/m^2 input from the Sun?”
You basically try to shrug it off by saying the difference is It’s not heat.
But that’s not an answer, Snape. That’s just stating what we already know. Yes, we know it’s not a heat input to the blue plate. That’s the whole point. And THEREFORE the question becomes:
“So, if it’s not a heat input to the blue plate, in what way is this term fundamentally different from the solar input? What specific physical reason can we give to explain WHY and HOW it’s different, why and how it’s not a heat input?” (And no, the answer I’m looking for is not “Because it’s not coming from a heat source.” That is already given. That is self-evident. You need to go a little bit deeper than that.)
Are you really this ignorant, Snape? Or are you just stubbornly unwilling to provide the simple, yet – perhaps to some – slightly unsettling, answer? Hard to tell …
“What specific physical reason can we give to explain WHY and HOW its different, why and how its not a heat input?”
You mean SWIR vs. LWIR? Is that what you think I’m avoiding? Yes, objects emit IR in wavelengths according to their temperature. The sun emits SW because it’s very hot, the green plate emits LW because it’s relatively cool.
Back to semantics: the green plate emits energy to the blue, often casually called heat. But when heat is defined as net energy exchanged, only the difference (133.5 watts from blue to green) can correctly be called heat.
,
Snape says, January 18, 2018 at 1:30 AM:
*Sigh*
No, Snape. This has got nothing to do with SW vs. LW. I simply mean the 400 W/m^2 from the Sun to the blue plate vs. the 133 W/m^2 from the green plate to the blue plate. What is the significant difference between the two? Why and how are they physically different? What distinguishes them from one another?
This is not about semantics, Snape. It’s about basic physics.
Well, not by people who know just a little bit about basic thermodynamics principles.
Not when heat is defined as … Heat IS (!!) defined as the net movement of (thermal) energy from one system to another.
No. Not called heat. The 133 W/m^2 from the blue plate to the green plate IS (!!) the heat. The net movement of (thermal) energy between the two plates.
So, back to my question to you, the one you keep evading: “How and why is the 133 W/m^2 from the green plate to the blue plate fundamentally physically different from the 400 W/m^2 from the Sun to the blue plate?”
Or do you actually need me to tell you? To spell it out for you? To spoon-feed you?
Kristian
I’m not going to pretend to know much at all about radiation. The only physical difference I can find between energy from the sun and the green plate is in the wavelength. You will have to spoon feed the difference I’m missing.
“The energy contained in a single photon does not depend on the intensity of the radiation. At any specific wavelength — say, the wavelength of light emitted by a helium-neon laser — every photon contains exactly the same amount of energy, whether the source appears as dim as a candle or as bright as the sun. The brilliance or intensity is a function of the number of photons striking a given surface area per unit time.”
It was somewhat more imaginative to use the idea of the Sun heating the blue plate. A bunny could just as well have said that resistive electrical heaters are buried in the blue plate and provide heat at a rate of 400 W/m2.
This is a distinction without a difference. People objecting to the model are basically trying to modify it in a way that distorts the example
Eli…” A bunny could just as well have said that resistive electrical heaters are buried in the blue plate and provide heat at a rate of 400 W/m2″.
And it would still be equally wrong to claim the green plate warmed the blue plate. EM is not heat. Heat cannot be transferred from a cooler plate to a warmer plate.
Gerlich and Tscheuschner already told you that. In your rebuttal to them you inferred one of the plates was not radiating in their model. You still don’t get it that the 2nd law is about heat transfer and has nothing whatsoever to do with the EM radiation. Both plates are radiating, only the hotter can warm the other. Radiation from the cooler plate has no effect on the hotter plate.
Other than the fact that heat transferred from the hotter plate to the colder plate, after conversion to EM, can only be transferred one way.
snape…”The only physical difference I can find between energy from the sun and the green plate is in the wavelength”.
It doesn’t occur to you that the temperature of the Sun is over a million degrees C and after traveling 93 million miles its radiation flux is 1300+ W/m^2?
If the green plate was radiating at 1300 W/m^2 you would have a case.
Snape says, January 22, 2018 at 12:14 PM:
“The only physical difference I can find between energy from the sun and the green plate is in the wavelength. You will have to spoon feed the difference I’m missing.”
Ok.
First of all, I am NOT (!!) claiming there’s a fundamental difference between the energy in either case. I’m saying there’s a fundamental difference between those two arrows (“inputs”) to the blue plate, and how to treat them physically.
You see, the first one (the incoming ‘solar arrow’) is a actual, full, independent (separate, distinct) input of macroscopic energy to the blue plate. Which is why it constitutes a HEAT flux. The second one (the incoming ‘green plate arrow’) isn’t. Which is why it DOESN’T constitute a heat flux.
I explain it in a bit more detail here:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2018/01/uah-global-temperature-update-for-december-2017-0-41-deg-c/#comment-282165
And here:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2018/01/uah-global-temperature-update-for-december-2017-0-41-deg-c/#comment-281845
Jessus effing christ – is this crap STILL going on?
Des
Yep. It’s been going on forever and getting nowhere. I’m done.
My preliminary UAH estimate for January … +0.19
des…”My preliminary UAH estimate for January +0.19″
If it’s not at least that low, I’m claiming corruption. I think UAH has integrity but it’s not clear if they get their NOAA sat data straight from the satellite or via NOAA. If it’s the latter, it would not take much to change the data. They fudge the surface data, what’s to stop them doing the same with the sat data?
You seem to have a strong aversion to providing evidence for your claims.
And I hope your reason for expecting a low reading extends beyond the 2% of the globe that is the USA.
des…”You seem to have a strong aversion to providing evidence for your claims”.
There is no known reason why the 2016 El Nino should remain at the global levels it is remaining at. Since NOAA has fudged the record retroactively to show a warming trend where the IPCC found none it makes sense they’d corrupt the sat record as well to show warming where none exists.
Whereas the recent cold spell has been contained to North America, most of the surface stations are in the US by far. If they are not affecting the global average I think something is wrong.
NOAA has messed with the global record using statistical interpolation and homogenization. If a station is within 1200 km of another station, they think it is fair game to delete the one station while using the other to represent it. They merely slash the station and use a climate model to INFER the temperature using nearby stations.
I call that scientific misconduct. NOAA is not funded by the US public to guess at temperatures when they have the real data on hand. Furthermore, it has recently been revealed that NOAA uses warmer stations near the oceans to INFER temperatures further inland.
For example, I live near the Pacific Ocean and our temperatures remain mild throughout the winter. 100 miles east the temps can be much lower and 200 miles east they can be 20 C below ours. NOAA thinks it’s OK to take coastal temps and interpolate them to represent temps further inland that are much colder.
That’s how NOAA gets warming where no one else gets it. The question is, why??? I think it’s obvious they have been corrupted through political influence.
Hahahahaha – you think NOAA simply average all the surface stations, creating regional biases. Do you EVER do thorough research?
The US is 2% of the globe, and it COUNTS as 2% of the globe in ALL global temperature analyses.
Gordon says
“There is no known reason why the 2016 El Nino should remain at the global levels it is remaining at.”
You are so gullible. There was no el nino in 2016!! The warming was the result of aliens directing photon lazers at our planet.
Governments around the world, fearing mass panic, ordered scientists to fudge the ocean data as a cover-up.
des…”you think NOAA simply average all the surface stations, creating regional biases. Do you EVER do thorough research?”
Much worse. They have admitted to slashing over 75% of the data collected globally and synthesizing it in a climate model using less than 25% of the data. NOAA thinks it’s just as good to use statistical guessing based on interpolation as long as the missing stations are within 1200 km of each other.
NOAA proclaimed 2014 the hottest year ever based on a 48% confidence level.
WHY to both???
NOAA are busy setting up reference stations in North America so they can use them as typical of what temperatures ‘should’ be. That helps them in their climate models to statistically interpolate and homogenize the data from the less than 25% of surface stations.
NOAA is being investigated by the US government for fudging the data and removing the hiatus since 1998 statistically.
It’s time you Aussies took a look at the BOM.
Gordon, try actually answering my question.
DO YOU BELIEVE THAT NOAA SIMPLY AVERAGES ALL THE GLOBAL STATION DATA?
Whenever you’re ready Gordon.
Your silence on this one tells me you know you are wrong.
des…”Your silence on this one tells me you know you are wrong”.
You think I’ve got nothing better to do all day than sit around waiting for you to respond? Besides my engineering degree I am a brain-surgeon. I have a line up of climate alarmists waiting for me to fix their brains.
So now you have an engineering degree do you. It seems you need to continually upgrade your profile.
Des,
Sounds like it should be close to that.
The latest data from aqua satellite (until Jan 19) show a very large drop from last month to about 0.17C .
It looks like the La-Nina is finally kicking in.
If it stays this low , which I strongly suspect it will, then it will be lowest value since July 2015 and also the first value below the long term trend since that date. However it is still well above 39 year average for January.
Actually, it was below the trended value twice in 2017 – in March and June.
I though Aqua had nothing to do with temperature. Could you link me to this page?
Des,
The Aqua AMSU data was used for calculation of UAH temperature until channel 5 failed several years ago.
Despite this Aqua channel 6 data is still reported here –
https://ghrc.nsstc.nasa.gov/amsutemps/amsutemps.pl?r=003
The data which is updated daily can be downloaded from a link on this page.
I have downloaded this data from 2002 onwards and converted them to anomalies (baseline 2002-2015). This data, when averaged over a month, correlates well with UAH v6 TLT (R^2 = 0.89) see –
https://s20.postimg.org/7483g7325/UAH_6_correl_Aqua.jpg
The figure I quoted was from the averaged Aqua data for this month until the 20th.
Excel typically gives a 95% confidence interval of +/-0.05 C without considering serial correlation. As both data sets are highly serially correlated the uncertainty will be greater.
Despite this it usually gives a reasonable indication, in near real time, of what the UAH temperature is likely to be for the month.
I guess I am hoping it may be a bit better than reading tea leaves or goat’s entrails.
MikeR
I’m not impressed by your fancy computer skills. January’s anomaly will be + 0.28
Thanks Des,
You are quite right that March and June were under the trend. April was just a smidgin under trend as well.
I should have checked the data itself rather than just eyeballing the graph of the linear fit and the data.
Two-way thermal radiation in free space:
https://okulaer.files.wordpress.com/2017/10/photons.png
Two-way thermal radiation inside a glass box:
https://okulaer.files.wordpress.com/2017/10/photonsa.png
Two-way thermal radiation inside a cavity:
https://okulaer.files.wordpress.com/2017/11/hulromsstrc3a5ling-1.png
Two-way thermal radiation to a cryogenically cooled detector immersed in a thermal radiation field:
https://okulaer.files.wordpress.com/2016/09/radiation-sfc-atm.png
Or is perhaps this whole “two-way” thing simply a mathematically defined concept? You mentally choose two spatial directions in which to look …
Like this:
https://okulaer.files.wordpress.com/2017/11/hulromsstrc3a5ling-2.png
https://okulaer.files.wordpress.com/2017/11/radiation-sfc-atm.png
For a surface you need to copy the last image and delete everything below the red line.
Are you saying that for a surface, there is no radiation below the red line?
Seems you’re ONCE AGAIN mixing up the MICRO and the MACRO perspectives.
I’m missing a picture of a surface, for example the surface of the earth, where you can ignore radiation underground.
Svante says, January 25, 2018 at 1:32 AM:
I repeat: Are you saying that for a surface, there is no radiation below the red line?
Why is it that we “can ignore radiation underground”, Svante? Is it because there IS no radiation underground? Or is there a different reason?
We’re getting to the heart of the matter here …
Visible light and IR does not penetrate the ground very well.
Physics has conduction inside objects, and radiation between them. Is conduction partly radiation? Perhaps you or another expert here can inform me.
If you draw a photon picture of the surface of the earth I think you can safely ignore underground IR.
Svante says, January 25, 2018 at 3:44 PM:
Please stop evading my question, Svante!
I ask you again:
Are you saying that for a surface, there is no radiation below the red line?
Why is it that we “can ignore radiation underground”, Svante? Is it because there IS no radiation underground? Or is there a different reason?
Please answer the question(s).
Yes, if you put the red line at the surface there is no light and IR below it.
Svante says, January 26, 2018 at 1:19 AM:
Exactly. There is no “IR radiation” in a MACROscopic (!!) sense! No observable directional FLUX. However, there is MOST CERTAINLY “IR radiation” in a MICROscopic sense!
Do you seriously think that atoms/molecules within matter are somehow incapable of absorbing and emitting IR photons, Svante!? That only surface atoms/molecules possess this ability? And do you believe that even those surface atoms/molecules will ONLY be able to emit its thermal photons in an ‘outward’ direction …!?
Think it through, Svante.
Wrong. There is a different reason. It’s to be found in the fundamental difference between the MICRO and the MACRO realms.
How do you think thermal (“blackbody”) radiation is generated and sustained, Svante?
I will give you a source and a quote, but first I want you to let this whole thing spin one more round through your mind …
The key to my entire argument is in there.
Another quizz!
Thank you for your patience last time, I think we clarified that one pretty well.
So it’s like my first guess. What we normally call conduction is partly radiation. How much then?
And the reason we can ignore it is that conduction puts neighboring molecules at the same temperature, so there is little radiative heat transfer?
Moving on from that, the mantle is a thousand degrees, but up-welling heat is only 0.2 W/m^2. So the crust is a good insulator, and its internal IR does not get very far?
Granted your pictures with arrows in all directions is a good depiction of the situation underground.
Svante says, January 26, 2018 at 4:26 PM:
“So it’s like my first guess. What we normally call conduction is partly radiation.”
You’re not following me. Forget about any TRANSPORT of energy inside the radiating body. That’s not what this is about. It’s not what I’m trying to make you see. We assume isothermal (or near-isothermal) conditions within anyway, therefore no discernible internal fluxes (net thermal movement of energy) of any kind.
The “radiation” I’m talking about is ONLY microscopic – at the photon (quantum) level. Emission and absorp-tion of thermal photons ALWAYS occur, whether or not conduction (and/or convection) is going on at the same time. Path lengths will of course vary immensely according to the medium in which these events are taking place, but the emission/absorp-tion processes themselves are always happening no matter what. The fundamental physical principles governing them are the same.
Even where there is no BULK MOVEMENT of thermal radiative energy, because of no temperature gradients/differences, there will still always be thermal radiative energy ‘present’, whenever there is matter at a temperature above absolute zero. There is always a thermal “photon cloud” occupying the exact same volume as – and in a state of thermal equilibrium with – the matter creating and sustaining it. Whether or not radiative energy macroscopically (thermally) moves WITH or THROUGH this cloud is a different matter altogether. Thermal movement of energy strictly requires spatial differences in temperature. For an isothermal blackbody hovering in space, such movement can ONLY occur at its outer surface, at the interface between it and its surroundings, at a different (much lower) temp. This doesn’t mean that thermal photons don’t exist below the surface of the blackbody. Only that they can’t escape it. Below, there is no radiative FLUX (macroscopic/bulk movement of radiative energy). There are individual photons moving everywhere, in every direction. But all these minute movements average out to zero. Just like the molecules making up the solid body, emitting and absorbing all the thermal photons. They ALL move. In place. Furiously. But does that mean that the solid body as a whole, as a macroscopic unit, moves (vibrates) also? Of course not. It means it has a TEMPERATURE. And if it’s hot and we hold our hand close to it (without touching it), we can FEEL its high temperature as BULK energy TRANSFERS via thermal radiation from it to our hand. We don’t feel any photons. They don’t exist as individual entities in our realm. What we feel is the net movement of radiative energy from the hot blackbody to our hand. The radiative flux. The HEAT.
https://okulaer.files.wordpress.com/2017/11/slide_7.jpg
http://slideplayer.com/slide/8771842/ (p.7)
https://tinyurl.com/k6jfexl (pp.41-42)
(My boldface.)
Amen to that.
Fig. 21-6 is the one I was missing from you.
There you have a natural hemisphere, where incoming and outgoing EMR is a very natural way to look at it.
Svante says, January 27, 2018 at 7:25 AM:
Svante, it seems you’re not even trying to get my point. Rather, you appear to be actively working to avoid getting it. Why is that?
Look, if you’re an individual surface molecule, do you exclusively absorb and emit thermal photons from/to the empty space outside of the body you’re part of? Or do you at all times absorb and emit thermal photons randomly from/to the full spatial sphere (4π of solid angle) around you, with on average many MORE photons coming IN from your neighboring molecules to your sides and below you, at (on average) the same energy level (“temperature”) as you are, than from cold space above you?
Once more: Think it through. And read what it says in the passages I quote. I even highlight the most relevant segments. For instance:
“The total radiation emitted by a cooling body is not correctly described merely as the sum of all the individual emission processes, as the particles can also absorb radiation. In the end, the statistics of a large number of emission AND absorp-tion events determine the resultant radiation.“
Do you understand the implications of the very basic circumstance described here, Svante?
And, from Fig. 21-6:
“Radiation in opaque solids is considered a surface phenomenon since the radiation emitted only by the molecules at the surface can escape the solid.“
Don’t make this harder than it needs to be. Unless you, for some reason, want it to be harder than it needs to be …
I thought I had agreed to all that, especially:
“Even where there is no BULK MOVEMENT of thermal radiative energy, because of no temperature gradients/differences.”
So when we discuss the surface fig. 21-6 in your reference is pretty good. Why did you not include that among your pictures (with arrows in both directions).
Svante says, January 27, 2018 at 4:49 PM:
Well, we’re seemingly still at square one, so I’m not really sure about the agreement part, since I appear not to be getting the central point across to you at all.
You specifically told me, in your previous response: “Fig. 21-6 is the one I was missing from you. There you have a natural hemisphere, where incoming and outgoing EMR is a very natural way to look at it.“
And that’s exactly where we started, isn’t it? The FIRST thing you said when commenting on my illustrations of thermal radiation at the photon (quantum) level was: “For a surface you need to copy the last image and delete everything below the red line.” To which I replied: “Are you saying that for a surface, there is no radiation below the red line? Seems you’re ONCE AGAIN mixing up the MICRO and the MACRO perspectives.“ To this you just more or less repeated your original remark.
I then tried to make you reflect upon the thought process behind it, the notion that radiation below the surface basically doesn’t exist, which is clearly one where the MICRO and MACRO perspectives on thermal radiation are merged into one confused view of the world – you essentially take a pinch of quantum reality and a pinch of thermo reality, and you stir them both thoroughly into the very same simmering stew, until you are no longer able to see them as the fundamentally distinct components that they used to be; you have ‘forgotten’ that they really belong in two separate pots.
Which is exactly the confusion I am battling and trying to straighten out. Because you all seem to be afflicted by it, and all of you seem totally incapable of shaking it off.
So I asked you: “Why is it that we “can ignore radiation underground”, Svante? Is it because there IS no radiation underground? Or is there a different reason?”
You appeared not to understand the question. Or you just deliberatly evaded it. You simply reiterated: “If you draw a photon picture of the surface of the earth I think you can safely ignore underground IR.”
And by that, you disclosed the pith of your confusion.
It is ONLY in the thermo (macro) realm that we can “ignore” the radiation underground. And in the thermo realm, there are no such things as photons. So you can NOT “draw a photon picture of the surface of the earth” and “safely ignore underground IR”! You can draw a RADIATIVE FLUX (thermo/macro) picture of the surface of the Earth and safely ignore underground IR.
Svante, if you want to describe “thermal radiation” (IR) in the form of photons, then the surface of the Earth needs to be described in the form of atoms and molecules. You can’t have it both ways. Photons, just like atoms and molecules, exist in the QUANTUM realm, not in the THERMO realm. You can’t have the radiation be MICRO, a bunch of single, independent photons flying around, but the surfaces they ‘impinge upon’ be MACRO, just “surfaces”, macroscopic bulk units.
Because THAT’S when you confuse yourself into thinking that “incoming and outgoing EMR is a very natural way to look at” the thermal radiative exchange at a surface.
You need to be consistent. Physics demands consistency.
THERMALLY (in the MACRO realm), the surface of the Earth ISN’T receiving incoming EMR from the atmosphere above; there is only ONE radiative flux between them. Their radiative thermal exchange is UNIdirectional!
QUANTUM MECHANICALLY (in the MICRO realm), the surface is made up of atoms and molecules, each constantly emitting and absorbing IR photons into and from ALL spatial directions. A solid matter molecule at the very interface between the surface and the atmosphere absorbs IR photons from below, from above, and from all sides, continuously. On average, most of the photons it absorbs are coming from its neighboring surface molecules, NOT from the atmosphere’s air molecules. It also constantly emits IR photons according to its vibrational energy level, its “temperature”, and it does so randomly and ISOTROPICALLY, which means that the IR photons are on average emitted equally into ALL directions, not just up; just as much down and to the sides. Which brings us back to this highly pertinent quote:
“The total radiation emitted by a cooling body is not correctly described merely as the sum of all the individual emission processes, as the particles can also absorb radiation. In the end, the statistics of a large number of emission AND absorp-tion events determine the resultant radiation.”
The “large number of emission and absorp-tion events” here are QUANTUM (micro realm) phenomena, while “the resultant radiation” is the radiative flux, a THERMO (macro realm) phenomenon, the one connected to the other, across the thermodynamic limit, via “statistical mechanics”, but still both, on either side of the limit, reflecting fundamentally different, unrelatable, aspects of reality.
The boldfaced quote above is essentially saying precisely what my dime analogy is saying: MICRO (single events separately) => MACRO (all events into one).
In conclusion, a person saying that a thermal radiative exchange between two bodies at the actual surface of either can be described as the net of incoming and outgoing EMR at that surface, is in the end simply verbalising a mentally constructed conceptual idea/em>, a simplifying mathematical model, of reality. We – our human mind – see (interpret) the exchange as two-way simply because there are two radiating bodies involved. A two-way connection. Two distinct spatial directions in which to look. A to B. And B to A.
And it all makes perfect sense. Conceptually. Mathematically.
But it is NOT how the exchange ACTUALLY works. It isn’t a true representation of reality itself. It is reality deconstructed and neatly organised – simplified! – by the human mind.
The actual thermal radiative transfer isn’t two-way. It is ONLY one-way. And the surface molecules of the one body aren’t just absorbing and emitting IR photons from/to the surface molecules of the opposing body some distance away. They absorb and emit IR photons from/into ALL spatial directions, notably from/to its neighboring surface molecules. The radiative exchange at the quantum level is OMNIdirectional. That’s how we get blackbody (thermal) radiation …!
OK,
I see what you mean.
You must draw arrows in all directions underground.
Plus another set of arrows to represent conduction?
“It is reality deconstructed and neatly organised simplified!”
Yes, it is common practice to remove terms that cancel out, and terms that are negligible.
Still, the surface is real and interesting when you discuss global temperature.
For heat transfer you calculate pairwise object relations, and you probably start by subtracting two net energy transfers. For energy transfer you add/subtract contributions from each object.
So the Big O complexity grows like this:
Heat: ordo(n2)
Energy: ordo(n)
Svante says, January 29, 2018 at 2:56 AM:
Not if you’re dealing with HEAT TRANSFERS. Then you’re safely within the MACROscopic (thermodynamic) realm, and photons do not exist as separate entities, which means that their individual quantum effects are of zero consequence.
Of course it is. But temperatures in nature, in the real universe, are determined by the balance between ‘full’ (actual) HEATS [Q_ins and Q_outs], not between imagined component (‘half’) heats.
This is why you CAN’T be physically correct about how you describe the workings of reality whenever you decide to try and determine the T_s of the Earth like this:
# Incoming energy: 165 W/m^2 (from the Sun) + 345 W/m^2 (from the atmosphere) = 510 W/m^2.
# Outgoing energy: 112 W/m^2 (non-radiative losses) + 398 W/m^2 (radiative loss) = 510 W/m^2.
Incoming radiative fluxes – [165+345=] 510 W/m^2 – minus outgoing non-radiative fluxes – 112 W/m^2 – equals the outgoing radiative flux: [510-112=] 398 W/m^2, which, if you plug it into the Stefan-Boltzmann equation, gives a T_s of [398/5.6704)^0.25=] 289 K.
(This seemingly convincing result is pure back-engineering BS. I could just as easily “find” the T_s this way if it happened to be 255 K: IN: [165+187=] 352 W/m^2; OUT: [112+240=] 352 W/m^2; 240 W/m^2 => 255 K.)
The problem is, the 345 W/m^2 from the atmosphere ISN’T an incoming radiative flux to the surface. It is just ONE of the two mathematically defined “directional components” of the ACTUAL – outgoing – radiative flux between the surface and the atmosphere/space, the surface radiative heat LOSS, the other being the 398 W/m^2 UP from the surface:
https://okulaer.files.wordpress.com/2017/05/net-sw-net-lw.png
The yellow downward-pointing triangle (165 W/m^2) and the red upward-pointing triangle (53 W/m^2) represent the REAL radiative fluxes at Earth’s average global surface; its Q_in and Q_out(rad), respectively.
Yes, that’s how you solve a heat transfer problem mathematically. You cannot treat each conceptual ‘half (component) heat’ as if they were somehow independent thermodynamic variables and expect to say anything true or meaningful physically about reality.
The two mentally conceived directional components are ALWAYS completely integrated into the ONE observable spontaneous macroscopic transfer of energy. They’re TWO IN ONE, not two separate ones. They’re NOT two distinct radiative fluxes! Not two heats!
Again, I see what you mean, and I can agree on this (‘anything’ may be a bit too broad):
The ‘345’ would dwindle quickly if it wasn’t propped up by the ‘398’, so you must not forget anything.
I still think that EMR is real and heat is the mental construct, but let’s leave that one for later.
Your physics work, and that is the main thing.
Svante says, January 30, 2018 at 4:38 PM:
It’s not MY physics, Svante. It’s … physics. And of course it works. It’s what physics tells us.
None of them are mental constructs. Both are real (detectable) physical phenomena. However, we can and do “conceptualise” them both.
EMR is real. A spontaneous radiative flux from cold to hot, however, is NOT.
Kristian
Nothing I see is different from our past conversations.
In my mind, the only thing that affects temperature is energy absorbed versus emitted. Where it comes from or where it goes makes no difference.
Snape says, January 24, 2018 at 4:43 PM:
Yes, but then ‘your mind’ is mistaken. The only thing that affects temperature, barring the performance of work [W], is HEAT in [Q_in] versus HEAT out [Q_out]. And heat in nature always comes from hot and goes to cold.
Energy at the MICROscopic level does not affect temperature, because temperature is not a micro/quantum phenomenon, it’s a MACRO/thermodynamic phenomenon.
You will seemingly never get this distinction.
Kristian
In Eli’s diagram, radiation (energy) is measured using watts/m^2. So I’ll be more specific:
In my mind, the only thing that affects the temperature of the blue plate is watts/m^2 absorbed versus emitted, and a watt from a cold source is no different than a watt from a warm one.
You seriously disagree with this?
Kristian
Please show how changing the ratio of input/output, measured in w/m^2, will have no affect on the blue plate’s temperature. (Maybe you could ask Mike to help with the math).
Snape says, January 25, 2018 at 12:26 PM:
Yes, but I’m not talking about “Eli’s diagram”. I’m talking about REALITY. What is actually physically happening in the macroscopic realm, where all thermodynamic concepts like ‘temperature’ exist and apply.
It won’t help you being ‘more specific’, Snape. I knew perfectly well what you were saying the first time around. Which is why I responded the way I did.
No. Because we’re in the MACROscopic realm here (W/m^2), NOT the microscopic one. And so only the NET (average, bulk) movement of thermal radiative energy exists, as the radiative flux. Which is … the HEAT. From hot to cold. Only.
You’re still not getting the fundamental distinction between Eli’s 400 W/m^2 incoming SOLAR flux to the blue plate and his 133 W/m^2 incoming GREEN PLATE flux to the blue plate …! Even after having been served the answer in spoonsful just above!
I’m sorry, but you’re just like a stubborn child, Snape.
Snape says, January 25, 2018 at 12:45 PM:
It will. That’s what I’m saying. The input and output both simply need to be real HEAT fluxes; you can’t have the one being just a single, mathematically defined “half flux” (“component flux”, “hemiflux”).
This is what you will apparently never comprehend.
LOL! Wouldn’t that be “Confusion Will Be My Epitaph” Mike …?
Sorry Kristian, you’re a nutjob too stupid to know how stupid you are.
Hahaha!
ME: “You’re still not getting the fundamental distinction between Eli’s 400 W/m^2 incoming SOLAR flux to the blue plate and his 133 W/m^2 incoming GREEN PLATE flux to the blue plate …! Even after having been served the answer in spoonsful just above!
I’m sorry, but you’re just like a stubborn child, Snape.”
SNAPE: “Sorry Kristian, you’re a nutjob too stupid to know how stupid you are.”
Q.E.D.
Kristian
The 400 w/m^2 is physically different than input from the green plate (i.e., wavelength), we’ve already discussed that. Otherwise, it represents a one way input of radiation, as does the
133 watts from the green plate.
“Im sorry, but youre just like a stubborn child, Snape.”
Creepy! Are you looking for someone to be obedient and agree with your piles of horseshit?
Try g* or halpless, you might have better luck.
Fletcher Kristian, Lord of the Flying Arrows,
I am intrigued by your claim that the 400 W radiation arriving at one surface is fundamentally different from the 133 W arriving at the other surface. Remember this is with respect to a black body that absorbs all incoming E. M. radiation, irrespective of wavelength.
What is the fundamental difference between the two at a microscopic or macroscopic scale? Are the photons different in some way? Do the characteristics of the photons depend on their origin? If this is so, then this would be a wonderful discovery.
Don’t just evade by saying that you have already covered this elsewhere. You may have thought so, but your gobbledygook is not understood by anyone, with the possible exception of the deranged twins and Gordon (not a boat that anyone with half a brain would want be in).
However I do admit that I have not diligently followed your labourious exchanges with Svante and others. The primary reason for this, is that I spent many years as an academic reading unsolicited letters from assorted crackpots. I would read them for amusement value before assigning them to the “round file”. This gave me a finely tuned bullshit detector and many of your comments, even upon brief perusal, activated this detector.
On that note, you threatened to reveal some information to Svante (“a source and a quote” , ” the key to my entire argument”, see above). Why the reticence and are you going to reveal all, or is this just more bovine excrement?
MikeR
Here is what we failed to understand: Kristian isn’t asking about a physical difference between the two energy inputs, the wants to know the physical difference between those two ARROWS!
“First of all, I am NOT (!!) claiming theres a fundamental difference between the energy in either case. Im saying theres a fundamental difference between those two arrows (inputs) to the blue plate, and how to treat them physically.”
One is red and points to the right, the other is green and points to the left. How did we ever miss it?
Snape,
I didn’t realize until now that I was red/green colour blind but obviously, like sports cars, red arrows go faster than green arrows.
mike r…”with the possible exception of the deranged twins and Gordon (not a boat that anyone with half a brain would want be in)”.
You are taking shots at me while talking about the difference between photons at the micro level versus photons at the macro level?
You use a lot of big words that have absolutely no scientific meaning. At least I stick to established science, which you fail to recognize because your head is up your butt as far as understanding it.
If you sit in a class butt-kissing, while absorbing everything you are spoon fed, you end up with a whole lot of other peoples’ knowledge. There comes a time when you have to get off the fence and think for yourself. You seem to be content being filled with the knowledge of others.
Has it ever occurred to you to challenge what you have been spoon fed?
Kristian,
Despite your differences in opinion regarding the temperatures of the plates, I think you shoild join forces with g* and create a combined montage of arrows. It could be in the mould of Jackson Pollock or maybe a new impressionist style. I would call it “fletcherism” but this term is already used for an unrelated medical condition.
My suggestion for your first piece of work would be the infinite plates, as per the thought experiment. Don’t try this at 1 to 1 scale as this could be time consuming so stick to a sub region.
Possibly use the number of arrows in proportion to the energies of transfer between the plates. Assume isotropic emmision of arrows and all arrows are absorbed ehen they reach the other plate (as a consequence of being black bodies of infinite extent).
Alternatively, i know it maybe boring, you could save a lot.of time by representing the horde of arrows as a single arrow between each plate and the length of the arrow to represent the energy transfer between each plate.
Kristian, you have an unfortunate tendency to overcomplicate and accordingly confuse everyone and possible even yourself. In the latter case, the multitude of arrows pointing in mutliple directions maybe an accurate reflection of the state of your mind.
MikeR,
I’m not sure how much use there is in trying to get a person who appears so prone to general confusion that he – as an interesting case in point – somehow manages to misinterpret the famous King Crimson song ‘Epitaph’ into being about a person who confuses other people, the kind of person he accuses me of being, rather than a person who is himself confused (as he crawls a cracked and broken path), a person much more like yourself, to understand anything fundamental on this topic, so I think I’ll refrain from once again repeating things you simply insist on ‘misunderstanding’ each and every time anyway …
I’ve tried this with you one too many times, MikeR. Sorry.
Kristian,
I am not sure who should be crying, but the rest of the Epitath lyrics seem to sum up the current political situation pretty well.
“Knowledge is a deadly friend
If no one sets the rules
The fate of all mankind I see
Is in the hands of fools”
However from your last comment, I guess we are not going to see a rendition of the parallel plates via a profusion (or even a confusion) of arrows. What a pity, I was so looking forward to your latest effort.
Mike R…”Knowledge is a deadly friend
If no one sets the rules
The fate of all mankind I see
Is in the hands of fools
I listened to King Crimson for the music not the lyrics, which were generally rubbish, as indicated above. In The Hall of the Crimson King and such was considered acid music, as was Zepellin I and II, Pink Floyd, Jethro Tull, and Uriah Heep. Ironically, Creedence Clearwater fit that genre well. Go figure.
Many songwriters in the rock genre reduce the complexity of the world to nonsense, like Lennon’s Give Peace a Chance.
As for King Crimson lyrics above, how can knowledge be a deadly friend in a context of someone setting the rules? Obviously the writer needed something to rhyme with fools, which is rather primitive song writing. If you examine rock lyrics closely, they are generally rubbish, like ‘Love Hurts’.
Even Mick Jagger clued into the rhyming aspect:
I met a gin-soaked, bar-room queen in Memphis
She tried to take me upstairs for a ride
She had to heave me right across shoulder
Cause I just can’t seem to drink you off my mind
Huge hit, whereas King Crimson were interesting but very unsuccessful.
Gordon,
I think you are quite right about the rhyming lyric.
Instead of “in the hands of fool” , a non rhyming version which replaces “fool” with “total moron” or “complete idiot”
would work.
I am sure you would agree that both of these versions would be even more appropriate in the current political climate in U.S..
My Jan est UAH: +0.11
Yes Des, I like your estimate. It is very close to what is the best estimate using the Aqua AMSU channel 6 data. It is running at about +0.13 C at the moment.
Darned, I put my money on g*e*r*a*n*s non-rotating horse.
Now the oracle has spoken and it’s too late to change.
Never put money on a non rotating horse in a race run on a circular track. They tend to run off in tangents.
Don’t despair about your prediction as the oracle was out by 0.07 C last month, so a value above 0.2 C is still possible but unlikely.
Yes – that’s what I used this time.