The Version 6.0 global average lower tropospheric temperature (LT) anomaly for May, 2018 was +0.18 deg. C, down a little from the April value of +0.21 deg. C:
Some regional LT departures from the 30-year (1981-2010) average for the last 17 months are:
YEAR MO GLOBE NHEM. SHEM. TROPIC USA48 ARCTIC AUST
2017 01 +0.33 +0.31 +0.34 +0.10 +0.27 +0.95 +1.22
2017 02 +0.38 +0.57 +0.20 +0.08 +2.16 +1.33 +0.21
2017 03 +0.23 +0.36 +0.09 +0.06 +1.21 +1.24 +0.98
2017 04 +0.27 +0.29 +0.26 +0.21 +0.89 +0.22 +0.40
2017 05 +0.44 +0.39 +0.49 +0.41 +0.10 +0.21 +0.06
2017 06 +0.22 +0.33 +0.10 +0.39 +0.50 +0.10 +0.34
2017 07 +0.29 +0.30 +0.27 +0.51 +0.60 -0.27 +1.03
2017 08 +0.41 +0.40 +0.42 +0.46 -0.55 +0.49 +0.77
2017 09 +0.54 +0.51 +0.57 +0.54 +0.29 +1.06 +0.60
2017 10 +0.63 +0.67 +0.59 +0.47 +1.21 +0.83 +0.86
2017 11 +0.36 +0.33 +0.38 +0.27 +1.35 +0.68 -0.12
2017 12 +0.41 +0.50 +0.33 +0.26 +0.44 +1.37 +0.36
2018 01 +0.26 +0.46 +0.06 -0.11 +0.58 +1.36 +0.42
2018 02 +0.20 +0.24 +0.16 +0.03 +0.92 +1.19 +0.18
2018 03 +0.25 +0.40 +0.10 +0.06 -0.32 -0.33 +0.59
2018 04 +0.21 +0.31 +0.10 -0.13 -0.01 +1.02 +0.68
2018 05 +0.18 +0.40 -0.05 +0.03 +1.93 +0.18 -0.40
The linear temperature trend of the global average lower tropospheric temperature anomalies from January 1979 through May 2018 remains at +0.13 C/decade.
The UAH LT global anomaly image for May, 2018 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
After some experimentation, I’ve been able to achieve a lower pressure with my Green Plate Demonstration. As with previous demonstrations, the latest results of this effort can be viewed as a PDF file from my BOX account HERE.
The results of this run at 50 microns gauge pressure are almost identical to that from the last run, which achieved a pressure of 100 microns. After the vacuum pump was switched on, the Blue Plate temperature increased 23.5 C, at which point the Green Plate was raised into position. At the end of the run, the Blue Plate temperature had gained another 10.0 C. The total temperature increase after the pump was switched on was 31.8 C for the previous run and was 33.5 C for the present run. The gain after lifting the Green Plate was nearly identical for both runs.
I think the fact that the results are almost identical to the previous run indicates that convection has now been almost completely suppressed, thus the change in temperature of the Blue Plate must be the result of “back radiation” from the Green Plate.
Woops, the link didn’t copy properly. Here is is:
https://app.box.com/s/5wxidf87li5bo588q2xhcfxhtfy52oba
Gordon and Flynn will be so grateful for having this new insight.
Nice job.
Yet this sentence in your introduction:
All solids and fluids emit infrared radiation as a function of their temperature and the rate of emission is a function of the fourth power of absolute temperature.
is not correct.
The specific T^4 law is only valid for total (integrated) emission of a perfect blackbody.
Yet for any stuff and in particular for gases what’s true in general is that the rate of emission at a frequency f is proportional to the Planck function B ( f, T ) and this is always a steadily increasing function of T. This is all you need since this implies that total integrated emission of any stuff is an increasing function of T, albeit not in general as a T^4 power low .
And, there needs to be an epsilon in front of the SB Law. It’s 1 for a blackbody, but not for other materials. And often a function of frequency.
If epsilon is a function of frequency SB law is in general not valid
Period.
Wrong — emissivity *IS* part of the SB-Law.
And it can be quite a complex function.
IT,
Emissivity can and does vary with wavelength/wavenumber/frequency. Here are just a couple trivial examples:
http://gsp.humboldt.edu/olm_2015/Courses/GSP_216_Online/images/emmisivity-spectrum.jpg
TF
Of course epsilon is in general a function of frequency !
Where did I claim it wasn’t ?
What I claimed and of course still do claim is that if it is SB T^4 power law cannot be really valid, in general.
The reason is very simple: Mathematically it is only the integration of Planck’s function B( f, T ) itself (epsilon =1 or blackbody)) over all frequencies that yields the SB T^4 power law.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck%27s_law#StefanBoltzmann_law
So unless emissivity of a material is essentially a constant independent of frequency over the relevant frequency range, i.e. the material in question is well approximated by a gray body total integrated emission or radiance of that material cannot really verify SB. Merely because B( f, T) * epsilon ( f ) can in general no monger be integrated analytically and yield the simple T^4 temperature dependance.
Gray body is often a good approximation for solids around room temperature but not for gases with specific bands. O2 thermal emission in atmosphere ( Spencer’s satellite T measurements) is essentially in the microwaves and varies simply like T as opposed to T^4.
DA
Wrong
Funny pontification.
Unfortunately you don’t know what you talk about.
TF, DA
Note by the way, that realistic climate model codes of course do by no means use simple SB T^4 power law approximation. This would be much too gross in the case of gases with their drastic frequency dependance of emissivity.
These codes use frequency resolved radiation transfer and resort to Planck’s function again, not its integrated gray body form.
An introduction to frequency resolved radiation transfer and how Planck’s function is used in realistic calculations as opposed to idealized simplified SB law based models of educational purpose intended to demonstrate the essence of the GHE.
http://www.barrettbellamyclimate.com/page47.htm
Sorry, IT, I misread your comment. Now that I re-read the discussion ore carefully, I agree with everything you say.
First, great job on developing an actual experiment with methodology.
There is an interesting sequence in your testing. You write:
“With the application of a vacuum, the temperature of the Blue plate increased 23.5 C, while the Green plate lagged behind.”
So the presence of an atmosphere (before you turned on the vacuum) kept the temperature of the blue plate lower than without an atmosphere. It appears the presence of a gas, even without convection, around a solid lowers the temperature of the solid.
FTOP, Yes, even though the bell jar is closed, convection loops can develop within and transfer thermal energy from one area to another. The side of the bell jar facing the light receives both visible and IR radiation from the light and thus is warmer than the opposite side. The Blue Plate is also warmed, which would be expected to drive a different loop. That said, the heating is near the top of the jar and some stratification would also be expected, since the bottom is cooler than the top, which would inhibit convection.
By removing most of the air, the formation of convection loops would be suppressed, though I don’t have a way to quantify that effect. At 50 microns pressure, 99.9934% of the SL atmospheric mass has been removed.
I’ll have to finish up an experiment that is rather different in geometry, but shows the same effect. The initial results were just as clear at this bell-jar experiment.
swannie…”I think the fact that the results are almost identical to the previous run indicates that convection has now been almost completely suppressed, thus the change in temperature of the Blue Plate must be the result of “back radiation” from the Green Plate”.
***********
I’ll give you one thing, when you want to see something that isn’t there you see it.
I would suggest you read up on the 2nd law but you seem to be convinced you have disproved it.
Lol, relax guy, neither greenhouse effect nor this experiment as described does not disprove the 2nd law. Now, if the temperature of the blue plate increased above that of *the sun*, e.g. > 6000k, then that would be a violation of slt, but it doesn’t happen.
Gordo, As usual, your comment ignores the facts shown by the demo. You resort to a distraction, since you don’t have the ability to present a serious analysis as an alternative explanation for my findings. I’ve never claimed that my results “disprove” the Second Law, which is about entropy.
E. Swanson says, June 1, 2018 at 9:18 AM:
This statement is tantamount to saying: Look, the temps have gone up and so has CO2. THUS the temperature increase must be the result of the rise in CO2. IOW, I’m correct in postulating that more CO2 in the atmosphere will CAUSE surface temps to increase because, believing this, I predicted temps to rise as the atmospheric content of CO2 went up, and they did …!
What you are effectively saying, Swanson, is that you believe – a priori – that “back radiation” from cool to warm is what causes warm to warm even further, and since you did observe the warm plate to warm even further as you put up the cool plate right next to it, you automatically concluded that your original belief is therefore correct. You simply observed a (predicted) thermal EFFECT and thus immediately assumed YOUR particular theoretical explanation of that effect to be verified.
Sorry, but that’s not how science works. That’s how PSEUDO-science works.
I’m amazed you don’t see this yourself.
The K wrote:
Kristian,
‘What you are effectively saying, Swanson, is that you believe a priori that back radiation from cool to warm is what causes warm to warm even further, and since you did observe the warm plate to warm even further ‘
He is simply confirming long understood radiative heat transfer physics. Many many experiments have been done, and the theory has been thoroughly tested.
He has excellent reasons to expect ‘a priori’ what indeed he observed.
Can you think of an experiment that will prove him wrong?
No, seriously, I can’t take this “warm to warm” red-herring/misunderstanding/crap any further.
It doesn’t “warm” the warm. It is a measure of how fast warm may cool down. Sunshine is generally what warms the warm.
WERT,
‘It is a measure of how fast warm may cool down.’
What he sees in the experiment are temps reaching steady state with warmer values when the plates are in-line, so I don’t see your point.
If your point is that the green plate is acting to insulate the blue, then fine, but it is doing so via its radiation.
wert, As Nate points out, there’s a constant input of energy flowing into the bell jar “system” via the intense EM from the work light, that energy eventually leaving the bell jar to add to that of the surround room. The temperature at any point within the system represents the state of the internal thermal energy of the body where the thermocouple is located. There are actually four different “systems”, so to speak, as the demonstration progresses, including the initial state before the light is switched on. After equilibrium is achieved for each one, the temperatures have changed to new values reflecting the internal energy states for each component of that system.
In fact it does little difference to have a constant forcing. The back radiation is not what warms the surface, but the Sun.
The back radiation is just a measure of radiative cooling efficiency.
Dear Roy,
I have taken the liberty of posting your blog of June 4th, 2013 “EPIC FAIL: 73 Climate Models vs. Observations for Tropical Tropospheric Temperature” on my blog.
It has incurred a number of questions, (in other places as well as my blog), and I wonder if you could give me some guidance as to the method from which you produced the marvelous graph at http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/CMIP5-73-models-vs-obs-20N-20S-MT.png
I have followed your references “Courtesy of John Christy, a comparison between 73 CMIP5 models (archived at the KNMI Climate Explorer website) and observations for the tropical bulk tropospheric temperature (aka “MT”) since 1979 (click for large version):” and am working on the KNMI Climate Explorer website and obtained some raw data there.
However I cannot find the data for the “4 radiosonde datasets, and 2 satellite datasets (UAH and RSS)”.
Trust you can find the time to help me here, esp with the latter data set.
Will be much obliged if you can help.
Best regards
Roger
The NOAA CDAS preliminary monthly average global mean surface temperature for May 2018 based on daily CDAS averages was 15.59 C, which is the lowest May average since May 2015 at 15.54 C. The May 2018 global mean surface temperature anomaly referenced to 1981-2010 was 0.23 C compared to 0.36 C for April and was the lowest anomaly since 0.16 C for July 2015.
Graphs of monthly estimates here:
https://oz4caster.wordpress.com/monthly-trends/
Good info – thanks for reporting it here.
Being that temps did not gain in this last Month, then I would say that it is all down slope from here. I had been wondering if there was going to be a temp spike due to the heavy rainy winter of 2016/17 on the West Coast of the US. Such winters typically lead to a temp spike around 20 months after the heavy winter, which should have become apparent by now.
The conclusion being that the temp spike which can be seen in past records after a heavy West Coast winter is due only to the rise of the sunspot index after coming off of the minimum. In this case the minimum still has around 2 years to run, and so there is no spike in global temps to be seen. That strongly implies that global temps are now going to steadily cool through this year and the next year,if not for the next 3 years. This is going to get very interesting from this point in time.
Yes, a warming trend over 472 months, followed by 2 months cooler than the previous month, is definitely a sign that it’s all down slope from here. Definitely. {eye roll}
To the best of my knowledge there has not been any warming since 1998, but don’t let your fantasy get in the way.
Tim Wells says:
June 1, 2018 at 10:22 AM
To the best of my knowledge there has not been any warming since 1998…
*
I guess your knowledge is based on UAH6.0 LT. So let’s go there.
Linear estimate since Jan 1998: 0.07 ± 0.02 °C / decade.
This is not much, I agree! But nevertheless it is over 50 % of the trend since 1979.
Linear estimate since Jan 2008: 0.45 ± 0.05 °C / decade.
Yes, Tim Wells: don’t let your fantasy get in the way.
You are just measuring a transient, El Nino spike in the latter one. Meh.
@ Bart …Note that L.P. is using the low point of 2008, and then drawing a line to current time to get that high rate. Take a look at the UAH graph above and note where !/2008 sits on the graph. I would call that an unripened cherry at best.
Hmm the linear estimate since the end of the last solar minimum has been positive… Hmm cant think of any reason why…. Must be man!!
Tim, that’s wrong. You need to redo your calculation.
Linear trend of UAH LT v6.0 from Jan-1999 to present = +0.14 C/decade, R^2=0.18
We’re all gonna die !
John Garrett
Thanks for your meaningful contribution to the discussion.
Garret is right though, the only thing that matters is the legacy that we leave behind.
@DA …I am running very strong on my forecasts. So let us see what happens between now and September. I say that temps will not rise by any significant amount over the course of this upcoming summer. They may even fall through the summer due to cooling influences around the globe.
Also, note that there has only been a slight warming trend over the last 472 months, approx 0.5C since 1979 with an addition of 74ppm of CO2 added into the atmosphere over those 472 months. Some part of that rise is natural. So at best the influence of CO2 can only be small to tiny.
Care to make a forecast of your own, if you are able? I would think that after all of these years, and all of the time and effort on your part with your obvious superior qualities that this should be easy for you.
0.5 C since 1979 is “slight?” Compared to what?
Some part of that rise is natural.
How much? From what? Be prepared to defend your number, because you know we’ll have hard questions about it.
@DA …no one knows how much is natural versus whatever part is caused by rising CO2. Do you have an opinion based on anything of substance in that regard?
As for what drives the warming, the main warming occurs in the oceans as a first step, and that is solar driven, imo. I defend my claims by making accurate forecasts and predictions.
What natural factors are there?
How much warming/cooling have they caused since, say, 1970?
It’s entirely possible .. actually probable that most of the increase in CO2 has been natural and that nature is doing a great job of using the higher level with a significant increase in plant growth observed over the last 30 years directly due to CO2 fertilization
David, compared to higher temperatures of the past and also to faster 40 year rises in temperature in the last 150 years
@ DA …playing ignorant does not look well on you. I already gave answer to that question of yours.
So you are claiming to be able to see an 11 year cycle in global temperatures?
The impact of the 11 year solar cycle is modulated by other cycles pertaining to the uptake and release of energy from the oceans. In particular, the wobble of the Earth’s axis with a 9.3 year period induces harmonics at about 5 years and 60 years. These are evident in the temperature data.
What are the temperature amplitudes for these claimed 5- and 60-year cycles?
The 60 year is about 0.2 degC.
Quick research reveals that the amplitude of this wobble (nutation) amounts to 17 seconds of arc in longitude and 9.2 seconds of arc in obliquity.
SECONDS. Do you understand how small an angle that is? It is less than half a percent of one degree. Do you really believe that could have even the slightest effect on climate?
B,
If the atmosphere acts chaotically, there is no minimum perturbation which may result in chaotic behaviour ie unpredictability.
The IPCC agrees that prediction of future climate states is impossible, as the atmosphere acts chaotically.
So yes, you are stupid and ignorant. You understand nothing about chaos – even less than the IPCC.
Are you happy now?
Cheers.
Bond: clearly, I meant the amplitude of *temperature*
David
You seem to have difficulty discerning when I am responding to you.
I was clearly responding to Bart.
That actually works out to fairly massive motion at the surface, which is where the oceans get stirred up by it. The Earth is about 6.3 million meters in radius, you know.
‘fairly massive motion at the surface, which is where the oceans get stirred up by it’
I tried stirring my coffee by tilting the cup at a slight angle (10 degrees) and slowly rotating that tilt about once in 5 sec.
Shockingly, it did not stir the coffee at all.
But, I guarantee it did change the rate at which it cooled. Remember, we’re talking changes on the order of tenths of a degree here. And, movement of incredibly massive amounts of water.
Global temperature usually spiking late in or around the end of a wet winter in the US West Coast is usually due to a usual cause of such wet West Coast winters – El Nino. US West Coast winter precipitation does not always correlate well with ENSO, global temperature in the first half of a year correlates better with ENSO in the winter that ends early in the same year than West Coast precipitation does. So when West Coast precipitation is atypical for the ENSO status of a winter, it is likely to be atypical for global temperature (with respect to the trend of global temperature smoothed over the previous several years) late that winter and that spring.
This past winter, there was a mild/minimal La Nina, which typically makes late winter and springtime global temperature below the trend line of multiyear-smoothed global temperature over the previous several years – global temperature obeyed last winter’s mild La Lina. California rainfall did not, because it sometimes doesn’t. The recent great El Nino didn’t bring California that the great El Ninos of 1997-1998 and 1982-1983 did. Another exception was the El Nino of 1976-1977, which did not fix a California drought although it did produce a now- expectable spike in global temperature. There was a problematic weather pattern that sometimes happens, a blocking pattern of upper atmospheric ridge on the West Coast, and upper atmospheric trough in the eastern US until that pattern broke spectacularly in early February 1977. December 1976 and January 1977 were spectacularly cold in the eastern US, after a chilly fall and cool summer, but spring 1976 was warm (and irregularly warm) in the eastern US. The highest temperature in Philadelphia in 1976 was a new record high for the month of April (since broken by 1 degree in 2002).
The recent great El Nino didnt bring California that the great El Ninos of 1997-1998 and 1982-1983 did.
No, but globally the 2015-16 El Nino was about (GMAT average over the season) 0.4 C above that of the 1997-98 El Nino, which itself was about 0.3 C above that of 1982-83.
El Ninos are getting warming.
La Ninas are also getting warmer.
So are neutral warming.
=> global warming
should be “…so are neutral years….”
David, serious question here with no snark.
And I understand that the hard data is limited.
But, could the same (probably) be said about 1700-1850? Certainly, there was global warming during that period.
And, if so, is there a way to then quantify a natural component of global warming.
Jake,
That is a great question, and I would be eager to see David’s response as well, as it is why I have had a hard time buying into the C02 caused global warming movement. Especially, when we know that we already had a medieval warming period that was at least as warm in the northern atlantic region that was at least as warm as we have now and CO2 was not the cause.
In addition, we have a little ice age that had a cold variance at least as dramatic the other direction as what we see now as well and obviously C02 had nothing to do with that either. So, we know that the earth’s climate can swing at least as much as it is now without C02. So, how are we sure that C02 is now the primary cause of this warming that we are seeing?
Finally, you might get a kick out of Al Gore’s C02 Emissions Chart…you can look it up on Youtube under that search term. He is trying to make the point of how dramatically C02 is rising, but he essentially shoots himself in the foot from the graph, because he shows that C02 is much, much higher than it has ever been in the last 650,000 years in earth’s history, yet we have had at least 2 periods in the last 650,000 years that were warmer than we have now (per Gore’s Graph).
So, Gore essentially invalidates his premise that CO2 is a cause of global warming, as C02 is much, much higher than any time in the past 650,000 years, yet earth has had higher temperatures in the past 650,000 years than now…
Jake,
Here is a paper using instrument record of central European temp back to mid 1700s.
https://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/~rjsw/PalaeoPDFs/GlaserRiemann2009.pdf
Fig 4.
Many of the ups and downs correlate to volcanic erruptions.
Jake,
Berkeley Earth estimated the natural variation to be +/- 0.17 C.
It looks like short term deviations can be much larger than that.
ENSO is a natural event not caused by CO2.
If both El Ninos and La Ninas are getting warmer (and I make no comment as to whether that is correct) then it it all but inevitable that neutral years, ie., years between ENSO events will be bound to be warmer. In fact if both El Ninos and La Ninas are warmer, it would be almost impossible for neutral years to be cooler.
Thus what you are suggesting would appear to be simply the outcome of natural events unless you can explain how CO2 drives ENSO.
The fact that ENSO events are independent of the greenhouse effect is the whole point.
ENSO events are not getting stronger or weaker. But the change in temperature they cause is being superimposed onto an ever increasing baseline.
I have maintained for years now which many have not paid attention to ,which is in order to have solar exert a climatic impact that is more significant two conditions must be present.
CONDITION NUMBER 1 – 10+ YEARS OF SUB – SOLAR ACTIVITY IN GENERAL.
Which is now satisfied since sub solar activity in general has been occurring since late 2005. That proceeded by extremely active solar conditions for several decades, the modern maximum.
CONDITION NUMBER 2 – Within the sub -solar activity in general low average value solar parameters must be meant and sustained for a period of time. Those solar parameters having values equal to or lower than the solar values that take place in typical solar minimums within the so called 11 year sunspot cycle, and longer in duration.
It looks like this is now occurring. Year 2018 being the first year where it looks like my 2 conditions for global cooling due to solar activity are taking place. This is why I am confident to say this year is a transitional year in the climate and no further global warming is going to take place starting with this year and moving forward.
Thus far I would say the climatic trends are looking pretty good(this year) with global temperatures now running lower according to satellite data lower then a year ago thru this time, with overall sea surface temperatures cooling not to mention the North Atlantic in particular which is undergoing extensive cooling and is a very important area in the global climate picture. Also with the atmospheric circulation being less zonal.
The other area is what is happening with the geo magnetic field in regards to it’s strength and orientation which when in sync with solar activity will compound given solar effects. In this case they are both weakening.
The upshot of this is overall sea surface temperatures should drop and a slight uptick in albedo is probably going to happen due to an increase in global cloud coverage, snow coverage and an uptick in explosive major volcanic activity. My opinion.
If one looks at the climatic history objectively it is clear that every prolonged solar minimum results in global cooling without exception. THOSE ARE THE FACTS NOT MY OPINION.
Finally people are stuck on the false concept that the climate is going to change slowly and gradually which is false . That only being true when the climate is locked in a specific climate regime which had been the case after we came out of the Little Ice Age to present.
This may now be changing in my opinion.
As I said last month, you claimed last year that 2017 was the transitional year.
it was late year 2017.
No, it was 11 months ago:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/07/warming-in-the-tropics-even-the-new-rss-satellite-dataset-says-the-models-are-wrong/#comment-256278
And you specifically said 2017.
@ Bond …Sal has never been able to make a specific forecast/prediction in all of the years of his comments. He takes bits and pieces from others and makes them his own with no understanding most of the time of “Why or how”.
Wrong, goldminor:
“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
“Dont you realize that, the warming that has now ended, that took place last century was one of the weakess warming periods the earth has undergone ,lets take a time period ,of the last 20,000 years.”
– Salvatore del Prete, April 7, 2011
https://bbickmore.wordpress.com/2011/04/05/roy-spencers-non-response/
@ DA …so I left out a specific “and accurate” forecast/prediction. His wording is still what I would term very general.
For example, I made a forecast around 13 months ago in which I stated that by the end of this Spring that the oceans ssta would be predominantly cool. So in 3 weeks either I am right or wrong. That is what I call specific. As of now the forecast is certainly getting close to being correct.
“I think this blip ends before NOV. is through and if solar conditions continue to be sub par cooling in a more pronounced way will start in year 2014.”
– Salvatore del Prete, 11/15/2013
http://www.landscheidt.info/?q=node/4#comment-1047
I am still waiting for Dr Spencer to explain how UAH got the US temperature for April so wrong.
It was one of the coldest Aprils on record (at the 10th percentile) yet UAH had it at only 0.01C below average (compared to NOAAs 1.65C below average for the same baseline).
How can your claim that the satellite record is more accurate than the thermometer record be believed after an obvious blunder like this one?
regional differences can be large, due to atmospheric stability (e.g. cold shallow air masses cooling the surface more than the mid-troposphere).
These effects average out in the global mean, though, so we expect the global anomalies between surface and deep-troposphere to be better coupled, especially if we increase the averaging time from 1 to 3 months (since there is still a time lag for overturning of the atmosphere in response to anomalous surface heating).
This has been well known, for at least 25 years when the satellite monitoring was started. There is no “blunder”.
So what then is the point of publishing this figure?
And why did this time lag not arise for May in the US? Surely May in the US counts as ‘anomalous surface heating’?
The lag only occurs if the deep layer temperature is responsing to the surface, which is more what we expect on very large scales. On the scale of the U.S., the warming surface temperatures might be the result of warm Pacific airmasses dominating over cool Canadian air masses.
You have many questions… maybe get yourself a college-level book on meteorology.
Because it’s an estimate of the average temperature of airmasses over the U.S. during the month, which together with surface temperatures tells us something about atmospheric stability. No one claimed it’s what you measure in your backyard.
Yes, one always enjoys those who believe the world reflects their locale.
But why the US? Why not Africa? Or India? Or a random location in the middle of the ocean? It seems that the only reason you publish this figure is because people DO associate it with the US. So it is misleading.
Lewis
I don’t live in the US. One always enjoys those who make incorrect assumptions based on insufficient evidence.
Bond: Because most of Roy’s readers live in the USA48.
Indeed. Not 7 km above the USA.
So, we can expect an uptick in June globally due to this lag? Northern Europe experienced record high May temperatures this year. Our meteorologists are overwhelmed by the crushing of records in the Northern countries (Denmark, Sweden, Norway, Finland). As a fact, Norway turned out to be warmer than Spain. Norway ended 4.2 C above normal which is a new record. The cause? Massive blocking of high pressure combined with stable low pressure int the south of Europe. And a contention that jet streams are getting more “lazy” due to warming of Arctic (reduction of contrast in temperatures between the tropics and the pole). And again – a product of global warming…
True about Northern Europe and Spain.
In Spain it has been very, very cold. Still is. It’s 21 in Madrid, whereas last year during the first period of June it suffered 43. And forecasts are it will drop next week to 17, way below normal.
All nothing to do with AGW.
@ Pietje …exactly, the sole reason for the warmth in areas of Europe, and the cold in Spain is all about shifting surface winds, and nothing more than that.
Roy…”This has been well known, for at least 25 years when the satellite monitoring was started. There is no blunder”.
You can’t win, Roy. When you guys at UAH report cooler temps than the rest, you get blamed for it, and when you report warmer temps than the rest, you get blamed.
Thanks for this months data. I expected warming and this is good news.
It was unseasonally warm here in Vancouver for much of May but June has begun with cooling (currently 13C). Go figure. Seems like we’re back to normal for this time of year since the 14 day trend is forecasting temps generally under 20C.
“You can’t win, NOAA. When you guys report warmer temps than the rest, you get blamed for it, and when you report cooler temps than the rest, you get blamed.”
ok , nevertheless the trend of late is down which is good, but not down enough.
“Temperatures in response to this will decline in the near future, in contrast to the steady state of temperature we presently have,or have been having for the past 15 years or so.”
– Salvatore Del Prete, 11/6/2012
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2012/11/uah-v5-5-global-temp-update-for-october-2012-0-33-deg-c/#comment-64939
David,
No one really appreciates your trying to prove Salvatore has said something in the past which might differ from what he says today.
I, for one, enjoy reading what he has to say and, MOST IMPORTANTLY, the fact he seldom, if ever, attacks those who disagree with him.
SO take a hint. He is a much better person than you.
Lewis: In other words, you don’t care one iota that Salvatore has always been wrong in the past, you’ll entertain whatever inanity he says today.
Why am I not surprised?
Lewis, since I can’t recall a single scientific thing you’ve ever written on this blog, I really could not care less what your opinion of me is.
I’ll keep criticizing Salvatore for all the wrong things he’s said.
Lewis g…”I, for one, enjoy reading what he [Salvatore] has to say and, MOST IMPORTANTLY, the fact he seldom, if ever, attacks those who disagree with him.
SO take a hint. He is a much better person than you”.
*********
ditto
No one really appreciates your trying to prove Salvatore has said something in the past which might differ from what he says today.
Laughable wishful thinking.
I’m one (and not the only one) of those who appreciate it tremendously !
It is so funny !
Bond says:
I am still waiting for Dr Spencer to explain how UAH got the US temperature for April so wrong.
It was one of the coldest Aprils on record (at the 10th percentile) yet UAH had it at only 0.01C below average (compared to NOAAs 1.65C below average for the same baseline).
Can you please explain your numbers?
For the 1980-2010 baseline, I get these anomalies:
NOAA USA48: +1.30 F = +0.72 C
UAH LT v6.0: -0.01 C
From NOAA’s ‘National Climate Report – April 2018’:
https://tinyurl.com/ybq88kyp
“During April, the average contiguous U.S. temperature was 48.9F, 2.2F below the 20th century average, making it the 13th coldest April on record and the coldest since 1997.”
Their “Climate at a Glance” page confirms this:
https://tinyurl.com/ClimateAtAGlance
Those numbers are with respect to a different baseline — 1901-2000, not 1980-2010.
And I have already said that I converted to the UAH baseline.
NOAA April 2018 compared to 1901-2000 Baseline: -1.20C
NOAA 1981-2010 average in 1901-2000 Baseline: +0.45C
Hence, NOAA April 2018 compared to 1981-2010 Baseline: -1.65C
Converting to the 1981-2010 baseline makes the low anomalies even LOWER.
To get your claimed anomaly of +0.72C in the 1981-2010 baseline would require NOAA’s 1980-2010 average to be strongly NEGATIVE. -1.92C to be precise.
Bryan – oz4caster
I’ve been looking at Climatereanalyzer for a couple of years now, and May, 2018 was by far the coolest month I can remember. It’s surprising that UAH shows almost no change from April.
The trends of late are good but we have a long way to go before I can become more confident.
They are still high even +.18c against 1981-2010 averages is still high. I want to see at least a 0 deviation from that period of time if not below normal.
It is wait and see.
On the other hand this number of +.18c and the last 4 or 5 months argues against AGW which calls for ever increasing global temperatures and as each month goes by without no additional warming it will weigh on AGW.
In addition overall sea surface temperatures are also in a down trend for close to a year now. Again still on the high side more time needs to pass and see what happens.
But it is a start perhaps.
Salvatore Del Prete says:
“…AGW which calls for ever increasing global temperatures and as each month goes by …”
Temperatures went down for thirty years and then the GHE won.
The GHE is long term.
You are short term.
Salvatore del Prete wrote:
“…and the last 4 or 5 months argues against AGW….”
Salvatore, when are you ever going to learn about natural fluctuations vs changes in climate.
Personally, I think there’s a reason why you’re opposed to AGW, and it has nothing at all to do with the science or the data.
Why don’t you tell us why you’re really opposed to AGW?
David says: “when are you ever going to learn about natural fluctuations vs changes in climate.”
LOL. This coming from the guy who ignores the AMO and millennial cycle. Why don’t you tell us why you’re really a supporter of AGW?
Salvatore Del Prete says:
“…argues against AGW which calls for ever increasing global temperatures and as each month goes…”
It absolutely does not, Salvatore. Shame on you.
Natural variations still exist in an AGW world.
Please go learn something and stop competing with Gordon for the Ignorance Trophy.
DA,
A whole lot of people think Salvatore is wrong. But they don’t treat him like you do. He has an hypothesis, he puts it out there in plain sight. He is always wrong … at least on his timing. It always seems to be “just around the corner”. But he sticks to his theory and doesn’t bother anyone. Who knows. Maybe someday he’ll be right. If you believe there is some science to prove him wrong, why not just state that. Why can’t you be more polite? Why do you have to be an ass? You have a lot of good stuff to say. Why not be know as someone that provides facts and opinions instead of the rude guy?
AGW which calls for ever increasing global temperatures
That is a complete fabrication, Salvatore.
Monthly and interannual fluctuations are EXPECTED under global warming from any cause. What you’ve said just here is complete nonsense.
Salvatore
“which calls for ever increasing global temperatures”
Would you please cite a climate scientist who claims “every month will be warmer than the last”.
If you can’t do this, then fall on your sword and admit to fabricating that BS.
Bond
“How can your claim that the satellite record is more accurate than the thermometer record be believed after an obvious blunder like this one?”
Why are you calling it a blunder? Should we expect the surface and lower troposphere to always match up?
If it doesn’t match up, what is the point of publishing a monthly temperature for a small region of the earth such as the USA? It seems to be an utterly meaningless figure.
bond…”If it doesnt match up, what is the point of publishing a monthly temperature for a small region of the earth such as the USA? It seems to be an utterly meaningless figure”.
You’re an utterly meaningless poster. Who cares what you think?
You are a guest on Roy’s site, have some respect. If you have a question for him ask it intelligently rather than your ham-handed accusations of blundering.
Bond has a good question. You could learn from him, Gordon.
Don’t see that. It’s just different data, measuring different part of atmosphere. Could be useful to know.
We can at least expect UAH’s numbers for the atmo to be close to RSS’s.
But they aren’t — RSS’s trend is about 50% higher than UAH’s for the LT.
DA…”We can at least expect UAHs numbers for the atmo to be close to RSSs.
But they arent RSSs trend is about 50% higher than UAHs for the LT”.
DUH!!!!! RSS has joined NOAA in fudging data so UAH should follow suit?
You’re an idiot.
Gordon, take your lying and dishonesty elsewhere. Start acting like a Canadian.
Another point is people in the climate arena are either unable or not willing to ever forecast a change in the climate in the near future ,if they do it they put it way off into the distant future which is meaningless.
A change in the near future is called weather. Beyond about 10 days, whether is not predictable. It seems you are asking them to guess.
“weather”
Based on previous La Nina years, I predict we’ve reached or nearly reached the minimum for the year. Anoms will go up beginning this month or next.
I do not understand those people that think only one item is going to determine what the climate may or may not do.
Salvatore Del Prete says:
“I do not understand those people that think only one item is going to determine what the climate may or may not do.”
NOBODY THINKS THAT, SALVATORE!!
For crying out loud, it’s difficult to keep up with some of the profound ignorance displayed in this blog’s comments.
@ Nate ..I would disagree with you on the direction of the ENSO regions. The ENSO is now going to return to la Nina conditions, although that may take till the end of the summer.
At best there may be some slight gain in global temps in some of the summer months. After the end of this summer though, then temps are going down slope for the next 3 years approximately, my prediction.
GM,
Its impressive that you can do 3 years. Can you work on my stock portfolio?
Seriously, the ENSO experts seem to think that past 6 months or so, they’re just flipping a coin. How do you do it?
How did I correctly predict in March of 2014 that the winter of 2016/17 would be a well above average rain year for the Pacific Northwest? Along with that, how did I correctly predict that the sunspot numbers would fall close to minimum at the end of 2016 in conjunction with the heavy West Coast winter of 2016/17. How did I also correctly predict in 3/2014 that the ENSO regions would be in a La Nina state in conjunction with a low ssn count, and a heavy winter on the West Coast?
I haf my vays.
GM,
Also, ‘The ENSO is now going to return to la Nina conditions, although that may take till the end of the summer.’
The ENSO modelers find that in the Fall the probability of El Nino or neutral is equal and ~ 45%, while La Nina is ~ 10%.
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/lanina/enso_evolution-status-fcsts-web.pdf
Do you have some insider info that they don’t?
@ Nate …yes I do have my own special insider views of how the climate system of this planet works. See the above comment for an insight in how far I have come over 10 years of putting my mind to climate related studies.
I guess it will remain mysterious…
Any predictions turn out wrong? Maybe we just dont hear about those?
GM, you’re an “insider?”
Inside of what?
Goldminor,
There are people who swear by astrology, my mother-in-law does Tarot cards, others read palms. The commonality between these is they claim correlation but have no plausible explanation for causation. And they usually report selectively on their predictive success.
If thats what you are doing, claiming sunspots and other parameters correlate to ENSO–but if you have no plausible mechanisms for causation, and you report selectively on your record of predictive accuracy, then why should we not lump your predictions in with astrology and the others?
nate…”Based on previous La Nina years, I predict weve reached or nearly reached the minimum for the year”.
Who said La Nina is the driver? The average for 18 years from 1998 – 2015 was around +0.15. The temps are just approaching that average again.
That’s your prediction? Lets see who does better.
“weather” and natural fluctuations.
Or, ENSOs = weather in the ocean.
ENSO is not all, but pretty dominant over short periods.
ENSOs can easily cause global average temperature swings of +/- 0.1-0.4 C in ~ six months.
The real question to be answered is why the ENSOs keep getting warmer, in all its phases — El Nino, La Nina, and neutral.
Because more solar short wave radiation has penetrated into the ocean from an unchanged Solar constant at top of atmosphere because of the reduction in low level cumulus cloud from at least 1984. More solar into the ocean, more energy for both El Nino and La Nina to play with.
I just contradicted myself, didn’t I? Guess I shouldn’t be too surprised that the surface change from April to May was more pronounced than at the LT.
Sal
What are you talking about? People in the “climate arena” are predicting a modest, short term warming trend as a result of the la nina fizzling out.
True enough . We have to see what happens I think we find out much in the next year or two.
Yet again, Salvatore, you’re changing the goalpost.
“…if temperatures do not show a decline by then(summer of 2018) in conjunction with very low solar activity we will be in trouble with our global cooling forecast.”
– Salvatore del Prete, 6/2/2017
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/06/uah-global-temperature-update-for-may-2017-0-45-deg-c/#comment-249606
Bond
“If it doesnt match up, what is the point of publishing a monthly temperature for a small region of the earth such as the USA? It seems to be an utterly meaningless figure.”
If I understand correctly, satellites average the column of lower troposphere rising above an area like the United States. This might not match surface measurements in a particular month, but they correlate well in the long term.
In my opinion, two areas measured (surface and lower troposphere) are better than one, and the fact that they generally agree gives credence to both records.
(For some reason, I am only able to post at the bottom of the page)
Snape says:
“For some reason, I am only able to post at the bottom of the page”
You just want to be like Sal
Snape says:
If I understand correctly, satellites average the column of lower troposphere rising above an area like the United States.
Not really. There is a vertical weighting function that must be calculated first.
The cool water pool just south of the equator looks like it could diminish the warming impact of the equatorial undercurrent warm pool that is making its way east and to the surface — the trade winds are blowing slightly south to north.
By this time last year the warm pool had already reached the surface and was warming the atmosphere, but if it doesn’t do the same this summer then a similar or sharper cooling trend compared to 2000-2013 could be developing and the pause could return by 2019 or 2020.
Dr. Spencer,
I still can’t help from noticing how the global mean temperature anomaly of the Tropics have been consistently lower than that of the globe during the past 17 months. Only 3 of the past 17 did the Tropics show a warmer temp anomaly.
I’ve always suspected that what is going on in the Arctic has a lot to do with what is going on in the Tropics. If you look at the Arctic, it has been considerably higher (not every month) than the globe. This leads me to believe that the Arctic is “pulling” heat from the Tropics during this period of time.
Do you think that is happening? Or, is it just statistical noise.
Rob, See for example https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polar_amplification
So, are the tropics always going to show a lesser temp anomaly than the globe? Or, does it oscillate. I would think that Tropics would show a higher temp anomaly than the globe when the Arctic is in a cooling trend. Whatever the mechanism is that transports heat to the Poles will sometimes be weaker in some decades, allowing more heat to stay in the Tropics, thus cooling the polar regions. Probably much more noticeable in the Arctic than the Antarctic.
Rob…”So, are the tropics always going to show a lesser temp anomaly than the globe?”
The UAH 33 year report from 1979 to about 2011 seems to indicate that. Little or no warming in the Tropics.
Gordon, thank you for the UAH link. The point I was making is that before 1979, the globe was in a cooling trend. So, I was entertaining the thought that if we had UAH data BEFORE 1979, it would probably show higher temp anomalies for the Tropics during the global cooling phase of the 1940s through the 1970s than what is indicated now by satellite measurement. Reason being is that more heat was bottled up in the Tropics during the mid-20th Century cooling trend of the mid-lats and polar regions.
After 1979, the warming phase kicked in at the same time satellite data was used to measure tropospheric temperature as developed by Spencer and Christy. It just seems to me that heat stored up in the Tropics during the so-called “cooling” phase of the 20th Century is being released to the mid-lats and poles, producing a so-called global “warming” phase.
I know I am probably over-simplifying things, but it looks like to me that multi-decadal warming and cooling phases are basically driven by how much heat transfer is going on from the Tropics to the Extratropics.
@ R Mitchell … the tropics do not vary much due to the relationship with ocean temps and cloud formation which cools the oceans surface. W Eschenbach did a post at WUWT around 5 years ago which explains the process. Heat transfers from the Equator to the poles mainly due to the spin of the planet.
Check out the major ocean currents to see how warm waters are transported continuously to the polar regions. Also air currents perform a similar function in transporting heat to the poles, and then to space.
Yes, there is the spin of the earth. But there is also heat transport from the equator to the poles just as heat transports along a metal rod when you stick it into a campfire. Have you ever seen the rotating dishpan experiment of the 1950s?
I would not consider ocean currents and air currents to be a constant any more than I would consider solar radiance a constant. There are going to be some decades when the heat transfer from the Tropics to the Poles will be a little higher than normal, and some decades when it is a little less than normal.
Due to baroclinic zones of the Extratropics, naturally there will be greater temperature variation there. So, when the Extratropics are in a “cooling phase,” I would think the Tropics would show plus temperature anomaly figures compared to the globe.
Av temps in the tropics change less than mid and (Northern) high latitudes in multidecadal response to a general change in climate.
Eg, during the last few ice age transitions, the polar temps changed by about 10-12C, the global average by 5-6 C, and the tropics by about 2-3C.
I was thinking of a much shorter time scale than the glacial-interglacial ones. More on the order of a century. I am curious what Dr. Spencer’s and Dr. Christy’s UAH data would have looked like from the 1940s through the 1970s. I would suspect you would see higher Tropical temp anomalies than the polar regions because less heat was being transported to the poles back then compared to the recent decades. The poles, especially the Arctic was probably colder back then because the Tropics was retaining more heat than it is now. The Arctic has warmed in recent decades probably because the Tropical region is sending more heat there than it did during the middle of the 20th century.
rob…dig through this site and you’ll see temperature contour maps going back to 1979. The few I have seen, including January 1979, showed no warming and/or cooling in the Tropics.
https://www.nsstc.uah.edu/climate/
Bottom line, so-called “global warming” could very be just a multi-decadal phase where the Tropics is being more efficient at transferring heat to the Poles than normal.
Robert
Here is the latest animation of the “equatorial undercurrent warm pool” you mentioned. Looks like it’s starting to make its way to the surface.
I don’t think anyone can predict what happens after that.
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/ocean/anim/wkxzteq_anm.gif
So, for the first time in 3 years UAH is below 0.2.
Yet still 0.09 C above the 30-yr mean, and 0.09 C above May’s value 30 years ago.
Krak…”So, for the first time in 3 years UAH is below 0.2″.
Yup…that was a long El Nina from Feb 2016 on.
Curious to see if the big EN’s have petered out.
Eystein, from upthread:
“contention that jet streams are getting more lazy due to warming of Arctic (reduction of contrast in temperatures between the tropics and the pole).”
There’s evidence that increased freshwater melting off of Greenland could mess up the gulf stream (an example of thermohaline circulation).
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermohaline_circulation
https://www.nbcphiladelphia.com/weather/Climate-Change—Gulf-Stream-Slowing-More-Trouble-484208071.html
*******
Hopefully just a coincidence, but right now the North Atlantic is very cold compared to average:
https://www.tropicaltidbits.com/analysis/ocean/natlssta.png
***********
While the area off US east coast is very warm. “A slow-down in the Gulf Stream leads to a warming of the waters to its west. That means off the U.S. East Coast.”
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/ocean/weeklyenso_clim_81-10/wksl_anm.gif
https://www.tropicaltidbits.com/analysis/ocean/
I like the trends ocean tid bits is showing.
Bullish for cooling. The question is does it last?
Salvatore, why do you prefer cooling over warming? What is your philosophical/personal reason for opposing AGW?
@ DA …none of us prefer cooling over warmer, but if it will finally put an end to the inane ‘CO2 is a main driver’ meme then let the cold reign to put out the lukewarm fire of AGW.
Why is that inane?
Why do you care if it’s true?
@ DA …I care about science among other things in life, always have. I view the AGW story as a false paradigm. Thus, if it takes a moderate cold spell to put a stake through the heart of AGW, then let it be so.
Besides all of the above, my view from the reading and studying over the last 10 years leads me to agree with nature now heading into a moderate cold trend which will last into the early 2030s, imo. Then there is a possibility that a second 30 year cold trend will follow. I would state the probability of the second round as 50/50. The first segment is already underway, imo.
I would also bet that this last leg of warming will be seen as the peak of the Modern Warm Period when scientists look back from the view pint of 2200.
I think you don’t understand the physics of manmade global warming — why it MUST keep getting warmer.
You didn’t mention anything about greenhouse gas emissions….
@ DA …I did not mention increasing levels of CO2 as I see that as a bit player in the climate system which is always easily overwhelmed by natural processes.
I also think that in another century or more that scientists will look back and see the peak of the Modern Warm Period as occurring from 1980 to 2016.
GM, I’m not interested in your opinions, I’m interested in what you can prove.
Can you prove even one of your claims above?
@ DA …from 3 years ago, …https://disqus.com/home/discussion/cnbc/sierra_nevada_snowpack_lowest_in_500_years/#comment-2253607967
@ DA …from 4 years ago, not clearly stated. Otherwise the comment is saying that the winters of 2014/15 and 2015/16 will see average to slightly above average rains to Northern California, and the pacififc Northwest. At the time which I made this comment the consensus was that the California drought was likely to continue for more years. I was the only one to state differently.
Then the last part of the comment is stating that the winter of 2016/17 had a strong probability of being a flood winter for NOrthern California and the PNW. All of that came to pass. Not stated, but essential to the predictions was that sunspots would be close to minimum levels, and the ENSO would have yo be in a La Nina state for the flood winter to take place. That is because it is a cyclical process. The next similar winter will most likely be in the winter of 2026/27, with a lesser probability for the winter of 2025/26. …https://disqus.com/home/discussion/cnbc/california_rice_farmer_039probably_sell039_due_to_drought/newest/#comment-1583227008
All of this first came to me in March of 2014.
‘There is so far no solar peakLa Nia connection found that is statistically significant.’
https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/JAS-D-12-0101.1
GM,
” sunspots would be close to minimum levels, and the ENSO would have yo be in a La Nina state for the flood winter to take place.
Here is article about N calif wetness by year and enso.”
https://www.climate.gov/news-features/blogs/enso/why-did-it-rain-so-much-california-during-last-year%E2%80%99s-la-ni%C3%B1a
The wettest years are often strong EL Nino, but correlation is far from perfect.
@ Nate …thanks for the link. that is interesting to me to see how NOAA looks at this. Take a look though at solar and ENSO conditions in 2 of the largest floods after the Ark Storm of 1862 to ever strike Northern California. Note that in NOAAs page they reference rainfall for 4 cities. I am not talking about the cities, but rather the coastal mountains and Sierras.
So the Ark Storm is the Big One in 1862. The next biggest was the storm of 1964/65 which impacted from just south of San Francisco all the way into southern British Columbia. After that was a very strong storm in 1955/56 which did not have quite the stretch of 1964/65, but was still very significant for NorCal, Oregon and southern Washington.
I knew of those from growing up in California, and had heard back in the 1970s that it was thought that there was a cyclical pattern to the coastal mountain floods of the PNW. It isn’t as clear cut though when looking back in time, partly as records get scarce for some of the past data. But that is the basic info which I then built upon to derive the probability of a heavy winter for NorCal, and the PNW for 2016/17. Now I have to wait until 2026/27 to see what happens next. Will there be a La Nina, and ssn count close to minimum then? It is an interesting thought as it could lead to some level of predictability for the ENSO regions and sunspots as well as for large rain/snow years for the West Coast.
@ Nate …also of interest is that there are a number of examples of a heavy winter impacting Southern California in the following winter after a flood winter in the North. Also another example of flood winters for both north and south. The winter of 1996/97 was semi-biblical in the north. The next year the south was inundated. The same happened in 1965/66 after the great flood of 1964/65. Also in 1956/57 after 1955/56. So there is some pattern within all of this. There are more examples as well.
GM, Looking at the longer view pattern, N Cal wetness for 5 y periods (from NOAA), it is clear that the wetest were in 80s and 90s, and driest were 20s and 30s. Wet again in early 40s.
The 80s and 90s had a string of strong El Ninos, while the 20s and 30s were an extended period of La Ninas. In 1940-42 was an extended El Nino.
My studies right or wrong have led me to this conclusion and now they will be tested.
Salvatore, you’ve already been wrong many times before, but you learn nothing from them.
@ DA ..well we can agree on some things.
Ocean trends bullish for cooling?
https://www.tropicaltidbits.com/analysis/ocean/global.png
Oh dear … I thought for a moment Barry was swearing. Time to get my glasses checked.
I say what is going on with the North Atlantic is as much a climate driver as is ENSO. Yet the former seems to be largely ignored.
“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
That’s right Salvatore, the AMO is about 60 years, so it can run against AGW for 30 years. In the end it’s +/- 0 while CO2 lasts for millenia and we keep adding.
Salvatore, ENSO isn’t a climate driver, it’s a natural fluctuation.
WHen are you ever going to learn the difference between a forcing and a fluctuation??
I would say the North Atlantic is as important a climate driver as ENSO.
@ S.P no, the ENSO is primary and the Atlantic is secondary. I could explain, but I would not want to give you any more ideas which you can’t comprehend on your own.
I disagree.
That may be so, but you are unable to explain why you think the Atlantic is primary. There are multiple reasons why it isn’t, and that includes one very obvious fact which anyone should be able to understand.
Salvatore…”I would say the North Atlantic is as important a climate driver as ENSO”.
Tsonis et al revealed that a long time ago, that all the ocean oscillations work with each other or against each other to produce the climate.
The AMO is multidecadal, however, and the PDO is decadal. ENSO is shorter term but the PDO affects La Nina and the strength of EN depends on it too.
A lot of unproven claims in your last paragraph.
Can you prove any of them?
One of them?
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2015/10/12/why-the-earths-past-has-scientists-so-worried-about-the-atlantic-oceans-circulation/?utm_term=.959387901d95
Sure ENSO is more important
ENSO I sonly important when the climate is in a given regime it has no ability to change the climatic regime the climate is in.
Contrast that to the North Atlantic and you will see what I have said is correct.
The above post is my answer to Mr. Goldminer.
Dave is sincere in his beliefs that is what I like about him. He is real!
Not some fake.
Thanks for that, Salvatore! We go head-to-head, with battle axes drawn. I appreciate that you appreciate that.
Your welcomed.
DA June 1, 2018 at 10:32 PM
“I think you dont understand the physics of manmade global warming why it MUST keep getting warmer.”
Any person professing to be a scientist, who makes a statement like that, is absolutely some fake.
By simple analogy, using a magnifying glass to make a hot spot has a reaction in physics that suggests the atmosphere should be getting warmer as you do this. But that would be ignorant, because we are in an atmospheric system that has the ability to redirect energy so that an overall system warming is NOT inevitable. Without these redirection mechanisms, the atmosphere would keep getting hotter. In real life, it adjusts to anomalous heat sources over times of various lengths depending on the specifics of the mechanism.
It is so fake to imagine that a CO2 molecule can heat the atmosphere, while the heat from a magnifying glass is different.
Geoff
I see you are not a scientist.
Bond,
I see you and raise you $50 billion US. That figure is about the value of metal sales to date from the several new mineral discoveries, now mines, found by Geopeko, a small exploration group that I had the honour to help manage as Chief Geochemist for 15 years or so. These brand new discoveries were made by the application of good, disciplined science.
Money is one way to quantify success.
Bond, what has been your monetary measure of success in science?
Geoff
@ G.S. …+100
@ GS + 50000000
‘These brand new discoveries were made by the application of good, disciplined science.
Money is one way to quantify success.’
And no one should dispute your success and expertise in this area of science. Im sure you have years of experience and education.
But why do you guys unflinchingly question the expertise of climate scientists? These are people who have way more expertise in their subject than any bloggers.
They also have a strong track record of success, eg in understanding the atmosphere, predicting weather, hurricane tracks and climate change, and advancing remote sensing technology. 38 y ago, the climate change over that period was accurately forecasted.
‘It is so fake to imagine that a CO2 molecule can heat the atmosphere, while the heat from a magnifying glass is different.’
I agree with Bond. This just doesn’t make a lot of sense.
Nate,
The magnifying glass appears to create heat, but it does this by also creating cool, like some rays are enhanced in energy while others are reduced, like a dimming.
The CO2 molecule as typically portrayed is said to create heat, but it also creates cool. The energy it absorbs prevents some of that energy from going elsewhere, like a dimming.
If you argue that the magnifying glass observation is immaterial, then the same applies to the CO2 case, does it not?
Geoff
‘but it also creates cool. ‘
Yes indeed it does, in the stratosphere, as predicted and observed.
CO2 is not creating heat or cool, it is acting as insulation. Just like adding attic insulation in my house. The house warms and the attic cools, assuming the furnace heat output is kept fixed.
Geoff Sherrington says:
The CO2 molecule as typically portrayed is said to create heat, but it also creates cool.
No, CO2 neither creates heat nor “cool.”
You need to go back to the basics and relearn and get this right. You won’t understand anything about global warming until you do.
@ Nate ..in reply to our discussion further up the page. We are not talking about the same phenomenon. I am talking about the largest storm systems which have negatively impacted the West Coast. While you are talking about the wettest periods on the West Coast. Those are different topics of discussion. That is where the confusion stems from.
Ah, OK.
But how can you or anyone predict when a large storm will come?
One can only predict when rain is more likely.
Geoff wrote:
It is so fake to imagine that a CO2 molecule can heat the atmosphere, while the heat from a magnifying glass is different.
No one thinks the first.
And, yes, physics has been requiring that the lower atmosphere get warmer. The surprise would be if this WASN’T happening.
David Appell
“Snape says:
If I understand correctly, satellites average the column of lower troposphere rising above an area like the United States.
Not really. There is a vertical weighting function that must be calculated first.”
Isn’t that a weighted average?
Yes.
–Climate models vs. climate data: A THOUGHT EXPERIMENT
Guest Blogger / 2 hours ago June 1, 2018
Guest essay by Bob Irvine
Is it true that energy from either an outside source or an increase in insulation will warm a system according to or in proportion to its residence time in that system?–
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/06/climate-models-vs-climate-data-a-thought-experiment/
Snape might like this.
I thought this was interesting:
“5. Nearly all sensitivity studies base their feedbacks on the assumption that GHG and solar efficacy are approximately equal. The IPCC states this in their reports. The feedbacks used are then feedbacks to an initial warming while feedbacks related to the intrinsic nature of the forcing and its mechanism are not normally considered. In particular, changes in residence times for energy from the different forcings do not appear to be considered. ”
If true, it could be due, to idea the only thing which can increase average global temperature are greenhouse gases.
Which indicates the power of the pseudoscience is a great force.
Let’s not blindly swallow anything and everything written on a denier site like Watts’, alright?
Can you find this statement anywhere in the scientific literature?
Gbaikie
Thanks for the link. Maybe I’ll join the conversation over there.
There is no trend in this satellite data other than what people imagine , what you have there is fractal noise, as long as the high peaks and low peaks overlap you don’t even begin to have a trend. The only real trend that will eventually appear will be downward and into the ice age.
Fractal noise?
Any set of numbers can be used to calculate a linear trend. And also its Pearson coefficient and statistical significance, as well as the standard error of the trend number, without or with correcting for autocorrelation.
Obviously you do not understand the concept of noise , If the temperature variations are 1,5 degrees within few years as seen in the 40 year chart , then anything under 1.5 degrees on a 140 years scale or 1400 years scale is nothing but noise , not trend , Your claim of calculating trends from any set of numbers is only an artifact of picking a starting and ending points.
Eben says:
If the temperature variations are 1,5 degrees within few years as seen in the 40 year chart , then anything under 1.5 degrees on a 140 years scale or 1400 years scale is nothing but noise , not trend
Sorry, no.
Noises tend to cancel out over useful trend lengths, leaving the only uncertainty to be statistical.
Please explain how 80 years period of the multi decade ocean oscillation cancels out in a 40 year old satellite record ???
“Sorry, no.
Noises tend to cancel out over useful trend lengths, leaving the only uncertainty to be statistical.”
Eben,
Trend or no trend in surface temp?
https://tinyurl.com/y9fxxgqh
The warming is at least partially a product of the Industrial Revolution. God will allow humanity to nearly annihilate itself should humanity decide to do so. Both sides overvalue their data to score points.
I tried posting (for the time) on WUWT, but nothing showed up.
What’s up with that?
(for the first time)
@ Sbape, aka Snape, it has to do with the new migration to a new WordPress platform. Check back and the comment should eventually appear. Not sure how or why, but there it is. I have had a few comments enter immediately, and others appear later.
No, the site is moderated. Wait, and check back later to see if its been admitted.
@ barry ..yes the site is moderated, but my original answer still stands as correct. It had everything to do with the transfer to the new platform. There is a new post today stating that the transfer finally completed as of today.
Ok, thanks
It’s a moderated site. Wait for one of the mods to admit the post.
Also, they block anyone who knows anything.
@ DA ..still sore after all of these years because WUWT blocked you? Are you saying that Nick Stokes and Steve Mosher do not know anything, among some of the others who argue for AGW yet comment at WUWT?
@ Snape, aka Sbape, …WUWT just made another change to their comments section. They now allow for 15 minutes of editing a comment, voting for comments, and easy picture installation within comments. Pretty good once one gets used to the change.
Where is ren? I need my update on how strongly negative the Arctic Oscillation is. It is still negative, right ren? Because your unbiased reporting would have kept us informed had the AO gone positive?
… Ren? ….
… Ren? ….
I guess there are no reports to make on an influx of Arctic air into the US.
“The linear temperature trend of the global average lower tropospheric temperature anomalies from January 1979 through May 2018 remains at +0.13 C/decade.”
It explains the manic posting from the antihuman climate alarmists.
Thanks for the update, doc.
The trend in RSS TLT over the same period is +0.19 C/decade. Warmer even that GISS surface temperatures, but in the same ballpark.
Either UAH or RSS (or possibly both) are interpreting the satellite data incorrectly at the moment.
And that is the whole point, isn’t it. The satellite data is up for interpretation, and is not a precise measurement.
Seems to be the case. The changes made between updated versions of the satellite data sets seem to be of a greater magnitude than those made between updated versions of the surface sets. The two main satellite data producers also disagree with one another more than the various surface data producers. It’s no doubt a very difficult task for the satellite teams, but it’s pretty clear that something isn’t right somewhere at the moment.
I think you will find that one of the satellite groups will agree with you that it is a difficult task, with a very wide margin of error, while the other will assert that all the glitches have been ironed out and theirs is a near-perfect record.
Bond notes margins of error etc with condensed first hand wisdom that permits him to create criteria to favour cv RSS over UAH.
Bond, what is your take on how important your commentary is?
Personally, I am grateful for the scientific pioneering by Spencer and Christy and would suggest that their scientific integrity is beyond reproach because inter alia they have paid homage to fundamental scientific philosophy.
They can proceed without your less informed comments from the sidelines that seem to be spiteful innuendo and little more.
Geoff
You took from my comment that I favour one data set over the other? It seems your comprehension skills are lacking.
Bond,
But, do you or do you not favour one group over another?
Your comment is merely evasion. Geoff
Bond says:
I think you will find that one of the satellite groups will agree with you that it is a difficult task, with a very wide margin of error, while the other will assert that all the glitches have been ironed out and theirs is a near-perfect record.
So which is which?
And what have they said to lead you to this conclusion?
THanks.
@ Bond …yet despite that the sats somehow sense the vast surface of the always moving oceans to within a millimeter of precision, and AGW believers all accept that as gospel.
Why do you think the satellite designers were so wrong? I mean, what did they botch up in their analysis?
@ DA …you should ask that question to the ones above who think that there is a problem with the sats.
Not all SATS methods created equal.
somehow sense the vast surface of the always moving oceans to within a millimeter of precision.’
I don’t see your problem with that. That’s the beauty of a global average over many many hills and valleys.
What natural effects? The same ones that have caused temperature changes over the past few million years.
La Nina again renew.
https://www.tropicaltidbits.com/analysis/ocean/nino12.png
The SST anomaly is based on a 1971-2000 NOAA climatology.
https://pics.tinypic.pl/i/00965/28xvmyimdq70.png
This is the correct ENSO evaluation source:
https://www.tropicaltidbits.com/analysis/ocean/nino34.png
This is not the source of evolution, only the final.
There is no “source of evolution” for an ENSO event.
You’re wrong, ENSO is a wave.
You’ve seen “Kelvin wave” used in association with ENSO events, not understood the connection, and believe they are the same thing.
No, ren, ENSO is not a wave.
But thanks for playing.
@ L.P. …several days and the ENSO regions will move lower once again. I would expect it to move below -0.5C by the end of next week.
This comment is now bookmarked.
You were so often so wrong with your ‘predictions’.
@ L.P. ..resorting to telling lies about me now? Where was I so often wrong?
@ L.P. …yes I missed the forecast. Note that I have no problem stating so when I am wrong.
The La Nino is over. Lamont Doherty is forecasting the chance of an El Nino this winter at about 50%.
ren says:
June 2, 2018 at 1:19 AM
La Nina again renew.
https://www.tropicaltidbits.com/analysis/ocean/nino12.png
ENSO events are based on SSTs in the NINO3.4 region (NOAA/BoM) or the NINO3 region (JMO) – not on the NINO1.2 region, which you have linked to, ren.
Reply
ren says:
June 2, 2018 at 1:24 AM
The SST anomaly is based on a 1971-2000 NOAA climatology.
No, the NINO data in the first graph is based on the 1981-2010 climatology, as it says on the left of the graph.
Solar activity is still declining.
https://cosmicrays.oulu.fi/webform/monitor.gif
ren, that’s for neutrons. Remind us what effect solar neutrons have on Earth’s climate?
High convection in North America and in Europe.
http://en.blitzortung.org/live_lightning_maps.php
Shock wave in Nebraska and Kansans.
http://pl.blitzortung.org/live_lightning_maps.php?map=34
In Australia, drop from April over 1 degree.
YEAR MO GLOBE NHEM. SHEM. TROPIC USA48 ARCTIC AUST
2018 04 +0.21 +0.31 +0.10 -0.13 -0.01 +1.02 +0.68
2018 05 +0.18 +0.40 -0.05 +0.03 +1.93 +0.18 -0.40
In USA, rise from April almost 2 degrees.
Up for a cherry picking competition?
Tell me what the trend is.
The full trend in USA48 is 0.18 C/decade.
So winter will be warmer in North America?
Not sure where you’re getting that from? Winters (Dec-Feb) in USA48 have warmed at a rate of 0.17 C/decade. Pretty much as fast as the annual rate.
@ Bond …ren still has a point. April US temps were record setting cold if I remember right. The same can not be said for Australia temps in April. I think that Australia is going to experience well below average temps this winter, alomg with NZ and the extremities of Africa and SA. The surface wind changes down there guarantee that, imo.
You recalled incorrectly.
NO.AA measured the average temperature for USA48 to rank 22nd warmest, out of 124 Aprils in their record.
Looking forward to your correction.
@ DA .. so coldest in 20 years. I had thought that I had heard it as coldest ever somewhere. So I was wrong on that. …https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/news/national-climate-201804
Ren
“In Australia, drop from April over 1 degree.”
What about the far bigger change between April and May in USA48? From -0.01 in April to +1.93 in May.
A new record warmest May in USA48 I think.
I wrote that the temperatures will be extreme in summer and in winter, due to the decrease in solar activity.
Daily mean temperatures for the Arctic area north of the 80th northern parallel, plotted with daily climate values calculated from the period 1958-2002.
http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/plots/meanTarchive/meanT_2018.png
http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/icethickness/images/FullSize_CICE_combine_thick_SM_EN_20180601.png
Looks like the Arctic was pretty warm this winter, doesn’t it?
Thanks to heavy rainfall, the forest will grow on the Great Prairies.
The Arctic was almost as warm in the winter as North America.
Only in winter is it above average and look at it now. Below normal.
In addition summers have all been below average in the Arctic.
The thickness of ice in the Arctic is growing.
http://psc.apl.uw.edu/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/schweiger/ice_volume/Bpiomas_plot_daily_heff.2sst.png
Salvatore
“In addition summers have all been below average in the Arctic.”
According to the UAH data, in the 2010s, only 4 of 24 summer months (June, July, August) have a negative anomaly in the Arctic.
Why do you continue to make ridiculous claims without research?
TheFinalNail says:
June 2, 2018 at 2:09 AM
Looks like the Arctic was pretty warm this winter, doesn’t it?
*
The Arctic region (60N-82.5N) was in 2017-2018 by far not so warm as during previous winters, as shown by the GHCN V4 daily record since 1881 (no offical data, it was processed by my friend).
A sort of the anomalies (wrt the mean of 1981-2010) is as follows:
1881 | 11 | 6.35
1881 | 12 | 5.49
1882 | 1 | 5.38
2016 | 2 | 4.51
1883 | 11 | 4.39
2017 | 12 | 4.33
1885 | 7 | 4.09
1882 | 8 | 4.08
2006 | 12 | 4.04
1882 | 2 | 3.81
In this sorted list, 2018 appears at position 64 (of 1648).
Even if you consider only the satellite era, 2018 is absent from the top 10:
2016 | 2 | 4.51
2017 | 12 | 4.33
2006 | 12 | 4.04
2015 | 2 | 3.81
2011 | 12 | 3.56
2014 | 12 | 3.42
2015 | 3 | 3.27
2014 | 2 | 3.22
1981 | 1 | 3.19
2015 | 12 | 3.17
And the same is shown by UAH Arctic 60N-82.5N land-only:
1981 | 1 | 2.62
2016 | 1 | 2.53
2016 | 4 | 2.05
1980 | 2 | 1.88
2012 | 6 | 1.74
2017 | 12 | 1.60
2016 | 2 | 1.53
2016 | 3 | 1.46
2017 | 3 | 1.46
2007 | 4 | 1.43
But this absence of 2018 at ranking top is not due to the anomalies.
A sort of absolute GHCN V4 daily Arctic data in the ‘colder’ months November-April during 1979-2018 gives this:
2016 | 4 | -0.60
2007 | 4 | -0.93
2010 | 4 | -1.35
2011 | 4 | -1.55
2015 | 4 | -1.60
1990 | 4 | -1.64
2014 | 4 | -1.81
1994 | 4 | -1.83
1995 | 4 | -1.97
2005 | 4 | -2.18
April 2018 appears here with -4.14 C at position 32 (of 238).
Thus in the sum I wouldn’t say that winter 2017/18 was ‘pretty warm’ in the Arctic.
binny…”The Arctic region (60N-82.5N) was in 2017-2018 by far not so warm as during previous winters…”
No kidding, where do you think the freezing air came from that set records for cold in much of the United States?
Sorry Gordon, there was no cold record set for the US.
In fact, this meteorological winter (DJF) for USA48 surface temperatures was 24th highest out of 123 DJFs. Top 20%.
ren says:
You mean it was growing in April, that’s where your graph stops.
And it’s half the thickness of 1980.
Salvatore Del Prete says:
June 2, 2018 at 5:40 AM
In addition summers have all been below average in the Arctic.
*
Mamma mia, Salvatore! Why do you pretend things without having ever had a look at them?
Bond is absolutely right: anomalies below average for summer months since 2010 are in UAH’s Arctic record an exception.
1. Here is the top 20 of the ascending sort of all negative UAH Arctic anomalies since 1979:
1989 | 1 | -1.98
1979 | 2 | -1.71
1985 | 4 | -1.55
1990 | 11 | -1.34
1985 | 3 | -1.32
1982 | 5 | -1.31
2002 | 2 | -1.30
1992 | 5 | -1.28
1992 | 4 | -1.25
1990 | 2 | -1.23
1988 | 4 | -1.21
1998 | 2 | -1.17
1984 | 4 | -1.07
2004 | 12 | -1.07
1992 | 8 | -1.06
1993 | 12 | -1.06
1992 | 7 | -1.03
1980 | 11 | -0.99
1993 | 1 | -0.96
1986 | 3 | -0.96
2. Conversely, here is the top 20 of a descending sort of all summer month anomalies in UAH’s Arctic record (I even included September to Bond’s list):
2012 | 6 | 1.44
2016 | 9 | 1.24
2006 | 9 | 1.23
2017 | 9 | 1.06
1998 | 7 | 0.97
2016 | 6 | 0.87
2016 | 8 | 0.82
1998 | 6 | 0.75
2007 | 6 | 0.75
2010 | 8 | 0.74
2003 | 8 | 0.73
2013 | 6 | 0.68
2001 | 8 | 0.67
1991 | 7 | 0.63
2007 | 7 | 0.61
1995 | 9 | 0.61
1997 | 9 | 0.59
1995 | 8 | 0.58
2010 | 7 | 0.56
1998 | 8 | 0.55
The first negative summer month anomaly appears at position 89 of 156.
Why don’t you download the data, Salvatore?
http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/meant80n.uk.php
This data show what I say to be true.
You tell me.
So you compare ONLY 2017 temperatures to the mean, and assert that this result holds for ALL summers.
Will your cherry picking ever end?
OK, I just noticed that you can also look at other years.
I also clicked on the link at the bottom of the page where it says “More information can be found here.”
It says “since the model is gridded in a regular 0.5 degree grid, the mean temperature values are strongly biased towards the temperature in the most northern part of the Arctic! Therefore, do NOT use this measure as an actual physical mean temperature of the arctic.”
The area covered by these graphs is only 18% of the area of the Arctic.
Salvatore Del Prete says:
June 2, 2018 at 6:52 AM
Sorry, Salvatore: wrong again.
Simply because you look at the northernmost part of the Arctic (80N-90N) instead of considering the whole Arctic (60N-90N).
And I thought you trust only in Roy Spencer’s satellite data!
As Mr Spencer publishes 2.5 degree grid data for the whole Globe, you may exploit that data, e.g. for the latitude band 80N-82.5N, compute a time series out of it, extract all summer anomalies, sort them, and display their top 20:
2012 | 6 | 1.63
2016 | 9 | 1.62
1995 | 9 | 1.57
2007 | 6 | 1.48
1999 | 7 | 1.41
2015 | 7 | 1.41
2010 | 6 | 1.36
2011 | 6 | 1.32
1990 | 8 | 1.29
2011 | 8 | 1.26
2005 | 6 | 1.24
2008 | 8 | 1.24
2011 | 7 | 1.22
2017 | 9 | 1.22
1999 | 8 | 1.19
1998 | 8 | 1.17
2012 | 9 | 1.16
2008 | 9 | 1.15
1990 | 9 | 1.14
1991 | 9 | 1.11
As you can see, the summer anmomalies are here even higher than for the whole Arctic (60N-90N). And here as well, the first summer anomaly below average is far far away.
A little hint: the northernmost Arctic is that region of the Globe where the lower troposphere warms the most since 1979.
The trend there is not 0.25 C / decade like in the Arctic, it is 0.44 C / decade.
Yes I only trust the satellite data but his data does not cover the area the Danish data covers so I use that. That data has shown very warm Arctic winters and cool summers hardly what I would like to see.
Why do you only trust satellite data?
And within that, why do you ignore RSS?
Is it correct? What do you think?
DMI Arctic analysis is of the Arctic 80N and up, nothing below. It covers less then 20% of the Arctic.
It is not a good proxy for the whole Arctic from 60 or 66 North.
One reason for this is that most of the sea ice above 80N is perennial – even during Summer minimum there is a lot of ice there.
Whereas the sea ice between 60 and 80N is highly volatile (seasonal).
A consequence is that at 80N Northwards, the near-surface air temps during summer hover very close to 0C – which is the temperature of the surface of the ice.
80 n or better and this is important because it shows how warm this area is in winter , and yet it does not continue into the warm or summer season.
I think it is valuable information which debunks global warming to some extent.
Please explain how this “debunks” global warming.
In answering, make sure you use the correct definition of global warming, and not a straw man version.
http://notrickszone.com/2018/03/14/ice-free-arctic-fantasies-melting-away-as-temperatures-plummet-sea-ice-mass-grows-impressively/
It is the number of days the temperature stays below freezing (summer temperatures)in the HIGH ARCTIC that will determine Arctic Sea Ice, which is never going to melt away. Never.
As far as La Nina, the tendency is still leading toward La Nina, rather then El Nino.
However, that does not matter in the scheme of things. What matters are the overall sea surface temperature which are in a down trend.
North Atlantic in particularly.
That is what I am watching.
In the meantime this year thus far has not been a good year for AGW ,because temperatures have failed to increase and if anything have fallen.
Each day that goes by without global temperature increases will damage AGW.
We will be finding out soon how much or little AGW theory has going for it.
All the above my opinion we will see if it is correct or not.
I’ve said before, I am not going to read blog ‘science’.
Whether or not you believe that this ice will ‘never melt away’, how exactly does that disprove global warming?
Salvatore…”I think it is valuable information which debunks global warming to some extent”.
There was no science to debunk, Salvatore. No one has ever proved CO2 warms the atmosphere, it’s sheer conjecture based on consensus.
true
“Increases in greenhouse forcing inferred from the outgoing longwave radiation spectra of the Earth in 1970 and 1997,” J.E. Harries et al, Nature 410, 355-357 (15 March 2001).
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v410/n6826/abs/410355a0.html
Radiative forcing measured at Earths surface corroborate the increasing greenhouse effect, R. Philipona et al, Geo Res Letters, v31 L03202 (2004).
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2003GL018765/abstract
“Observational determination of surface radiative forcing by CO2 from 2000 to 2010,” D. R. Feldman et al, Nature 519, 339343 (19 March 2015).
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v519/n7543/full/nature14240.html
I was considering only 80 to 90 degrees north latitude when I made my statement.
Salvatore, there is no valid UAH 6.0 data above 82.5N nor below 82.5S.
Here is your statement:
Only in winter is it above average and look at it now. Below normal.
In addition summers have all been below average in the Arctic.
Here is a chart showing UAH6.0 LT above 80N:
http://4gp.me/bbtc/1527956228541/001.jpg
Maybe it helps you…
the Danish data
A very cold tropical Atlantic.
https://weather.gc.ca/data/saisons/images/2018060200_054_G6_global_I_SEASON_tm@lg@sd_000.png
A very cold tropical Atlantic.
https://weather.gc.ca/data/saisons/images/2018060200_054_G6_global_I_SEASON_tm@lg@sd_000.png
Got to like it Ren ,that is if you are against AGW theory.
Will it continue ? I say yes.
Thanks ren for proving with that graph that your claim about La Nina continuing is nonsense. It shows the tropical Pacific neutral or higher, with the cold water that was previously there now dispersing to the south, in much the same way the warm water dispersed after the last El Nino.
Idiot tracker
My comments are so far not appearing at WUWT, so I am replying to one of your post’s here:
“The black box warms merely because it absorbs more incident energy than the white box. So its temperature must eventually get warmer in a steady state so that its heat loss to surroundings equals the greater amount of heat it absorbs. As simple as that.
And Hansens climate response time has nothing to do with a claimed energy residence time. Utter confusion here. The latter concept is quite meaningless, you cannot label and track heat, just count how many goes in or out of system per unit time. Good old Thermodynamics.”
Rate of input and residence time (I’ve called it “length of stay”) are the two variables that determine how much of something will have accumulated when a steady state is reached.
Hard or impossible to measure, so yeah, meaningless WRT calculations, but not actual meaningless since it’s a real and important variable.
Rate of input and residence time (I’ve called it “length of stay”) are the two variables that determine how much of something will have accumulated when a steady state is reached.
“Something” such as people walking in and out of a room, certainly, but not heat or energy exchange of a system.
What would be, according to you, the time of residence t of energy in a system ?
There is no pertinent physical meaning of t, nor is this a description of what happens to a quantum of energy that enters the system. Such a quantum cannot be tracked anyway and certainly cannot be said to stay there for a time t and then leave again. This picture is not appropriate at all. What happens at microscopic scale and relevant physics is that energy is exchanged very rapidly is both ways across any interface between the system and surroundings. For instance molecules of air bounce off the ground and so either lose or gain energy at the 10^-10 s scale. And the global net exchange is only determined by differences in temperature, and this is all we need to know to find out how much energy accumulates into a system in a steady state.
Des disappears and Bond appears. Same ignorance, same bs.
I would have thought it was 100% obvious that I am Des. After all, I linked to videos from my own channel from both accounts. I changed only because my comments were not posting so I tried something different. But don’t let me stop you coming up with your little conspiracy theories concerning my name change.
Hi Des.
Tell you what … how about you call me by my original name – my real name. I used Bob before Des and changed for the same reason. I trust this comment will post a year after last using that name.
Interestingly, when I posted this comment I had references to two other users, but the comment was blocked. When I removed those references, it posted. I am going to test out below which user’s name was blocked.
Mike Flynn
It seems that g.e.r.a.n has had his name blocked.
Mikey won’t be happy about losing his other identity.
bond|des…nothing personal, just keeping track of nyms. Also, trading slags.
I’m sure I could enjoy a Foster’s lager with you while carrying on a slagging contest.
Only foreigners drink Fosters.
Salvatore,
80 n or better and this is important because it shows how warm this area is in winter , and yet it does not continue into the warm or summer season.
“DMI Arctic analysis is of the Arctic 80N and up, nothing below. It covers less than 20% of the Arctic.
It is not a good proxy for the whole Arctic from 60 or 66 North.
One reason for this is that most of the sea ice above 80N is perennial even during Summer minimum there is a lot of ice there.
Whereas the sea ice between 60 and 80N is highly volatile (seasonal).
A consequence is that at 80N Northwards, the near-surface air temps during summer hover very close to 0C which is the temperature of the surface of the ice.”
I got much of this from an email DMI sent in reply to my queries about summertime temps staying around zero C each year in their charts.
I’m quoting myself there, BTW. I can probably dig up the original email from DMI if requested.
Dunno why my name and email is no longer retained, but clicking in the box once or twice gives me an autofill option, and I can still reply to sub threads. I’ve noticed others having trouble. So something is up.
[edit – Ironically, I went to post this without filling in the fields….]
barry…”Dunno why my name and email is no longer retained….”
Join the club. We’re all experiencing it.
Have you tried clearing your cookies? Have not tried it yet since it wipes out all my saved user name data.
LP, Barry
Thanks for the information about the arctic.
Thanks in turn to Dolores Umbridge for this encouraging message.
The data from 80 n to 90 n is important. The data everywhere is important.
As far as what I think will determine the end of AGW ,it is not so much the number of years the global temperatures do not rise or even fall but rather the magnitude of the fall and quickness if it should occur.
In other words if global temperatures were to take a sudden turn to the down say .5c or more in less then 2 years that would be more telling then if global temperatures even did not rise or had a gradual drop for several years.
If global temperatures should take a sudden down turn AGW is over regardless of the duration of time associated with the sudden down turn.
Data from only 0.75% of the globe does not outweigh the other 99.25%. Especially when the effect you have notice only applies for one third of a year, so you are effectively saying 0.25% outweighs 99.75%.
I did not say that at all.
What matters is the temperature for the WHOLE globe.
Aha.
Would you please performn a review of all the comments you sent during the last 24h?
Yes, the AVERAGE temperature for the WHOLE globe.
Fortunately for Salvatore, global warming ended 16 years ago.
“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
https://tamino.wordpress.com/2018/06/02/sea-level-rise-denial-by-bullshit/#more-9740
interesting to understand natural vs human !
Dr. Spencer, I wrote a post demonstrating how if you use the Satellite data to isolate the impact of CO2, CO2 has no impact at all on temperatures.
Climate Data Doesnt Support CO2 Driving Climate Change and Global Temperatures
https://co2islife.wordpress.com/2018/06/03/climate-data-doesnt-support-co2-driving-climate-change-and-global-temperatures/
When will you be submitting this to a major scientific journal? (Prepare for a press onslaught.)
There’s a Nobel Prize in this for you — you ARE aware of that, right?
Sadly, nothing I write would ever pass the corrupt peer review process. Care to refute a single claim I make?
CO2isLife
A lot of what you post on your blog can be refuted.
YOUR MAIN POINTS:
1) The only defined mechanism by which CO2 can affect/cause climate change is through the GHG Effect and thermalization of 13 to 18 LWIR.
Not exactly. It is more the energy it is able to emit back to the surface that will cause global warming.
In the graph you use to show GHG cooling, you should not that in the lower atmosphere H2O and CO2 are close to zero effect for cooling or heating the atmosphere.
http://www.atmosp.physics.utoronto.ca/SPARC/News17/ReportTropopWorkshopApril2001/17Haynes_Shepherd.html
They both absorb energy (heating effect) and radiate energy (cooling effect) and the sum is about no net heating or cooling of the atmosphere. Yet that has little to do with GHE or global warming. Not even sure what your point is with this graph.
Here is a more important graph.
https://www.patarnott.com/atms749/images/MeasuredRadianceReno.jpg
This energy that is emitted by CO2 is what will allow the surface to reach a higher equilibrium temperature with the same solar input.
CO2isLife
YOU also state this:
5) 13 to 18 LWIR does not penetrate or warm water.
Nor does it penetrate any solid material. Yet is can warm a object but it can’t warm water? Why do you make this claim. Water absorbs IR very well. What do you think happens to the energy absorbed by water?
It can warm a wall but can’t warm water? Why?
CO2isLife
YOU:
7) H2O/Water Vapor is by far the most abundant and potent GHG, and it also absorbs 13 to 18 LWIR, making the contribution of CO2 immeasurable in the atmosphere until the altitude of 3 km is reached and H2O starts to precipitate out of the atmosphere.
You really think you have your science right with this one?
http://www.meteor.iastate.edu/gccourse/forcing/images/image7.gif
Actual science shows your understanding is not correct. CO2 absorbs about 100% of the IR at the 15 micron range while water vapor absorbs around 50% even with its high concentration. If no CO2 were present you would have considerable IR leaving the Earth’s surface through space at this wavelength.
CO2isLife
You may have a case that politicians and other vested interests are manipulating climate science for some agenda (like Al Gore who got very wealthy from his Green agenda).
I do not believe the science is faulty as you do. If you take the time to read the actual science material and not the politician or media version they sound like good scientists.
I do not think any of your ideas contained here are at all valid.
YOU: “The problem with Climate Science is that it isnt science. Climate Scientists are all out there trying to PROVE CO2 is the cause, their livelihoods depend upon it. Real science is the unbiased search for the truth. Real science seeks to understand and explain, not prove one theory over the other. Real science never proves anything. Real science rejects the null/consensus, it doesnt PROVE the cause, it PROVES the currently accepted cause is wrong. Real science shatters the consensus, it doesnt seek to defend it. Climate Scientists are practicing Anti-Science, Climate Sophistry, and Propaganda, and the above graphics and analysis prove it.”
Climate science is a science. It goes out in the field and takes many measurements and attempts to related the findings. I can’t see why you would suggest that is not science, it is in my book.
I think this is an unfounded rant. More trying to appeal to an emotional state than a rational logical one.
Norman Says:
“1) The only defined mechanism by which CO2 can affect/cause climate change is through the GHG Effect and thermalization of 13 to 18 LWIR.
Not exactly. It is more the energy it is able to emit back to the surface that will cause global warming.”
CO2isLife: I think that goes without saying. That is the GHG effect, however, energy is radiated and diffused in a 360 degree sphere, so only a fraction goes back to earth.
Norman Says:
“In the graph you use to show GHG cooling, you should note that in the lower atmosphere H2O and CO2 are close to zero effect for cooling or heating the atmosphere.”
MODTRAN clearly shows H2O dominates the lower atmosphere as a GHG, and CO2 only becomes a factor up around 3km and higher when H2O precipitates out of the atmosphere.
Norman Says:
“YOU also state this:
5) 13 to 18 LWIR does not penetrate or warm water.
Nor does it penetrate any solid material. Yet is can warm a object but it cant warm water? Why do you make this claim. Water absorbs IR very well. What do you think happens to the energy absorbed by water?
It can warm a wall but cant warm water? Why?”
CO2isLife says:
The basic physics of the molecule and LWIR. Just as visible light won’t warm glass, but will warm a black car. You can test this yourself. Simply shine an LWIR lamp with a 13 to 18 micron filter at water. Those wavelenghts don’t penetrate water, and will cause cooling surface evaporation. Solids will warm, but solids don’t evaporate.
You can read more here:
https://co2islife.wordpress.com/2018/06/03/climate-data-doesnt-support-co2-driving-climate-change-and-global-temperatures/
https://co2islife.wordpress.com/2018/06/03/the-most-powerful-evidence-climate-scientists-have-of-global-warming-rules-out-co2-as-the-cause/
CO2,
“Just as visible light wont warm glass, but will warm a black car. You can test this yourself.
Visible light won’t warm glass because glass is transparent to these wavelengths. Liquid water is NOT transparent to mid IR, is it?
When IR encounters water it has 3 choices
1. reflect – not much at normal incidence
2. Pass thru -No, not transparent
3. Absorb – Yes, by process of elimination
Once absorbed it heats. Water, especially if mixed like ocean, conducts surface heat below.
‘Simply shine an LWIR lamp with a 13 to 18 micron filter at water. Those wavelenghts dont penetrate water, and will cause cooling surface evaporation. Solids will warm, but solids dont evaporate.”
I have tried this with a ceramic heat lamp pointed down at cup of water. It heats the water quite well. Try it!
In the real ocean, most of the time it is NET cooling by emitting LWIR-but much less than otherwise because of DWLW from atm GHG.
CO2isLife
YOU: “CO2isLife: I think that goes without saying. That is the GHG effect, however, energy is radiated and diffused in a 360 degree sphere, so only a fraction goes back to earth”
Not sure where you pulled this nonfact from. Scientists measure, on a daily basis, DWIR in many locations. It is not a fraction, it is almost equal to what the Earth surface emits.
https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/webdata/tmp/surfrad_5b15e4da5ea46.png
Wet area in summer
https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/webdata/tmp/surfrad_5b15e5025cb2f.png
Dry area in summer
You can see the DWIR is significant not some the fraction would be quite large.
CO2isLife
YOU: “CO2isLife says:
The basic physics of the molecule and LWIR. Just as visible light wont warm glass, but will warm a black car. You can test this yourself. Simply shine an LWIR lamp with a 13 to 18 micron filter at water. Those wavelenghts dont penetrate water, and will cause cooling surface evaporation. Solids will warm, but solids dont evaporate.”
Did you just make that up? First water is opaque to nearly all IR.
https://tinyurl.com/y8d5hxx8
Also you are just wrong.
https://tinyurl.com/y8y75hlo
IR water heaters are commercially available.
Why not do some actual research and support your conclusions with actual factual information. It seems you just made up that point without even trying to find evidence to support your statements.
Normal Says: Actual science shows your understanding is not correct. CO2 absorbs about 100% of the IR at the 15 micron range while water vapor absorbs around 50% even with its high concentration. If no CO2 were present you would have considerable IR leaving the Earths surface through space at this wavelength.
You can verify my claims multiple ways:
1) Go to MODTRAN and set the view to looking down from 0.1km and alter CO2 up to 800 ppm and measure the difference in W/M^2. Then alter the H20.
2) Go to Spectralcal and go to the gas cell and change the length to 1m. You will see H2O absorbs all the IR. What I imagine your graphic is showing is the result of a 10cm gas cell.
CO2isLife: I think you’re afraid to submit your work to a peer reviewed journal.
Sadly, nothing I write would ever pass the corrupt peer review process.
Actually, what you write would not even be handed over to the reviewers by the editorial staff of any serious scientific journal.
No need to waste their time, the piece of junk is quite apparent.
But sadly, your physics is wrong. BADLY wrong.
This is the worst:
The blackbody temperature of 13 to 18 LWIR is -80C.
Radiation does not have a temperature.
Do you understand the basics of the GHG effect? CO2 thermalizes 13 to 18 micron LWIR. When it thermalizes those wavelengths its signature is that of a blackbody of temperature -80 degree C. You can check that yourself at SpectralCalc. CO2 however doesn’t absorb the entire spectrum so it isn’t a true blackbody, so the energy is even less than calculated.
If I am wrong, and MODTRAN and Spectral Calc are wrong, please provide a correction. If thermalizing 13 to 18 micron LWIR doesn’t have a temperature, how then are we tying CO2 to increasing temperatures? Why does the outgoing spectrum show 13 to 18 micron having a temperature of -80 degree C? Check out MODTRAN, that is why they overlay the black body graphs.
CO2isLife
I am not sure what you are talking about.
What part of the SpectralCalc gives you this information?
http://www.spectralcalc.com/spectral_browser/db_intensity.php
Why not consider what CO2 emits. That is based upon its emissivity. Its effective emissivity does depend on water vapor content, as you correctly pointed out, that they overlap. The amount of IR CO2 will emit is based upon its emissivity and temperature. Its emissivity increases as concentration increases.
This could be of help.
https://www.omicsonline.org/open-access/analytical-approach-to-calculate-the-heat-fluxes-in-the-atmosphere-and-to-quantify-the-sensitivity-of-earth-temperature-due-to-co2-2157-7625-S5-012.php?aid=73158
Here is the link to SpecrtalCal BlackBody Calculator. We know that CO2 thermalizes 13 to 18 micron LWIR with a peak of 15 microns. Simply plug in the numbers. You will see, a blackbody of temperature -80C has a peak of 15 microns. The hotter an object gets, the shorter the wavelength peak becomes. LWIR is very very very low energy radiation, especially when compared to blue light that warms the oceans.
http://www.spectralcalc.com/blackbody_calculator/blackbody.php
CO2isLife says:
You will see, a blackbody of temperature -80C has a peak of 15 microns.
That’s a function of the BB’s temperature, not of the radiation.
In fact, a BB emits radiation of ALL frequencies. Do you know that?
This error, repeated lots of places, is in the top 5 among the denier set.
CO@,
Try plotting vs wavenumber. Note that CO2 is @ 670 ish. What Temp makes 670 the peak?
CO2: radiation doesn’t have a temperature.
If you disagree, give me the formula for the temperature of radiation as a function of its frequency.
You really need to examine the science behind those assumptions.
(Let’s see whether a certain someone can figure out this time who I am responding to.)
Why are people supposed to guess?
When there is a reply button below your comment that I clearly did not use, no guessing is required.
In this case I used that reply button, so in this case I am clearly responding to you.
co2islife:
CO2 is important for photosynthesis but CO2 is a greenhouse gas also.
i have problem with man who have answer before question !
“co2islife:
CO2 is important for photosynthesis but CO2 is a greenhouse gas also.”
Did I ever disagree with that point? If I did, I was wrong.
Hey ren,
Just wondering when you were planning to mention that the Arctic Oscillation is in the middle of its longest run of positive days in over a decade?
Alas, I suspect you will rate its ultimate switch into the negatives as more newsworthy, a switch that happens on average about 20 times each year.
I am going to say thus far the trends of late are down (ocean and land)which is significant for me, because I said late 2017 and 2018 would be transitional.
Does it mean I am correct no ,because temperatures are still high and the trend has just started.
That said , I think the magnitude of the drop (if it happens) is more important then the duration. I think for instance a drop of .5c in a year or so would be more meaningful then say 10 years of steady temperatures or a .5c drop over that time period.
I think the test is on and it is the whole globe that matters. That said certain areas of the globe have a big impact on the overall climate. One of those areas being the North Atlantic.
Time will tell and an increase in major volcanic activity is part of my scenario. So if cooling comes because of a major volcanic eruption if that should happen,I have said that contributes to cooling associated with prolonged periods of solar activity.
Salvatore, it’s been cooling since 2002. Why is anyone still arguing about it?
“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
David, the test is on and we will know much more in the next year or two.
Maybe you will be correct ,maybe I will we will see.
Salvatore, you’ve been saying for years that ‘the test is on.’
Then, when proven wrong, you learn nothing and say it again.
You have zero credibility left.
The difference is this time the two solar qualifiers are in.
I can’t say like before I was wrong because my solar forecast was wrong.
That is the difference.,
You’ve said that before, too Salvatore.
And were wrong.
You never learn.
“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
Well I am encouraged with year 2018 thus far. I will leave it at that.
Still the same problem as always, Salvatore — you look at just a few months of data, which is all due to natural variations, and ignore the big picture of the long-term trends.
You’re never going to learn.
David I am very interested.
What natural variations do you believe are so strong to cause these short term temperatures reversals?
What your saying is CO2 (AGW) drives the climate and yet at times it does not.
Salvatore,
Yet again you falsely claim that we claim that “CO2 is the only driver of the climate”. The rise in CO2 is very slowly raising the baseline. All the variation from other effects swamp this rise over any short time interval. One such short term effect is due to changes in ocean and atmospheric circulation, and that is basically what drives the ENSO variation.
Why do you keep insisting that we claim CO2 is the only driver, despite having been corrected countless times?
Answer: Because without that fictitious stance to argue against you argument dies.
The rise in co2 is slowly raising the baseline you say.
Fair enough.
Let’s see if it continues.
Salvatore,
And of course we would measure that using at least decadal averages, not by creaming ourselves over the daily ups and downs of sea surface temperatures.
IT
“What would be, according to you, the time of residence t of energy in a system ?”
Eli’s blue plate started at 0 K. Let’s say it received sunlight for only 10 minutes. A person could calculate how much total energy, in joules, had been absorbed during that time period.
After the 10 minutes is up and the sun is removed, you could then measure how long It takes before the plate is again at 0 K.
Couldn’t you use those two figures and come up with an average residence time for each joule?
******
What happens on a microscopic scale inside the plate doesn’t matter because we know, regardless of what form it takes, energy is conserved.
*******
If you did a similar “10 minute test”. using plates of varying widths and materials, you would find they had different residence times. For example, a 2 meter thick ceramic plate would take longer to cool to 0 C. than a 1 meter thick plate.
The two plates would have absorbed the same amount of energy, but residence time of energy entering the thicker plate would be greater.
No need for sorry, If you want to discredit yourself as scientist you can keep arguing that every set of numbers is a trend and every uptick and downtick of the noise in a system is a trend, and the numbers you picked is a trend, and blah blah blah forever.
eben…”If you want to discredit yourself as scientist you can keep arguing that every set of numbers is a trend…”
Or you can use inference. You can number-crunch a trend totally out of context then infer it represents anthropogenic warming, when in fact it’s due to natural forces like ENSO and/or volcanic aerosols.
Please explain how ENSO cycles with a period of a few years can cause a rising trend of 0.13C per decade over almost 40 years.
Please explain how 80 years period of the multi decade ocean oscillation evens out in a 40 year old satellite record ???
“Please explain how ENSO cycles with a period of a few years can cause a rising trend of 0.13C per decade over almost 40 years.”
where is your trend in this ?
https://tinyurl.com/y9qr8fge
Bottom of lake in Scotland, um…
To assist you in answering that question:
20 years from June 1978 to May 1998:
72 El Nino months
37 La Nina months
20 years from June 1998 to May 2018:
52 El Nino months (a fall of 20)
86 La Nina months (a rise of 49)
Whenever you are ready Gordon.
bond…”And that is the whole point, isnt it. The satellite data is up for interpretation, and is not a precise measurement”.
A humourist.
NOAA strips over 75% of the available data then applies less than 25% to a climate model where it is interpolated and homogenized to produce SYNTHESIZED data.
Then they reduce confidence levels to as low as required to move certain years into a ‘probable’ hottest year ever.
You call that precise?? I call it a sledgehammer approach featuring scientific misconduct.
There are signs they may be moving back to the science mainstream after the Trump admin intervened.
Repeating the same BS doesn’t make it more correct.
bob…”Repeating the same BS doesnt make it more correct”.
If it was bs you might have a point. However, when NOAA confirms it on their own site I’d venture a guess it is true.
NOAA doesn’t confirm that they deleted any station data on their website.
That’s a wrong-headed interpretation you make based on something you read on a blog.
You continue to lie. People continue to point that out.
It is not only BS, it is a lie, and Robertson perfectly knows that.
He refers to an old NOAA web page dated 2011 where they explain
– that a great number of stations (4,500) were removed from the inventory because of their lack of accessibility
but also
– that at the same time, a greater number of stations came new into the inventory.
***
I am actually busy with the GHCN V4 daily record, the successor of GHCN V3:
https://tinyurl.com/y8xyojfw
While V3 has only roughly 7,000 stations for average measurements (and even less for minima and maxima), V4 daily sums up to over 100,000 stations, of which nearly 35,000 were / are busy with temperature measurements between 1880 and 2018.
By around 1955, over 10,000 of them were active in each year:
http://4gp.me/bbtc/1528226652596.jpg
His disgusting lies about the absence of stations in the Arctic
http://4gp.me/bbtc/1528227030906.jpg
and especially in the Canadian Grand North
http://4gp.me/bbtc/1528227248839/001.jpg
are even worse.
***
My lady Rose pointed it out often enough: Robertson is an ignorant, pretentious boaster, and is an expert of nothing.
BTW, global temperatures clearly follow ocean cycles. Anyone want to take a stab at how CO2 and LWIR between 13 and 18 microns can cause El Ninos and La Ninas? How can CO2 cause such variability in temperatures? How can CO2 cause such temperature differentials between land, ocean, N and S Hemispheres? All share 407 ppm CO2, yet they all show wildly different warming trends.
As we keep saying (and as you keep ignoring), these large spatial and temporal variations are superimposed on a slowly rising baseline temperature. Why is that so difficult to understand?
Bobdesbond
The idea is not hare to understand. They just don’t want to. They are on a sacred mission.
Perhaps ‘sacred’ should be interpreted as ‘oil-funded’.
Bobdesbond
It is a possibility but I cannot imagine any oil company paying out money to Gordon Robertson for his posts.
Nevertheless, you have to wonder how so many mature-age deniers such as Gordon and Robert Holmes (1000frolly) are suddenly able to exist without income by returning to university and earning a degree. And most of these degree seem to have a connection to the use of fossil fuels. (Coal use in the case of Robert Holmes).
It is not CO2 that raises the global temperature. The butterfly chart shows the cause and gradual change.
https://solarscience.msfc.nasa.gov/images/bfly.gif
So according to that chart and your theory, the 70s should have been colder than the 60s. And the 2000s should have been colder than the 1980s. Is that right?
This shows that the oceans could accumulate heat for about 70 years.
Really? Would you point out where on your graph I should look for a reference to ocean heat content.
For example, in this passage.
https://solarscience.msfc.nasa.gov/images/Cycle22Cycle23Cycle24big.gif
Your link is not a ‘passage’. It is an IMAGE.
And again, where in that image should I look to find a reference to ocean heat content?
If you did not notice, the volume of sea ice in Arctic is the highest in five years.
http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/icethickness/images/FullSize_CICE_combine_thick_SM_EN_20180602.png
And the EXTENT is the 2nd lowest in 5 years.
Seriously – these year by year comparisons are meaningless.
The state of the sea ice is determined by its extent, thickness and volume
The ice cover in the Arctic grows throughout the winter, before peaking in March. Melting picks up pace during the spring as the sun gets stronger, and in September the extent of the ice cover is typically only around one third of its winter maximum.
Differences may occur in terms of the position of the edge of the ice in the two maps, Extent of the sea ice and Thickness and volume of the sea ice, as the model calculations do not always correspond exactly to the satellite sensors registration of the extent of the ice.
Ice concentrations are based on satellite data and are from the Ocean and Sea Ice Satellite Application Facility project (OSISAF).
The thickness of the ice shown is calculated by means of the HYCOM-CICE model of sea ice at DMI. The model calculates various oceanographic values, including sea ice, in a grid with cells of 10 x 10 square km. The model is driven by meteorological data from ECMWF (European Centre for Medium-Range Weather Forecasts). In each grid cell the ice is classified into 5 thickness categories, with thickness, concentration, movement and heat balance of the ice being calculated for each category. The map of the ice thickness shows the mean thickness of ice in each grid cell.
The graph on the right shows the annual variation of the volume of the sea ice in the Northern Hemisphere, excluding the Baltic Sea and the Pacific. The volume of the ice is calculated on the basis of the ice thicknesses from the HYCOM-CICE model. In each grid cell the volume is calculated as thickness multiplied with concentration and with area, with contributions from all grid cells to the total volume. The grey band around the climatologic mean value corresponds to plus/minus one standard deviation based on the 10-year average 2004-2013.
http://polarportal.dk/en/sea-ice-and-icebergs/sea-ice-thickness-and-volume/
The trend in the volume of sea ice in the Arctic has been reversed since 2012.
http://psc.apl.uw.edu/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/schweiger/ice_volume/BPIOMASIceVolumeAprSepCurrent.png
There is no such thing as a 5 year trend. Any attempt to find such a trend is hidden by random variation.
Don’t you see that what you write perfectly contradicts what you show?
I see that the volume of sea ice has never dropped more than in 2012.
I am sorry, probably in 1981 the volume dropped more.
“I see that the volume of sea ice has never dropped more than in 2012.”
Really? That’s what you believe your graph shows? When I look at your graph, I see a very slight drop from 2011 to 2012 in September ice, and and equally slight rise in April ice. I see much bigger drops in September ice in 1981, 1993, 1995, 1998, 2002, 2007, 2010, 2015 and 2016, and comparable drops in 1980, 1984, 1987, 1990, 1997, 1999, 2003 and 2005. Not that this is in any way significant, but it illustrates your inability to read a simple graph. Either that, or you are pretty poor at describing what you actually mean.
And yes, that’s right, few a few years Arctic sea ice had an anomalous run and fell below the trend line. It is only to be expected that in ensuing years it would return to the trend.
You guys really enjoy cherry picking your start points of a time series don’t you.
Ren back in 1986: “We’ve had 5 years of growing ice, so the earth must be heading into an ice age.”
… “FOR” a few years …
At the moment there is a clear drop in the temperature of the Atlantic. The temperature of the oceans soothes temperatures in the winter. As everyone knows, dry air does not keep the temperature in winter.
http://cr.acg.maine.edu/wx_frames/gfs/ds/gfs_world-ced2_sstanom_1-day.png
Still wondering when you intend to mention the Arctic oscillation again??
The temperature of the entire Atlantic has fallen, not only in the North Atlantic.
You didn’t answer my question.
The periods dominated by any single form of atmospheric circulation have alternated with a roughly 30-year period for the last 100 years. These periods were named “Circulation epochs”. These may be pooled into two principal groups: meridional (C) and combined “latitudinal” epochs (W + E): (W + E) = – (C)
Meridional (C) circulation dominated in 1890-1920 and 1950-1980. The combined, “zonal” (W+E) circulation epochs dominated in 1920-1950 and 1980-1990. Current “latitudinal”(WE) epoch of 1970-1990s is not completed yet, but it is coming into its final stage, and so the “meridional” epoch (C-circulation) is now in its initial stage. (It will be useful for the reader to note here the relation that shows that the “transition” from C to W-E is continuous, and the equation balances to 100%, in the form of a simple graphic without any other variables included).
http://www.fao.org/docrep/005/y2787e/y2787e03.htm
The recurrence of each circulation form (W, E, or C) during the year is expressed in days. Total annual duration of the three circulation forms sums therefore to 365 (or 366 in a leap year). The index is defined by the number of days with the dominant form of atmospheric circulation. It is more conveniently expressed as an anomaly (actual data minus the long-term average). The sum of anomalies can be displayed in a chart of the so-called integral curve of the atmospheric circulation. The annual sum of the occurrence of all circulation anomalies is equal to zero: (C) +(W) + (E) = 0.
“Current latitudinal(WE) epoch of 1970-1990s is not completed yet”
HUH??
Good question. ren knows how to cut-and-paste, but that’s about it.
ren says:
At the moment there is a clear drop in the temperature of the Atlantic.
http://cr.acg.maine.edu/wx_frames/gfs/ds/gfs_world-ced2_sstanom_1-day.png
YET AGAIN, ren tries to claim a temperature change based on just one day’s worth of data.
The closer you look into ren’s links, the less believable they always are.
A strong eruptive phase (paroxysm) occurred at the volcano yesterday (Sun 3 June). Lasting for about 16-17 hours until the evening, it generated ash clouds reaching up to 10 km, which drifted into westerly directions for more than 40 km, lava flows descending on the flanks, heavy ash fall in nearby areas and secondary mud flows triggered by strong rainfall.
https://www.volcanodiscovery.com/fuego/news.html
How is “Arctic” defined geographically in the measurement?
The map, animation and graph illustrate the sea ice thickness in the Northern Hemisphere, excluding the Baltic Sea and the Pacific. The data is based on DMIs model calculations.
http://polarportal.dk/en/sea-ice-and-icebergs/sea-ice-thickness-and-volume/#c23717
Was ren right is assuming you were referring to his graphs, or were you referring to something from further back in the thread?
… “in” assuming …
If the global temperature trend up ends so does AGW theory.
Not much more to say.
But not using your concept of a trend.
Define “ends.”
I might add it is NOT how long the down turn in the temperature trend may be if it happens but rather the magnitude of the down turn.
So a 3 degree drop for a month, followed by an immediate return to the upward trend would demolish AGW theory, eh?
It’s the magnitude that maters?!
https://co2islife.wordpress.com/2018/06/03/the-most-powerful-evidence-climate-scientists-have-of-global-warming-rules-out-co2-as-the-cause/
So true. Another basic premise debunked.
ANOTHER FALLACY OF AGW THEORY.
Then we must not forget the basic premises this theory has been made up on all have not come to be such as the lower tropospheric hot spot ,among so many others.
Any other theory that had this much trouble with it’s basic premises would have been rejected by now.
So you believe journalists over scientists. Interesting.
Salvatore, do you think that gaseous CO2 doesn’t absorb infrared radiation, or do you think the Earth doesn’t emit any?
David,
“Salvatore, do you think that gaseous CO2 doesn’t absorb infrared radiation, or do you think the Earth doesn’t emit any?”
There is very good evidence that it does, but this doesn’t tell us how much warming, or if the net anthropogenic influence is actually even warming. We don’t know.
https://www.tropicaltidbits.com/analysis/ocean/
https://www.tropicaltidbits.com/analysis/ocean/global.png
The temperatures on one particular day say nothing about warming or cooling.
Right?
ren says:
June 4, 2018 at 2:53 AM
The trend in the volume of sea ice in the Arctic has been reversed since 2012.
This, ren, is certainly wrong. I don’t have the ice volume data at hand, but I can tell you that ice volume behavior has been all the time similar to that of the pack ice area.
Here you see a chart showing, from 1979 till 2018, both extent and area in anomalies wrt 1981-2010:
http://4GP.ME/bbtc/1528120008724/001.jpg
The chart shows data originating from
ftp://sidads.colorado.edu/DATASETS/NOAA/G02135/north/monthly/data/
I can now directly download that data into Excel, instead of asking my friend to run his software :-))
Linear trends in Mkm2 / decade:
1. 1979-2018
– extent: -0.055
– area: -0.022
2. 2012-2018
– extent: -0.073
– area: -0.068
Since 2012, the pack ice declines even quicker than the extent.
Nothing dramatic but it is as it is.
From the data http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/icethickness/txt/IceVol.txt I picked up the highest and the lowest ice volume of each year and from the highest value I subtracted the lowest value to get the total amount of melted ice of each year. The result is following:
2003 2.24e+13
2004 1.90
2005 1.99
2006 1.86
2007 2.01
2008 2.00
2009 1.84
2010 1.98
2011 1.91
2012 1.90
2013 1,79
2014 1.78
2015 1.95
2016 1.82
2017 1.75
There is a clear trend of diminishing the amount of melted ice i.e. diminishing of the amount of heat available in the arctic region. Someone can maybe find whether this is due to the air temperature during the melting period or due to the SST of the arctic sea.
binny…”This, ren, is certainly wrong. I dont have the ice volume data at hand, but I can tell you that ice volume behavior has been all the time similar to that of the pack ice area”.
Oh, great, you don’t have the evidence but ren is wrong. Just like the fudged Excel graphs you put out showing UAH and NOAA very close.
Get a life!!!
Gordon Robertson says:
June 7, 2018 at 1:05 AM
Just like the fudged Excel graphs you put out showing UAH and NOAA very close.
As usual: Roberson’s nonsense.
Either he is unable to do the same job using Excel, and then he is really dumb, or he does not want to see that there is no fudging in my Excel charts, and then he is definitely a liar.
Ren you are correct.
https://realclimatescience.com/2018/04/arctic-sea-ice-volume-continues-to-grow/
RIGHT HERE REN.
These people are fighting a losing game.
They certainly named that blog appropriately – it certainly is deplorable.
Ad hominin attack. Not addressing the issue, but rather attacking the messenger. Often occurs when the attacker is in a weak position on content.
Really? Well perhaps you’d like to start by explaining how their graph shows that “The coverage of thick ice has nearly doubled over the past ten years,”
Heller is, as ever, trying to confuse. An increase in SIE compared to 12 months ago is not an indication of sea ice recovery.
When are you people ever going to learn???
David, are you deliberately replying to the wrong person to trigger a response?
inquirer…”Ad hominin attack. Not addressing the issue, but rather attacking the messenger. Often occurs when the attacker is in a weak position on content”.
Familiar position for bob/des and the rest of the alrmists here.
Salvatore: didn’t you see that Heller alias Goddard did not publish anything else than the DMI chart proposed by ren?
The volume of sea ice in the Arctic is more dependent on the temperature than the ice extent.
http://polarportal.dk/fileadmin/polarportal/sea/CICE_curve_thick_LA_EN_20180603.png
Slowly but surely you write more and more like the Robertson boaster, who pretends all the time things he can’t prove, and above all allows himself to criticize greatest scientists like Einstein, though in comparison to him he is an absolute zero.
Is he inbetween your secret teacher, ren?
binny…”Slowly but surely you write more and more like the Robertson boaster, who pretends all the time things he cant prove, and above all allows himself to criticize greatest scientists like Einstein, though in comparison to him he is an absolute zero”.
Unfortunately you are not the position to judge me since you know little about real science. You’re an alarmist groupie.
ren, exactly how does that graph prove what you’re claiming?
ren, I made two charts for you out of Colorado’s sea ice data.
– One for the extent (15 % ice)
http://4gp.me/bbtc/1528153782152/001.jpg
– and one for the area (100 % ice)
http://4gp.me/bbtc/1528153880362/001.jpg
Unfortunately, Piomas volume data does not seem to be available in txt or csv format.
Hey ren – your Arctic Oscillation just went negative after an 11 year high of 52 days in the positive. Are you planning to shout it out for all the world to hear?
It is better to look at the anomalies of the geopotential height in the winter above the 65th parallel.
https://pics.tinypic.pl/i/00966/qvpg9mtnqax7.png
Better?? I guess whenever you make a claim that turns out to be nonsense, it is better to switch to another one to save your butt.
I was looking at the May edition of Roy Spencer’s monthly anmomaly map; it isn’t there yet.
But again I looked at
https://www.nsstc.uah.edu/climate/2018/april2018/042018_tlt_update_bar.png
and see in my Excel data that indeed the last negative UAH anomaly for the Globe is dated by March 2012.
Salvatore please! Do something to cool the planet!
And the last negative UAH anomaly outside a La Nina (or the 5 month lag period after a La Nina) was in 2004.
My question is where is all the warming?
Aren’t you an unconditional fan of UAH?
Warming trend in the UAH6.0 record since May 2009 (ten years):
0.319 ± 0.059 °C / decade.
Is a trend of over 3 degrees per century enough for you?
You are foolishly thinking what has happened in the past is going to continue into the future (easy to go with trends) and are dismissing all other factors which can cause this not to continue.
My studies indicate that year 2018 is the first year where solar conditions (duration of time ,degree of magnitude change) are sufficient enough to put an end to the upward bias in global temperatures and will at a minimum put an end to the rise but more then likely promote cooling.
My same studies led me to believe solar through the end of year 2005 should have caused warming, and there after a halt but with lag times of 10+ years.
It takes very low solar conditions in regards to duration of time and degree of magnitude change to impact the climate in a significant way. That is why the solar signal is so obscure.
In addition the weakening Geo Magnetic Field weakening is going to enhance given solar effects.
That aside we are going to find out starting with this year and moving forward from here.
Prolonged Very Low Solar should result in overall surface oceanic cooling and a slightly higher albedo and if true will equate to cooler global temperatures.
Nature has now created the perfect test which is increasing levels of CO2 versus very low prolonged solar activity.
All of the above my sincere opinions right or wrong.
Salvatore Del Prete says:
Nature has now created the perfect test which is increasing levels of CO2 versus very low prolonged solar activity.
But La Nina! But the AMO! But the Sun! But the albedo!
Salvatore never learns.
Salvatore Del Prete says:
June 4, 2018 at 2:28 PM
My same studies led me to believe solar through the end of year 2005 should have caused warming, and there after a halt but with lag times of 10+ years.
Here are two charts comparing SSN with temperatures.
One for 1979-2018 with a 10 year lag on SSN:
http://4gp.me/bbtc/1528152716127/001.jpg
and one for 1880-2018 with a 15 year lag on SSN:
http://4gp.me/bbtc/1528153004382/001.jpg
So you see exactly the effect of SSN (x – 10) or (x – 15) on the temperatures in year x.
If this satisfies your theory, then all is best for you!
Over how many centuries?
Let us presume 20 centuries. More you say?
The 3 degrees per century would have the temperature 2000 years ago 60degrees cooler than today.
Or are you going to change the parameters to suit yourself?
Lewis, you should know better. Much better.
When did man’s influence on the climate come to full fruition?
What factors are dominant today.
Jesus what a nonsense.
UAH’s trend for 1979-2018 is 0.13 C / decade.
Thus according to your superintelligent comparison, ‘the 1.3 degrees per century would have the temperature 2000 years ago 26 degrees cooler than today’.
Simply genial, Sir!
DA….”When did mans influence on the climate come to full fruition?”
No proof that man has ever influenced the climate.
David Appell
June 1, 2018
Bond: clearly, I meant the amplitude of *temperature*
David, its funny, I recall you trying to jump all over Ed Berry for a similar silly mistake.
But that was ALL you had there!
Is there a link or quote you’re referring to? We’re not mind readers….
La Panglina, there are two solar requirements and the two requirements have not been present since the ending of the Dalton solar minimum around 1850 ad.
It looks like this year is the first time since then that the two solar requirements needed to cause global cooling are now coming into play.
According to my studies the solar period from 1850-2005 should have resulted in warming.
Only since 2005 did that start to turn and now if the low average value solar parameters within the sub solar activity in general can persist( which is happening in year 2018) will the solar requirement be present to result in a global cooling scenario.
This is what is taken with solar activity now , and with the expectations of the very low average solar parameters within the sub solar activity in general continuing , the result should be global cooling.
Note there are still two solar parameters that have yet to reached the low average value solar parameters I would like to see.
Those being the solar wind(350 km/sec or lower)/AP index(5 or lower), but they are coming down and could reach my criteria very soon but overall I say despite that the solar activity requirements are pretty much in for cooling.
At best global temperatures are going to stay steady, if not out right fall, which I think has already started.
This is not some long drawn out forecast. We will know from now thru the next few years.
If global temperatures should continue to rise I will be wrong if they fall I will be correct.
Only my opinions. Some agree, some do not.
test
Just testing to see if cleaning up cookies and history would repair the issue with disappearing user name.
Did not help.
If everyone is having the same problem then it’s a website issue, but thanks for doing the test.
Want to know why foolish skeptics are swallowing the 2012 sea ice volume bull from more devious skeptics?
Look at this cherry-pick.
http://psc.apl.uw.edu/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/schweiger/ice_volume/BPIOMASIceVolumeAnomalyCurrentV2.1.png
That’s the daily volume anomaly calculated against the the 1979 to 2017 daily average.
See the magnitude of the variation? It goes up and down a lot, so that even with a clear downward trend you can have peaks and troughs that are unbeaten for a few years.
The devious skeptics take advantage of ordinary random variation and make claims about changes in trend.
The foolish skeptics regurgitate that nonsense here.
More info from here:
http://psc.apl.washington.edu/research/projects/arctic-sea-ice-volume-anomaly/
Why go there? Because it is the source for everything on sea ice volume and thickness above – before idiots get their hands on it.
Of course, this is also how they make their claim of no warming since 1998.
Anyway, it’s up to us to take them to task when the data returns to the trend line. Even though we know they will conveniently pretend not to have made the claim. Or like Salvatore, pretend his claim was a conditional one instead on absolute.
And the same for the instrumental temperature record. How can anyone think warming has stopped as soon as there is a wiggle in the data, when it has been going on for two hundred years?
How can you think warming that has been going on for 200 years is due to CO2 production?
Because it looks like this:
https://tinyurl.com/yck2o849
Bogus, and not global in any case.
Bogus how? Not global how?
More data that is unreliable because….just cuz.
“Bogus how?”
Unreliable proxies with huge error bars early on. Misleading bold line that doesn’t even track the modern record very well.
“Not global how?”
Read the Y-axis label.
Global land is quite global.
‘bold line that doesn’t even track the modern record very well’
Considering that it doesnt incorporate any anthro aerosols, or ENSO variability, it is not expected to track perfectly, and yet, objectively, it does very well.
‘Unreliable proxies with huge error bars early on.’
As with any fit to data, as long as error bars are shown, we can judge the quality of the fit.
What proxies?
It was without proxies Bart, this one has proxies:
https://tinyurl.com/y95cmx6t
“Considering that it doesnt incorporate any anthro aerosols…”
Ah yes, the all-purpose fudge factor.
‘…this one has proxies:”
Guys, these are setups. The temperatures have been “adjusted” to improve the apparent fit to the CO2 data, as in USHCN data here:
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CvcaBlAWgAESL4n.jpg
It’s nonsense. It is fooling themselves. They’ve already decided on the cause. Now, it’s just a game of nudging things until they vaguely fit the narrative to convince others.
It is really not hard at all to nudge things to produce a vague, seeming fit when you have such low frequency signals that happen to be more or less going in the same direction. What’s hard is matching both the low and the high frequency content. That’s been done. But, it isn’t the temperature to CO2 relationship that matches. It is the CO2 rate of change to temperature relationship that matches.
That relationship precludes significant sensitivity in the other direction, because it would create an unstabilizable, positive feedback loop. I am quite certain of it. It will come out eventually.
I see now, these aren’t even CO2 lines, but generic “GHG forcing” ones. So, you’ve got another layer of adjustable parameters to get a vague fit.
This is just awful. It’s pure confirmation bias.
Anthro aerosols
‘Ah yes, the all-purpose fudge factor.’
There is good evidence for global dimming and resultant forcing due to pollution.
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1029/2008JD011470
But you will consider it unreliable.
‘It is really not hard at all to nudge things to produce a vague, seeming fit when you have such low frequency signals that happen to be more or less going in the same direction. Whats hard is matching both the low and the high frequency content.’
Not at alljust vaguely going in the same direction. Its a very good fit. You are simply in deep denial.
‘matching the high frequency content.’
What rot. Either the theory explains all variation or its wrong. You are pushing a false dichotomy.
There was no attempt to fit the high frequency content with slowly rising CO2, because known climate variability is not even considered here. You are looking at the trees and ignoring the forest (where have I heard that before?).
One note, CH4 does 50% of the CO2 forcing.
BEST used ln(CO2) as an “anthropogenic proxy” because a separate CH4 term did not improve the fit.
‘I am quite certain of it. It will come out eventually.’
Sounding a lot like Salvatore…
“There was no attempt to fit the high frequency content with slowly rising CO2, because known climate variability is not even considered here.”
That is why it is all the more remarkable when you find such an amazingly good fit. It’s the innocuous yet incontrovertible fingerprint that nails the culprit.
“BEST used ln(CO2) as an anthropogenic proxy because a separate CH4 term did not improve the fit.”
And, adjusted the temps until they had a vague resemblance.
You might as well cut off the temps at about 1910 – everything before that is just increasingly dodgy speculation. Ditto CO2 before 1958. These are simply data that have been coaxed into reflecting a pre-conceived paradigm.
“Sounding a lot like Salvatore”
He who laughs last, laughs the loudest. Salvatore is just getting impatient, and allowing himself to be boxed into a corner. The turning point will come when it comes.
BEST has a great method that can handle stations of varying quality. These results will be repeated again and again.
Ditto for CO2 before 1958.
I realize denial of all these results is a necessary part of your toolbox.
How many people do you think take part in this “fudging”?
‘You might as well cut off the temps at about 1910’
Ordinarily there is no justification for arbitrarily cutting off data.
Just take account of the larger errors going back.
‘And, adjusted the temps until they had a vague resemblance.’
Where does this notion come from?
All climate scientists are dodgy?
You seem to have changed your stance on how good the fit?
‘That is why it is all the more remarkable when you find such an amazingly good fit’
‘Its the innocuous yet incontrovertible fingerprint that nails the culprit.’
Again, some climate scientists may have behaved poorly.
This is work done by climate scientists (well.. mostly not).
Hence this work is dodgy?
Hasty generalization, I believe its called.
Nate:
“You seem to have changed your stance on how good the fit?”
I’m talking there about the fit between the temperature anomaly and the CO2 rate of change. It’s not just a vague resemblance in low frequency, low information, components, requiring innumerable “adjustments” to get there. It’s spot on across the entire spectrum.
“All climate scientists are dodgy?”
Some are. Some are extremely so. Others are so convinced they already know the answer that they believe cutting corners is OK. Others brave enough to go against the tide are hounded and disparaged into silence.
I think you guys just don’t realize how easy it is to fool yourself. I’ve seen it time and time again in my career – people get a computer result that I tell them looks dodgy, and they come up with reasons why no, that’s really how the system works. You wouldn’t believe some of the elaborate theories I’ve seen them come up with.
Then, they find the bug in the computer code that was causing the problem, and it’s “never mind.”
There really is nothing here that cannot be explained by happenstance, and a little nip and tuck here and there to present the data in the best possible light.
The problem is, scientists are supposed to challenge themselves by looking at things in the worst possible light.
Svante –
You can’t “handle” information that simply does not exist. At some point, your SNR is so low, it becomes rank speculation.
How many people take part in this “fudging”? Have you heard of the “Replication Crisis”? It is estimated that something on the order of 70% of research cannot be replicated. It’s not a joke. It’s not a conspiracy theory. It’s human nature. And, it’s especially rampant when people think they already know the answer they are looking for.
‘Some are. Some are extremely so. Others are so convinced they already know the answer that they believe cutting corners is OK. Others brave enough to go against the tide are hounded and disparaged into silence. I think you guys just dont realize how easy it is to fool yourself.”
Ok, you know that climate scientists, as a group, behave this way how?
Logical fallacies, such as your slothful induction applied here, are only meant for others, not you Mr. Spock?
The data is no good, its dodgy, its unreliable. The scientists lack all integrity, are sheepish and inept. No evidence needed.
It is an extremely desperate and lame-ass way to argue.
‘the fit between the temperature anomaly and the CO2 rate of change. It’s not just a vague resemblance in low frequency, low information, components, requiring innumerable “adjustments” to get there. It’s spot on across the entire spectrum.”
Bart, ask any of your stats savvy colleagues if this makes sense:
You have two sets of data x and y. You suspect they have a relationship y = Kx, with a constant K, for variations on all frequencies. Should you low-pass filter x so as remove a lot of its high frequency variation, but not similarly filter y? Does that make sense at all?
Would this perhaps be a good way to fool oneself?
” The temperatures have been “adjusted” to improve the apparent fit to the CO2 data, as in USHCN data here:”
What reputable source did this result come from?
You pay way too much attention to denialist blog alternative facts.
“Have you heard of the Replication Crisis? It is estimated that something on the order of 70% of research cannot be replicated. ”
As usual, Bart, your assertions cannot be replicated.
“According to a 2016 poll of 1,500 scientists reported in the journal Nature, 70% of them had failed to reproduce at least one other scientist’s experiment”, WP
Far different from ‘70% of research cannot be replicated’
The problem is real, but field-dependent. It is most prevalent in fields with living subjects: psychology, medicine.
Apparently the subset of papers with the worst record of replication is high-profile climate contrarian papers:
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00704-015-1597-5
“Ok, you know that climate scientists, as a group, behave this way how?”
Because people behave this way, and I’ve had many years of observation.
“The scientists lack all integrity, are sheepish and inept.”
This has been demonstrated to my satisfaction. Inept – I have seen analyses pertaining to this that just make me SMH. Sheepish – demonstrated by the ability of a small group at the top to get away with it. Integrity? We have the ClimateGate emails, which are incontrovertible to anyone with an objective perspective.
“Should you low-pass filter x so as remove a lot of its high frequency variation, but not similarly filter y?”
When y has already been filtered, it would make no sense to filter it again.
“What reputable source did this result come from?”
Prove it wrong.
“Apparently the subset of papers with the worst record of replication is high-profile climate contrarian papers:”
When a paper starts out with the 97% canard, you know it’s a total joke.
Should you low-pass filter x so as remove a lot of its high frequency variation, but not similarly filter y?
‘When y has already been filtered, it would make no sense to filter it again.’
Im assuming y is global temperature, x is co2 derivative, filtered at 24 months.
Temp has NOT already been filtered. Patently FALSE.
I remind you of your observation:
“people get a result that I tell them looks dodgy, and they come up with reasons why no, thats really how the system works. You wouldnt believe some of the elaborate theories Ive seen them come up with.”
Wrong.
There’s a match. A really, really good one. You should not spend your time trying to find excuses to ignore the match, but the reasons for it.
‘Theres a match. A really, really good one. ‘
Not how scientists talk when dealing with issues.
I can show you analysis in the freq domain that illustrates the issue very well.
Do you care to see, or are you all good?
Wrong again. Scientists do not sweep issues under the rug. When one sees something that cannot be explained, one seeks to explain it.
Show my your silly frequency domain argument if you like, and I will shoot it down. But, here’s a token for the clue bus: the frequency domain and the time domain are equivalent information. If you have a match in one, you have a match in the other. No rationalization you can come up with will change that.
‘The scientists lack all integrity, are sheepish and inept.
‘This has been demonstrated to my satisfaction. ‘
Some climate scientists (may have) behaved unethically (climatgate).
You have some experience with other humans.
Therefore climate scientists are unethical, and have various other failings?
You will happily make hasty generalizations such as this, when convenient.
Also, false dichotomies like AGW must explain all temp variation, even the natural stuff, or its wrong, are fine too.
Yet I thought you were our resident logician? Weird.
As my son used to say when he was upset with our rules: ‘you’re racist against teenagers!”
But it seems apropos here, you’re kind of racist against climate scientists. No other explanation makes sense.
Ok, note to self: there is no point in showing Bart data or results from climate scientists. He has decided, a-priori, its dodgy.
‘frequency domain and the time domain are equivalent information. If you have a match in one, you have a match in the other.
Of course they are they same. But what f-domain shows clearly is there is no pre-filtering of temp data.
The two data sets match well for high frequencies from 1/5 y^-1 to 1 y^-1, when a 12 mo filter is applied to both, and a scale factor of 1.8 is applied to CO2 deriv. There is matching peak at 1/4 y^-1
But the two sets then part ways for lower frequencies.
When a 24 mo. filter is applied only to co2 derivative, there is no longer a good match across the hf, nor at 1/4 y^-1 peak.
Spatial averages are the same as temporal averages when you have a traveling wave type of phenomenon. It’s like looking at widgets on a conveyor belt and counting them (spatial count) versus going on the other side of the factory wall and counting them as they emerge (temporal count). You’ll get the same count regardless over the same belt expanse.
The proof that this is such a phenomenon is the fact that the resolution matches. When you artificially introduce yet more filtering, you have different resolutions.
You’re chasing a parked car here, desperately searching for excuses to ignore what your eyes can see plainly. Just stop it.
There’s a match. If you don’t like my explanation, then find one for yourself. But, don’t use your lack of understanding as an excuse to turn a blind eye.
There is a match.
‘Looking for excuses’ You keep say this, but it couldnt be more inaccurate.
Ive been very consistent in raising this filtering objection from the getgo.
What you are doing to bend the data to your will is simply not justifiable nor kosher.
‘Spatial averages are the same as temporal averages when you have a traveling wave type of phenomenon.’
No, does not apply to temperature anomalies on Earth, which simply have seasonal average subtracted. Anomalies do not behave as a regular, periodic, traveling wave.
This is definitely in the category of ‘You wouldnt believe some of the elaborate theories Ive seen them come up with.’
If, by some fluke, you could publish this analysis, it would immediately become part of the replication crisis.
IOW, it could not be replicated with conventional science.
There are other papers that have looked at correlations between these two quantities, and none have applied this asymmetric filtering.
Let me pose this to you. If you were writing a Methods section of the paper, you would need to explain, in logical terms the steps you did in your analysis, and why you did them.
What would you write that could be understood and accepted by a peer reviewer? It can’t be just hand-waving. It would need agree with known physics and standard signal processing methods.
Spectra of Temp and CO2 derivative. x-axis frequency-, 60 corresponds to 1 y^-1 and 12 corresponds to 5 y^-1.
high freq 1-5 y symmetric filter https://tinyurl.com/ya4n5y35
1-5 y asymmetric filter https://tinyurl.com/ybpcl653
Clearly the symmetric filter produces a decent fit across the 1-5 y time scales, while the asymmetric filter just cannot fit-there is too much hf in the unfiltered temp data–because it is not filtered.
60 y to 1.5 y asymmetric filter https://tinyurl.com/ybjz3l38
60 y to 1.5 y symmetric filter https://tinyurl.com/y8757y2l
Same scale factors-divergence in low freq is clear.
This is just stupid, Nate. I don’t know what more I can tell you, or what good it will do. You’ve clenched your jaws on this red herring, and just will not let go.
Whatever. You’re wrong. Painfully and obviously so. But, you do you. Hasta la vista.
I mean, this statement is true, no matter your quibbles:
“The running average of the rate of change of CO2 at Mauna Loa on an annual basis is proportional to globally averaged temperature anomaly.”
That’s the relationship. If you want to say “well, there isn’t a direct proportionality with unaveraged CO2 rate of change”, well, so what? The relationship is still there.
You are just looking for excuses to keep your head in the sand. Just stop it. It’s just annoying.
“You’re wrong. Painfully and obviously so.”
If its so obvious, then you should be able explain it in simple terms without relying on other speculative notions about about how the Earth operates.
If you can’t refute what I’ve shown, point by point, and just call it stupid and annoying, that’s not very reassuring.
Facts and reality are annoying sometimes. I am just the purveyor of these.
If my critiques are so intolerable, then stop coming here and repeating the same bogus theory, again and again, as if it is a fact that cannot be questioned.
‘“The running average of the rate of change of CO2 at Mauna Loa on an annual basis is proportional to globally averaged temperature anomaly.”
That’s the relationship. If you want to say “well, there isn’t a direct proportionality with unaveraged CO2 rate of change”, well, so what? The relationship is still there.”
Well, I would agree to ‘the running average of the rate of change of CO2 at Mauna Loa on an annual basis is proportional to globally averaged running average of the temperature anomaly on an annual basis”
Look, if I knew nothing and I were looking to study the relationship between these two quantities, I would average CO2 over 12 mo because the annual cycle needs to be suppressed, then take the derivative.
Then naturally I would average the temperature over 12 mo. Then I would plot them together. We could scale one to match the other, and we would see this:
https://tinyurl.com/y7ndx3od
What you see is a strong correlation for high frequencies, as is well known. But thats it. There is no correlation for long term trends.
Now is where you come in looking for a certain relationship. So, by doing some manipulations, filter one series, but not the other purpose other than to artificially produce a relationship that you want, and surprise, you get what you want.
No. Not ok. Just not ok.
You are tossing out a relationship that explains everything with a minimum of rationalization based upon an arbitrary paradigm of how you think things should be.
It’s the same impulse that led church leaders to insist upon epicycles. Sure, the orbits looked like ellipses, but they should have been circles, therefore, they were. And, all those monks had labored so hard to fit the motion of the planets to those epicycles. Who was this upstart Galileo to come in and suggest he knew more than the experts?
“You are tossing out a relationship that explains everything with a minimum of rationalization”
How can you say such that? You have to introduce unproven speculations in order to rationalize your manipulations needed to achieve the desired ‘relationship’.
This is something you are constantly accusing the cheating climate scientists of doing!
Then you have toss out lots of legitimate data, and understanding of the carbon cycle, in order to rationalize your theory.
I’m just astounded that you don’t see why these things are problematic, and rationalizations themselves.
‘
‘Who was this upstart Galileo to come in and suggest he knew more than the experts?’
Pulleez.
< 0.001% of revolutionaries who said standard science is wrong, turned out to be correct.
I am saying standard science is wrong, therefore I must be correct.
Do you see the flaw in this logic?
The other 99.999% are promoting perpetual motion machines, a flat Earth, free energy from water, N rays, cold fusion, and relativity is all wrong.
“You have to introduce unproven speculations in order to rationalize your manipulations needed to achieve the desired relationship. “
No, the relationship exists all on its own. I have a hypothesis about how the relationship comes about, but the relationship stands on its own. The running average of the rate of change of CO2 at Mauna Loa on an annual basis is proportional to globally averaged temperature anomaly.
“Then you have toss out … understanding of the carbon cycle… “
Yes, those monks worked so hard on the epicycles, and you just tossed out all their work based on a mere observation.
“Do you see the flaw in this logic?”
Yes. Your fallacy here is: straw man.
Bart,
Your understanding of what epicycles were is off the mark.
Again, paradigm shifts are rare events.
Arguing that since you are proposing a paradigm shift, it is more likely, is quite illogical.
Back to the issue at hand.
Your argument is that low frequency and high frequencies in signals x and y have the same proportionality constant, and that is the only adjustable parameter needed.
But by introducing an asymmetric filter on x, you can SUPPRESS the high frequency variations in x, without suppressing those in y.
It is quite obvious that the filter changes the scale factor, and BTW, the width of peaks in a telling way:
https://tinyurl.com/y7fesb44
Therefore you have added a second adjustable parameter, that allows you adjust the high frequency proportionality constant until it matches the low frequency one.
Thus you get a manufactured relationship.
“Yes, those monks worked so hard on the epicycles, and you just tossed out all their work based on a mere observation.”
Monks and epicycles opposed Galileo = climate scientists and their data oppose Bart??
Logic fails,
Bad analogy? Guilt by association? General stupidity?
“But by introducing an asymmetric filter on x, you can SUPPRESS the high frequency variations in x, without suppressing those in y.”
Then, it is no longer the same signal.
Dont follow? Same signal with reduced hf variation.
You seem to be arguing that if you change something, it no longer is the same, and therefore it never was what it was in the first place.
I don’t know why you seem to think this is a profound insight, or really a point of any kind.
I have no idea what you are trying to say. The main issue is clear.
You are deluding yourself.
‘You seem to be arguing that if you change something, it no longer is the same, and therefore it never was what it was in the first place.’
No did not say anything like that, or mean that, weird.
How bout telling me which, of the things I did say, you disagree with, and why.
What’s the point? We’ll just go round and round again saying the same things, and you will keep denying the relationship you can see right in front of your eyes exists because you can change the signals, and suddenly, inexplicably, they’ve changed.
Oo-kay. Whatever. Life’s too short.
I agree we’re going round and round.
But look, its absolutely normal in science to expect that someone can rationally explain their methods, particularly when the main result depends entirely on those methods.
If you cannot do that, then your ideas can never be taken seriously.
“I can explain it to you, but I can’t comprehend it for you.”
– Edward I. Koch
I’ve explained until my fingers are numb. You still insist on going off on tangents. It’s hopeless.
Ive explained the problem until my fingers are numb. You still insist on ignoring it.
I requested a proper Methods description from you. Did you ever give it? Nope. Your choice.
svante…”How can anyone think warming has stopped as soon as there is a wiggle in the data, when it has been going on for two hundred years?”
It’s being going on a lot longer than that, since the last major ice age and more recently since the Little Ice Age.
Temperatures where in decline through the latter half of the Holocene.
Good thing we stopped it, pity we overdid it:
https://tamino.files.wordpress.com/2013/03/regemcrufull.jpg?w=500&h=322
Marcott has been soundly debunked. Nobody cites it anymore.
Not really, notrickzone was on about the ‘uptick’, which was not robust.
Same as the instrumental record, this result will be replicated again and again, albeit with increasing accuracy.
Replicated by pages2k:
https://tinyurl.com/yatmc85t
A splice of direct data from modern instruments with dodgy proxies is never more than speculation.
Bart says:
Overlap proves nothing, nothing at all.
Svante,
I do not know where you found that but this graphic is just a joke. Anyone who knows a little about the proxies used can only burst out laughing at this post-modern graphic work.
Hi Phi!
I found it here:
https://tinyurl.com/y7usxf4f
Please read it, it clarifies a lot of what we discuss here.
Svante,
Thank you.
I have a proposition. You choose the proxy you want in those used and you provide the raw measurements. Then we examine together how this proxy behaves in relation to the corresponding instrumental temperature data.
Life is difficult when everyone is conspiring against you. Let me get back to you when I’ve caught up with all those PhDs.
Your fallacy is: argument from incredulity.
The argument seeks to categorize coordinated action by like-minded people as an rare phenomenon, when it is not rare at all.
‘Your fallacy is: argument from incredulity.
“The argument seeks to categorize coordinated action by like-minded people as an rare phenomenon, when it is not rare at all.”
Bart is saying, I think, that science conspiracy theories are often true?
Proof?
‘Massive motion’
.5 % of degree ~ 5km, diameter 10 km.
Is that a lot? Hard to say. Its over 10 y.
So max velocity is tiny, 30 microns/ s
Very tiny velocity gradient N-S.
Seems like tidal effects and coriolis forces must be must be much much larger.
It’s more like 74 meters differential motion. It’s massive, though, because the waters have to move, and it’s a whole lot of water.
Tides are different. They are largely longitudinal. This would be latitudinal, and the thermal gradients are much greater in that direction.
I wouldn’t bet a ton of cash on it, not enough to cause devastating financial pain if I were wrong at any rate. But, enough to cause some discomfort. I do think it is a distinct possibility.
The important point was that failing to see the 11 year cycle in temperature data is not dispositive as to the impact of solar variation on terrestrial temperatures. It could be the time constants are so long that an 11 year cycle gets sharply attenuated. Or, it could be that it modulates other cyclical phenomena and the impact appears at a different frequency, as I am suggesting here. Or, both.
We will just have to wait and see with more data and more study.
Arrrgh, got put in wrong place.
“Climate Change Has Run Its Course”
“Scientists who are genuinely worried about the potential for catastrophic climate change ought to be the most outraged at how the left politicized the issue and how the international policy community narrowed the range of acceptable responses. Treating climate change as a planet-scale problem that could be solved only by an international regulatory scheme transformed the issue into a political creed for committed believers. Causes that live by politics, die by politics.”
https://www.wsj.com/articles/climate-change-has-run-its-course-1528152876
I don’t think there were any scientists who were/are genuinely worried about the potential for catastrophic climate change.
I think there were millions of brainwashed children who were/are worried about the potential for catastrophic climate change. And there were too many adults, who worried endlessly and uselessly about it.
Any adult vaguely concerned, should have looked into the matter, instead merely been zombies.
Keywords: “I think”.
If worried (and you are sane) you do something.
Take for example, nuclear war, people built bomb shelters.
And climatic activists, fly the world in jets.
Private bomb shelters are not the optimal solution to the nuclear threat. Nuclear weapons have to be eliminated, or at least not proliferated, they are just too dangerous in the long run.
It’s a lot like the CO2 problem.
Nuclear weapons have kept relative peace for all the years since they were invented. They make the cost too high for would-be conquerors and put they, themselves, at risk.
Eliminating nuclear weapons would again make war acceptable as a means to an end. It would be horrific.
Assuming stable countries with rational leaders, and no mistakes. For hundreds of years?
Are you from North Korea?
Only one country has detonated a nuclear weapon in anger. And it is indeed an unstable one.
50 MILLION people died in WWII directly from war related causes. About 0.5% of those were from nuclear weapons. Industrial killing is no picnic, either.
It’s better when the only way one wins is by not playing the game.
Sane? ‘Take for example, nuclear war, people built bomb shelters.’
People building bomb shelters are failing to understand how nuclear war works.
‘Treating climate change as a planet-scale problem that could be solved only by an international regulatory scheme’
How else could we solve any global problem such as this?
Primarily only in the US is there a significant political polarization on this topic. The place where vested interests inject the most $ into politics.
The US is one of the few places on Earth where the plebes actually still have a substantial voice. The elites of the world are united. They want control, because control means $$$. AGW is just a means to an end.
More of your conspiracy theory repertoire…
I could say the same of your nutty “we’re all alone” BS.
‘They want control, because control means $$$”
Yeah sounds rational and logical..to the perpetually paranoid.
“your nutty “we’re all alone” BS.”
You’re right, Nicaragua is also not part of Paris agreement.
“The place where vested interests inject the most $ into politics.”
And, this is rational and logical, is it?
Why are you so worried about what the herd may or may not think? Are you so lacking in confidence of your own faculties?
Someone wrote a whole book about this:
https://www.amazon.com/What-Care-Other-People-Think/dp/0393355640/ref=sr_1_6?ie=UTF8&qid=1528307034&sr=8-6&keywords=feynman+books
BTW, how many of the Paris signatories are living up to their commitments?
It’s just Kabuki theater.
‘The place where vested interests inject the most $ into politics.
And, this is rational and logical, is it?’
No, how much $$ is allowed to influence elections and politicians in the US is not rational, not desirable, its out of control, but SCOTUS has enabled it.
Damn that dastardly SCOTUS, standing up for freedom of association!
I guess your vested interests only act from the goodness of their hearts. Yeah, no. I’d prefer to maintain a check on that.
Bart,
I understand that people have different philosophies on government. One can have a POV that is values based, not fact-based.
Why should that correlate with judgement of fact-based science at all? It does for climate science.
Why do you and others seem to judge climate science, only after passing it through an ideological filter?
We don’t. We evaluate it on the basis of the evidence. And, the evidence is lacking.
Politicization has occurred on the other side. The proffered “cures” for the supposed disease are all focused on limiting individual freedom, and supporting political goals.
Some of the leading lights of the AGW movement were focused on global cooling back in the day (e.g., Dr. Stephen Schneider, R.I.P.) and turned on a dime when the meme went to catastrophic warming. The goal is always the same – to stampede the population into giving up its rights and privileges in the name of some phantom menace.
H.L. Mencken perhaps said it best:
“The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.”
‘The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.
I think he would explain Trumpism exactly this way, with its fear mongering about immigrants, brown people, disrespecting the flag, the evil press, the deep state, etc. He would be disgusted.
‘We dont. We evaluate it on the basis of the evidence. And, the evidence is lacking.’
Wow. You have never once considered evidence that I have shown you or described to you as credible, published or not. For you, it all has some inexplicable problem if it doesnt fit your narrative.
Your biases are quite clear. To do science you cannot operate that way.
‘The goal is always the same – to stampede the population into giving up its rights and privileges in the name of some phantom menace’
This POV is always hard to swallow. We can certainly debate the severity of the CO2 caused problems.
But fundamentally what ‘rights and privileges’ would you be losing if emissions are regulated?
Do you have a fundamental ‘right’ to dump sh*t in my yard? I’m sorry to tell you that you don’t.
Do you have a ‘privilege’ to send your sh*t downstream or downwind to the next town or state? Thankfully, more or less, society has decided NO on that one.
Do you have a ‘right’ to not have to pay the fees for your sewage treatment and disposal?
You do have the right to move somewhere that doesnt provide these services.
As I say to my teenagers, if you are living with other people, you don’t have the ‘right or privilege’ to create a mess in the space we all share and not clean it up.
jimc…”Treating climate change as a planet-scale problem that could be solved only by an international regulatory scheme transformed the issue into a political creed for committed believers”.
The nonsense began with a political game created by UK PM Margaret Thatcher. She could not deal with striking coal miners and she was advised to use her chemistry degree to baffle UN delegates into believing coal emissions could warm the planet. It was her way of getting rid of the coal miners by banning coal.
Due to her propaganda, the IPCC was formed by the UN in conjunction with the World Meteorological Association to investigate only the role humans have played in the warming. Even if the planet freezes over, the IPCC lacks the mandate to investigate.
Thatcher played a role in having John Houghton appointed the first UN co-chair and he, being a climate modeler, lead the IPCC into the sci-fi world of climate modeling.
This played right into the hands of the UN who had been seeking a mandate since the 1960s to form a world government with the power to tax member nations.
Gordon: Where did you get all this from regarding the miner’s strike and Margaret Thatcher?
As an example, you comment that ‘She could not deal with striking coal miners and she was advised to use her chemistry degree to baffle UN delegates into believing coal emissions could warm the planet. It was her way of getting rid of the coal miners by banning coal.’
This account brings back my recollections from that era – although I’m no historian and can’t vouch for all of the points made:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UK_miners'_strike_(1984%E2%80%9385)
The whole issue of fossil fuels potentially raising the temperature of the planet wasn’t even a blip on the horizon in the reports of English newspapers that time.
I find it hard to believe that ‘Due to her propaganda, the IPCC was formed by the UN in conjunction with the World Meteorological Association to investigate only the role humans have played in the warming’ – where is the historical evidence for this?
Carbon,
‘where is the historical evidence for this?’
In my experience, Gordon will not respond to your quite reasonable request.
Then in a few weeks, he will repeat the same BS, as if no one ever debunked it.
It works for him.
I see that both UAH and RSS data show a slower rate of warming in the mid troposphere as opposed to the lower troposphere, both globally as well as at the tropics. This is the opposite of what is expected with positive water vapour feedback.
When is this clearly debunked hypothesis, that climate alarmism so heavily depends on, officially going into the dust bin?
UAH and RSS data show cooling in the stratosphere, which is precisely what is predicted due to an increased greenhouse warming, and is not predicted by ANY other scenario.
The effect you are speaking of is supposed to happen as a result of warming from ANY cause. As there has definitely been warming, yes it’s absence needs to be explained, but it speaks nothing about the cause of the warming.
I look forward to your attempts to further revise the predictions of climate change.
You know nothing about ozone and temperature in the stratosphere.
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat-trop/gif_files/time_pres_TEMP_MEAN_ALL_EQ_2018.png
This coming from someone who claimed that the stratosphere at the poles was at ground level.
Bobdesbond says, June 4, 2018 at 11:44 PM:
Uhm, no. It is “precisely what is predicted due to an increased greenhouse” cooling. Put more CO2 into the stratosphere and you get cooling. And that’s about it. What’s going on above the tropopause hasn’t got anything to do with what’s going on below the tropopause, where things are convectively governed rather than radiatively governed.
This “some mechanism is causing stratospheric cooling, therefore tropospheric warming is caused by the very same mechanism” argument is just so inanely stupid!
Yes, it is. Decreasing stratospheric ozone. Both mechanisms (-O3 and +CO2) are and have been contributing to the cooling.
Stratospheric ozone concentrations bottomed out in the early 90s, and have slightly risen since then. Bad luck with that one.
What’s going on above the tropopause hasn’t got anything to do with what’s going on below the tropopause, where things are convectively governed rather than radiatively governed.
You guys love your false dichotomies don’t you. It is not a case of “either/or” with regard to radiation and convection.
Bobdesbond says, June 5, 2018 at 4:07 AM:
You must suffer from a serious case of reading impairment. What did I write? “Both mechanisms (-O3 and +CO2) are and have been contributing to the cooling.” I also wrote, just a little bit higher up: “Put more CO2 into the stratosphere and you get cooling.”
So what is it? Are you being straight-out dishonest? Or just stupid?
But YOU’RE implicitly claiming it’s a matter of “both/and”! And so the onus is on YOU to SHOW that this is in fact the case, not just assert and assume it and expect everyone to immediately bow their heads in compliance.
Exactly WHY and HOW is evidence of some (whatever) mechanism causing stratospheric cooling somehow proof that this very same mechanism is therefore ALSO automatically causing tropospheric warming!? When you KNOW that 1) ‘cooling’ is not equal to ‘warming’, and that 2) the stratosphere does NOT operate in the same way as the troposphere, that their thermal structures are generated and maintained based on completely different principles …
“Stratospheric ozone concentrations bottomed out in the early 90s, and have slightly risen since then.”
Incorrect. This has only been true of the “ozone hole” at the South Pole. Elsewhere, there has been a steady decrease in stratospheric ozone.
Nope.
https://www.wmo.int/pages/prog/arep/gaw/ozone_2014/documents/ADM_2014OzoneAssessment_Final.pdf
Figs 3-1, 3-2
Kristian
Both mechanisms (-O3 and +CO2) are and have been contributing to the cooling.
If that doesn’t claim that O3 concentrations have been falling, then yet again your English is very poor.
It seems deniers believe they are in a privileged position. Apparently they can make any BS claim they wish without evidence, then we have to provide all the evidence to prove you wrong. Is that how you believe science works?
Nate @ June 5, 2018 at 3:23 PM
Yep.
https://www.chemistryworld.com/news/ozone-still-declining-in-the-lower-stratosphere-/3008628.article
My cite had actual data.
Don’t see any data in yours..except reference to this article “Trends in erythemal doses at the Polish Polar Station, Hornsund, Svalbard based on the homogenized measurements (19962016) and reconstructed data (19831995)”
Weird.
Your cite looked at total column.
You haven’t a leg to stand on. It’s easy to confirm. Just google “stratospheric ozone decline”. Here’s a cut-and-paste of the first page that comes up at ask.com:
Evidence for a continuous decline in lower stratospheric ozone …
http://www.atmos-chem-phys.net/18/1379/2018/acp-18-1379-2018.pdf
Feb 6, 2018 … Continuous stratospheric ozone decline ing, the continuing downward trend in the lower stratosphere prevails, resulting in a downward trend in …
Ozone still declining in the lower stratosphere | Research | Chemistry …
http://www.chemistryworld.com/news/ozone-still-declining-in-the-lower-stratosphere-/3008628.article
Feb 8, 2018 … An unexplained decrease in stratospheric ozone revealed by satellite measurements appears to have been offsetting the ozone layer’s …
Wait–the Ozone Layer Is Still Declining? – Scientific American
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/wait-the-ozone-layer-is-still-declining1
Feb 6, 2018 … The lower stratosphere’s ozone continues to decrease, despite the world’s success in phasing out ozone-depleting chemicals. By Annie Sneed …
Stratospheric Ozone at Lower Latitudes Is Not Recovering, Despite …
http://www.simonsfoundation.org/2018/02/06/stratospheric-ozone-not-recovering
Feb 6, 2018 … Stratospheric Ozone at Lower Latitudes Is Not Recovering, Despite Antarctic … Global ozone has been declining since the 1970s because of …
Ozone at lower latitudes is not recovering, despite Antarctic ozone …
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/02/180206090709.htm
Feb 6, 2018 … Evidence for a continuous decline in lower stratospheric ozone offsetting ozone layer recovery. Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics, 2018; …
Stratospheric ozone depletion – CITEPA
http://www.citepa.org/en/air-and-climate/main-phenomena/ozone-layer
Dec 1, 2016 … Reasons for stratospheric ozone layer depletion and situation in 2016. … the sun reappears (September-October), ozone concentrations drop …
New scare: decline of lower stratospheric ozone | meteoLCD Weblog
meteolcd.wordpress.com/2018/02/09/new-scare-decline-of-lower-stratospheric-ozone
Feb 9, 2018 … titled “Evidence for a continuous decline in lower stratospheric ozone offsetting ozone layer recovery” published in Atmospheric Chemistry and …
‘Your site looked at total column ozone’
Also vs height. Fig 3-2. There is a leg to stand on.
Seems to be a difference of opinion on the lower strat, but not upper strat.
All the same primary source.
Ie. you cite 6 sources, impressive, but they all refer to the same research paper.
You are flailing.
ren says:
June 5, 2018 at 12:52 AM
You know nothing about ozone and temperature in the stratosphere.
*
Aha!
http://4gp.me/bbtc/1528193767761/001.jpg
Yeah ren. Des evidently is 100 % right.
Look at the complementary behavior of LT and LS during volcanic events!
Sources:
https://www.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/v6.0/tlt/
https://www.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/v6.0/tls/
quote “UAH and RSS data show cooling in the stratosphere”
No they don’t!
This site http://images.remss.com/msu/msu_time_series.html
Click on channel TLS (temp lower stratosphere) No cooling since 1994!
RSS shows a continuum of trends, from strong warming in the troposphere, to strong cooling in upper stratosphere. In the lower stratosphere you find flat.
This is exactly what is expected, given that each layer has contributions from those above and below it.
I don’t think your premise is true. Why should increased WV response to surface warming specifically show up in the mid-troposphere?
I think you are alluding to the ‘hot spot” argument. If so, that is an issue with lapse rate feedback, not a WV feedback.
The ‘hot spot’ is specifically supposed to be caused by an increase in tropospheric WV, isn’t it? Warmer surface => more vigorous evaporation => strengthened water cycle => more latent heat released in the tropospheric column => reduced lapse rate; the mid and upper levels of the troposphere warmer RELATIVE TO the surface.
exactly correct and there is no hot spot.
NO – never warmer than the surface directly below. Not in the troposphere.
Bobdesbond says, June 5, 2018 at 5:52 AM:
Say what!?
No one’s saying the mid to upper troposphere is supposed to be actually warmer than the surface. Do you understand at all what that red spot is meant to signify? It warms more over time THAN the surface. Because the lapse rate becomes ‘moister’, hence reduced. That’s not the same as saying the troposphere becomes warmER than the surface.
“the mid and upper levels of the troposphere warmer RELATIVE TO the surface.”
YOU said it.
Pretty sure Kristian meant more warmING relative to the surface.
K, here’s realclimate on the hotspot from 7 years ago.
“If the pictures are very similar despite the different forcings that implies that the pattern really has nothing to do with greenhouse gas changes, but is a more fundamental response to warming (however caused). Indeed, there is a clear physical reason why this is the case the increase in water vapour as surface air temperature rises causes a change in the moist-adiabatic lapse rate (the decrease of temperature with height) such that the surface to mid-tropospheric gradient decreases with increasing temperature (i.e. it warms faster aloft).”
As I understand it from reading elsewhere, the WVcontent of the whole troposphere is expected to increase, not a specific enhancement in the tropical mid-troposphere that by itself would cause warming. Indeed, the tropics themselves warm slower than the rest of the globe, owing to the more saturated air – logarithmic GHG effect means less warming where there is already a stronger GH effect.
Observations looking for the hot spot do not generally look for WV content as a marker. They are based on radiosonde temps (and even on wind shear).
A decreasing lapse-rate is the immediate cause of the purported hot spot. I’m not sure that this arises because of extra WV in the region. But I’d need to read up on it again to be sure.
And the hot spot is not an issue of AGW. It’s just an issue of GW whatever the cause, be it the sun, the CO2 or whatever, is irrelevant.
So all those morons fond of claiming eagerly both that “it’s the sun” and “there is no hot spot” are particularly hilarious.
Idiot tracker says, June 5, 2018 at 6:23 AM:
Idiot,
It’s not a claim. It’s an observational fact. The “CO2 did it” argument is the claim here.
But I guess to you this is, once again, just a bunch of “philosophical drivel”.
Well, here for once your drivel is rather wishful thinking..
Amusing too.
Kristian, the hotspot is a theorized result of enhanced warming in the tropical mid troposphere regardless of the source of warming. It’s not a unique signature of greenhouse warming.
And, it’s not there. Which should tell you what?
Hint: Do “they” really have any idea what they are talking about?
Hint: Do “they” really have any idea what they are talking about?
One cannot rule out that “they” don’t, but for sure one can rule out that you do.
Hint: Do “they” really have any idea what they are talking about?
One cannot rule out that they dont, but for sure one can rule out that you do.
Empty trash talk.
Which should tell you what?
It would tell me that this modeled property of heat transport in the atmosphere is wrong.
The fact that people are saying ‘the hot spot isn’t there’ also tells me that they are ignorant of the matter or have a biased view.
The fact is that the jury is out on whether there is a hot spot or not, and shills pick the data or study they prefer to make the case they like.
Uncertainty gets shoved aside when the shills rush in.
If the uncertainty is that great, then dare I suggest that the science isn’t settled?
If the uncertainty is that great, then dare I suggest that the science isnt settled?
The hot spot thing is a detail, a small lapse rate related feedback effect, not at all a serious “uncertainty” about AGW. By no means does this “uncertainty” question the GHE and the warming potential of additional anthropic CO2.
The situation is quite similar to the rotundity of Earth. By no means does a lack of knowledge about the precise form of the geoid question this rotundity.
The fact is that science in general is of course never settled, yet a lot of specific scientific questions are quite settled for sure.
“Great uncertainty” about AGW is only in the amplitude of the expected effect because of complexity, in technical sense, so our inability to estimate seriously major more important feedback effects.
“By no means does this uncertainty question the GHE and the warming potential of additional anthropic CO2.”
What it does question is the absence of any conclusive evidence that additional CO2 from any source is warming the planet.
‘Great uncertainty’ about AGW is only in the amplitude of the expected effect…”
Which could be zero.
“…because of complexity, in technical sense, so our inability to estimate seriously major more important feedback effects.”
Effects which could be negative.
A seasoned professional knows from experience that one must resolve all loose threads, because that one nagging loose end can unravel the entire fabric.
“And the hot spot is not an issue of AGW.”
It is, because it is part of the understanding of how the system works. That it has not been observed suggests the understanding is lacking. “We don’t understand that, but trust us on this” is not a very convincing sales pitch.
There is nothing on sale, science doesn’t care whether laymen “buy” it or not.
Now I’m not sure much understanding is lacking in this respect but, yes, understanding is
certainly lacking in general and not only in climatology but in physics and
science in general and particularly in medical science and even in… aerodynamics. If it were not, scientists and engineers would not be at work anymore.
I find it highly amusing that deniers most likely readily “buy” medication or flight tickets and not AGW while on the other side of the fence green activists do rather the reverse. Though I not sure about the flight tickets.
We buy things that have been proven. The others do it based on feelz.
We buy things that have been proven. The others do it based on feels.
Same claim on the other side of the fence .
Hilarious.
There’s an objective difference. E.g., not accepting AGW as established fact is rational, given the paucity of confirmatory evidence. Not accepting GMO foods is ridiculous, in light of copious, unequivocal data demonstrating the advantages.
Nope.
Not accepting AGW is not more rational than rejecting (or accepting) GMO foods and biology, by the way, is at least as much complexity and uncertainty as is the climate system.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Complexity
Not accepting AGW is just a matter of physics and science illiteracy and ideological bias.
The only thing that remains to be questioned is CAGW
Nope. We are not driving CO2 concentration, so the “A” in “AGW alone is wrong. Then, there is no proof that the aggregate response of the climate system to increasing CO2 concentration is significant or even positive in the present climate state. The dependence is assuredly nonlinear, and we do not know the present tangent slope a.k.a. the sensitivity.
We are not driving CO2 concentration, so the “A” in “AGW alone is wrong.
This is as hilarious as denial of pregnancy…
It’s fun to watch.
We are not driving CO2 concentration, so the “A” in “AGW alone is wrong.
This is as hilarious as denial of pregnancy.
Its fun to watch.
I do deny that I am pregnant. The evidence is quite clear to any thinking people. Unfortunately, those are in short supply.
Zep Trans wrote:
Looking at the RSS data for TLT and TMT, your comparison is correct. However, the TMT data is contaminated by what is happening in the stratosphere (see TLS), which is a strong cooling trend. The TLT was originally intended to remove this cooling trend from the TMT to provide a correct measure of changing temperatures. Claiming that the TMT shows the opposite of the trend expected from theory ignores the problem of stratospheric contamination.
There’s another approach to removing that contamination, which is the TTT. You will notice from the RSS site that the TTT has a greater trend than the TLT. Thus, these data do not “debunk the hypothesis”, as you claim.
Ren, what matters are what the global temperatures will be doing as we move forward.
I believe that the surface temperature of the Atlantic will remain low.
http://cr.acg.maine.edu/wx_frames/gfs/ds/gfs_world-ced_sstanom_1-day.png
https://www.tropicaltidbits.com/analysis/ocean/natlssta.png
https://www.tropicaltidbits.com/analysis/ocean/eatlssta.png
Congratulations on cherry picking less than 4% of the world’s oceans with those two links. You do realise that there is ALWAYS some part of the ocean that is momentarily cooling, right? You just hop from one region to another, creating an illusion of cooling by only ever focusing on the cool ares. The same method used by that idiot non-scientist adapt 2030.
That’s all you have to say?
That was a lot more than you say in the vast majority of your comments. What criterion did it not satisfy to qualify as a meaningful response?
Ren good info. So since 1970 the world oceans have warmed .1c.
Global warming.
How the hell do you come to that conclusion?
That is what that data that Ren sent shows. It shows the deviation in ocean temp form 1971-2000 is +.1c
https://www.tropicaltidbits.com/analysis/ocean/
I like this source for ocean data the best.
Let me get this right. You believe that when an anomaly is given as +0.1 above the AVERAGE of 1971 to 2000 temperatures that this temperature is 0.1 degrees above the 1970 temperature??
Is your mathematical ability really THAT weak?
(Not to mention that you are cherry picking a single day.)
This was supposed to be in response to your previous post.
No. I believe the anomaly of +.1 c , is +.1c above the average ocean temperature from the period 1971-2000.
This graph shows how the average surface temperature of the worlds oceans has changed since 1880. This graph uses the 1971 to 2000 average as a baseline for depicting change. Choosing a different baseline period would not change the shape of the data over time. The shaded band shows the range of uncertainty in the data, based on the number of measurements collected and the precision of the methods used.
https://www.epa.gov/climate-indicators/climate-change-indicators-sea-surface-temperature
The temperature of the ocean has not changed since 1940.
They think once a trend is established it can’t change. That is the thinking.
ren’s nonsense continues and continues: on the graph accessible thru the link, the EPA shows an increasde of nearly 1C.
Even the ‘cool’ Japanese Met Agency shows a clear increase:
http://www.data.jma.go.jp/gmd/kaiyou/data/english/long_term_sst_global/global_rngmn_e.png
http://www.data.jma.go.jp/gmd/kaiyou/data/shindan/a_1/glb_warm/global.txt
It is clearly visible both in the chart and in the data that between 1940 and today, JMA’s Global SST has increased by 0.5 C.
That is a noticeable amount: more than the linear estimate for a whole century.
binny…”the EPA shows an increasde of nearly 1C”.
The EPA lead the cheaters like NOAA and GISS. Anything coming from the EPA is major bs.
Gordon, the JMO (Japanese) use their own ocean data set – which was why it was mentioned. Salvatore’s ‘estimate’ is not only mathematically appalling but debunked by any data set you care to mention – including UAH.
But the worst of Sal’s comment is that he compares one data point with another and talks as if it’s a trend.
It’s akin to noticing that one day in Summer and one in Winter happen to have the same temperature and concluding that Winter and Summer have the same average temperature.
If you were neutral and know anything about mathematical analysis you would join in on pointing out Sal’s error here. But you have to keep grinding the ax instead, eh?
Salvatore
Then why did you say it was 0.1C above 1970?
Your comment:
“So since 1970 the world oceans have warmed .1c.”
Because it’s so anti-AGW. Doesn’t mater that it is mathematically silly.
I made a mistake
Indeed. You once again could not find the “reply” tab.
Here is a great look at the power of wind. From Bloomberg “…Britain’s gone seven days with almost no wind generation and forecasts show the calm conditions persisting until the middle of the month.
The wind drought has pushed up day-ahead power prices to the highest levels for the time of year for at least a decade. …”.
…https://www.bloomberg.com/amp/news/articles/2018-06-05/wind-disappears-in-britain-leaving-turbines-at-a-standstill
Now that is interesting.
Without wind power the price of electricity goes up.
This means that wind power is cheaper than the alternatives.
entropic…” Without wind power the price of electricity goes up.
This means that wind power is cheaper than the alternatives.”
Typical of the obfuscated reasoning of climate alarmists and an example of why it’s so easy to defeat their propaganda and theories.
Then why don’t you actually defeat it, instead of merely boasting that you could.
A shame that consumers have to pay for the wind turbine infrastructure only to have to fall back on other resources and then have to pay for that too. Should have balanced their investment with some coal/oil or gas fired plants. More stable and less expensive.
Water soaks into the desert sand.
https://files.tinypic.pl/i/00966/8edripjwn7jr.png
Very good ren! Is this the first line of your poem?
bob…”Very good ren! Is this the first line of your poem?”
Look and see bob harass ren because ren produces real data that discredits the sci-fi AGW theory.
Perhaps you’d care to explain how that precise link “disproves AGW”.
I expect you will need to change the question in order to answer.
Hahahaha. Ren posts a satellite map of a weather system and Gordon doesn’t bother clicking on it but sounds off like ren has produced something crucial instead of the same old weird weather map without comment.
Ren’s posts are the climate blog version of haikus. You can ignore it or have a bit of fun.
But there’s no substantial argument there, Gordon. You goose.
Recall on an interesting post written on CarbonBrief by Zeke Hausfather (for sound skeptics only):
Why troposphere warming differs between models and satellite data
https://www.carbonbrief.org/study-why-troposphere-warming-differs-between-models-and-satellite-data
and from there to this article (Santer & alii, free version of their paper behind paywall):
Causes of differences in model and satellite tropospheric warming rates
https://tinyurl.com/yaxsa37p
binny…”Why troposphere warming differs between models and satellite data…”
More bs from an obfuscating alarmist. A gross generalization of satellite data acquisition versus climate models. There is no comparison to begin with since models are programmed with a fabricated warming effect for CO2 and they depend on a non-existent positive feedback to project a sci-fi catastrophic warming.
The author is an idiot. No mention of the scientific misconduct perpetrated by NOAA and GISS in which the fudge temperatures and declare record warming years by halving the required confidence level.
Here we have someone who believes averaging data increases the absolute error calling someone else an idiot.
bob…”Here we have someone who believes averaging data increases the absolute error calling someone else an idiot”.
More like, here we have bob/des accusing GR of something he never said.
Here we have the dumbest, the most ignorant, most uneducated, most pretentious person this web site ever had to experience.
I hope that one day these incredibly denigrating and discrediting comments will automatically become thrown away before being ‘published’.
binny…”Here we have the dumbest, the most ignorant, most uneducated, most pretentious person this web site ever had to experience”.
Oh, lord, it’s hard to be humble,
When you’re perfect in every way.
Mack Davis wrote this song with genius-calibre, good-long men like me in mind.
Some folks say I’m egotistical,
Hell I don’t even know what that means,
Must be something to do with the way,
That I fill out my tight new blue jeans.
Gordo, Speaking of idiots, I love it when you disrespect someone who has much more knowledge than you. Did you read the Santer et al. 2017 paper, or are you just pontificating based on Hausfather’s commentary? Have you figured out that the “satellite temperature” data you and the other denialist love to reference are based on models? Please do tell us which one of satellite records you prefer and an exact reason for your choice. There are four groups that have analyzed the tropics, including the U. Washington team.
For example, the UAH LT tropical trend is 0.12 K/decade while the RSS TLT trend is 0.15 K/decade. Or, do you prefer the TMT and, if so, tell us why.
Spin spin amd more spin to defend a theory whose basic premises have all been false.
I should start spinning mine but I won’t because I want to know the truth and not keep a fantasy alive for political agenda.
AGW I WILL SAY IT AGAIN IS OVER THIS YEAR!
5-min averages neutron counts in Oulu already exceed 6,700.
Huh??
5 min active neuron count in ren drops below 6.7
Salvatore
You never stop spinning. You must be getting very dizzy.
Salvatore Del Prete says:
AGW I WILL SAY IT AGAIN IS OVER THIS YEAR!
But you said warming was over 16 years ago!
“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
Building bomb shelters, is evidence, building secret bomb shelters is better evidence.
Not only did people build secret bomb shelters, but so did the government.
I don’t have bomb shelter, I don’t even make sure I know where (exactly) the thousands of public bomb shelters, are. It might be a good trivia thing to know, but I don’t. I think getting useful back up generator which operate for one month, is a more practical emergency measure (but don’t have it).
So I do not expect all believers in the dumb religion to take practical measures against a possible threat, but none of them do it.
CO2isLife
I want to bring you post down here as it is easier for me to see a reply than scroll all the way up.
YOU: “Normal Says: Actual science shows your understanding is not correct. CO2 absorbs about 100% of the IR at the 15 micron range while water vapor absorbs around 50% even with its high concentration. If no CO2 were present you would have considerable IR leaving the Earths surface through space at this wavelength.
You can verify my claims multiple ways:
1) Go to MODTRAN and set the view to looking down from 0.1km and alter CO2 up to 800 ppm and measure the difference in W/M^2. Then alter the H20.
2) Go to Spectralcal and go to the gas cell and change the length to 1m. You will see H2O absorbs all the IR. What I imagine your graphic is showing is the result of a 10cm gas cell.”
You are still wrong. I did as you said and you it is just wrong.
Here I will post the graphs:
Water Vapor through 1 Meter at surface atmospheric pressure. Band between 14 and 16 microns (displays only in wavenumber).
http://www.spectralcalc.com/calc/plots/guest851722317.png
Not even close to absorbing all the available IR in this band. I have no clue what you did to get different results.
Now 1 meter through Carbon Dioxide same band same conditions.
Now you see that in this band nearly all the IR is absorbed.
http://www.spectralcalc.com/calc/plots/guest68396004.png
So you need to tell me what you are doing to get your results.
The Spectral Calculator completely supports the graphic I linked to.
Norman says:
June 5, 2018 at 9:10 PM
http://www.spectralcalc.com/calc/plots/guest851722317.png
Norman, these guest links are temporary! They won’t survive your session.
You must copy SpectralClac’s plots into a file on your computer instead, and then let upload them by some tool giving you a long(er) living link as result.
La Pangolina
Thanks for the advice. Is it worth the effort? The plots I made show that through 1 meter CO2 absorbs nearly 100% (transmits zero) at the 15 micron wavelength but water vapor transmits considerable amount of energy.
norman…”Thanks for the advice. Is it worth the effort? The plots I made show that through 1 meter CO2 absorbs nearly 100% (transmits zero) at the 15 micron wavelength…”
Good grief, Norman, the two graphs floating around here show CO2 absorbing about 5% at 15 microns. That’s about 5% of nothing.
Strong convection in the western Pacific. Neutral El Nio conditions.
http://tropic.ssec.wisc.edu/real-time/mtpw2/product.php?color_type=tpw_nrl_colors&prod=wpac×pan=24hrs&anim=html5
“Neutral El Nino” … that’s a new one.
Esalil
Interesting post:
“From the data http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/icethickness/txt/IceVol.txt I picked up the highest and the lowest ice volume of each year and from the highest value I subtracted the lowest value to get the total amount of melted ice of each year. The result is following:
2003 2.24e+13
2004 1.90
2005 1.99
2006 1.86
2007 2.01
2008 2.00
2009 1.84
2010 1.98
2011 1.91
2012 1.90
2013 1,79
2014 1.78
2015 1.95
2016 1.82
2017 1.75
There is a clear trend of diminishing the amount of melted ice i.e. diminishing of the amount of heat available in the arctic region. Someone can maybe find whether this is due to the air temperature during the melting period or due to the SST of the arctic sea.”
***********
The maximum sea ice volume and extent have been declining in recent years, but summer temperatures have been remarkably steady.
http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/meant80n.uk.php
Less melting because less ice to start with at the beginning of each melt season?
Your conclusion is correct: summer temperatures are more stable.
Summer temps are more stable because of the presence of sea ice.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2018/06/uah-global-temperature-update-for-may-2018-0-18-deg-c/#comment-305761
Less melting because less ice to start with at the beginning of each melt season?
No, it is almost all ice covered year round. read the link above.
Today heavy thunderstorms in southern Germany.
When did you become a weather reporter?
Ren is merely a copier and paster. No insights ever come from him.
From the day ren’s posts appeared here. Do not hope for anything different.
The temperature of the oceans in the tropics is currently low.
https://earth.nullschool.net/#current/ocean/surface/currents/overlay=sea_surface_temp_anomaly/equirectangular=-169.95,-0.32,190
The tropics look pretty damn red to me. Unless you only have eyes for the southern tropical Pacific.
Ren, it is looking colder and colder now overall oceanic temperatures down to under +.15c deviation from around +.35c deviation last summer.
Weatherbell thus far for June shows only a +.12c for global temperature deviation.
And? Has Weatherbell been lower since you appeared here 8 years ago?
as I have said I am using only satellite data from here for official temperature data
So why mention Weatherbell if you are not prepared to pursue it?
David Appell says:
March 12, 2018 at 4:22 PM
Salvatore, its interesting that you accept model results when they show what you want but reject them otherwise.
Why do you accept Roys blog claims but not those of Sherwood and Nishant? Whats your criteria for acceptance?
Reply
Salvatore Del Prete says:
March 12, 2018 at 4:30 PM
Why because we agree that is why.
Reply
What is amazing is every one is looking to the past instead of trying to look at what the future may hold.
They think wrongly that the past 20 years or 50 years is going to continue moving forward.
WRONG!
And that would include those people who look precisely one year into the past and no further, and make predictions about the future based on a bump in a curve.
“2016 will not be s warm as 2015….”
– 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
https://twitter.com/philklotzbach/status/1004399748688707585
previous post shows 2nd coldest Atlantic waters since 1982
where is the global warming?
https://twitter.com/BigJoeBastardi/status/1004442008574939138
Greenland Ice looking good to say the least
USA follows their 13th coldest April on record with their warmest May on record.
bob/des…”USA follows their 13th coldest April on record with their warmest May on record”.
And CO2 causes such extremes by which mechanism?
It seems you’ve realised you can only keep arguing if you keep creating straw men to argue against.
You certainly love your straw man arguments.
bob/des…”It seems you’ve realised you can only keep arguing if you keep creating straw men to argue against”.
Would you at least TRY to answer the question I posed. How could CO2 cause such extremes in weather/climate?
Is it possible there are other factors causing the warming and so-called record temperatures?
Yes, global warming can cause such extremes, exponentially:
https://davidappell.blogspot.com/2015/07/why-very-warm-events-are-much-more.html
There is no global warming due to AGW and the minor recent global warming that did take place is ending this year, year 2018.
Thus far year 2018 is cooperating with overall sea surface temperatures now less then +.15c above 1981-2010 means in contrast to +.35c during the past summer.
In addition according to satellite data the global temperatures this year are lower then a year ago through today.
One key metric that has to be watched is the North Atlantic which is now in solid negative territory around -.60c from 1981-2010 means.
Greenland Ice very healthy.
As the sun continues in a prolonged solar minimum state this is going to equate to lower overall sea surface temperatures and a slightly higher albedo which in turn will equate to a colder climate.
The weakening geo magnetic field will compound this .
I have been saying this for years and this year 2018 , is the first year that my two solar conditions have been met in order to have the sun result in a more significant climatic impact. Those being 10+ years of sub solar activity in general(which started in year 2005) and within this sub solar activity in general a period of time of very low average value solar parameters(which started in year 2018) meaning solar reading equal to or lower in magnitude that occurs during typical solar minimums with the duration of time of these very low solar values longer then what is typical.
It is happening this year and this is the first time since the ending of the Dalton Minimum, that my two solar conditions are occurring.
In the meantime all the basic premises AGW theory is based on have failed to materialize while the global climate is not even close to being unique.
The theory should have been trashed 20 years ago but has survived due to political agendas.
“Temperatures in response to this will decline in the near future, in contrast to the steady state of temperature we presently have,or have been having for the past 15 years or so.”
– Salvatore Del Prete, 11/6/2012
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2012/11/uah-v5-5-global-temp-update-for-october-2012-0-33-deg-c/#comment-64939
Salvatore wrote:
The theory should have been trashed 20 years ago but has survived due to political agendas.
So enlighten us — what is wrong with the theory?
Does CO2 not absorb in the infrared?
Does the Earth not emit infrared radiation?
What?
Sal
This graph shows Greenland’s total mass balance, April 2002 – June 2017
https://www.arctic.noaa.gov/Portals/7/easygalleryimages/8/367/tedesco-fig3.png
*******
Reminder: Bastardi’s graph only shows surface mass balance (SMB), which does not include calving or melting from below.
What exactly is “surface mass balance?” Area?
More info on changes to total mass of Greenland ice sheet:
http://polarportal.dk/en/greenland/mass-and-height-change/#tabs-1
I think 2017 stopped the trend.
Salvatore…”I think 2017 stopped the trend”.
Maybe whatever is driving the warming fizzled out following the 2016 EN. Let’s hope so.
CO2 didn’t stop being a greenhouse gas just because there was an El Nino.
The warming will continue, because physics says it has to.
Future is what matters not the past.
That’s a convenient excuse for someone who has repeatedly been wrong about the past.
Don’t think we’ve forgotten about you, Salvatore, the boy who cried wolf.
“Until recently, the mass was roughly in a state of balance. That is, the amount of snow falling on the surface was the same as the mass leaving the ice sheet as melt water runoff or discharge of icebergs. The Greenland Ice Sheet now loses more mass than it receives.
A model of the mass balance that includes data even before the satellite-era shows that since 1840, precipitation (in the form of snow) has risen by 12-20 %, the amount of melt water runoff has increased by approximately 60 %, and the output from glaciers has risen by approximately 40 %.”
http://polarportal.dk/en/groenlands-indlandsis/nbsp/viden-om-groenlands-indlandsis/
Here’s a report on the Greenland ice sheet.
https://www.arctic.noaa.gov/Report-Card/Report-Card-2017/ArtMID/7798/ArticleID/697/Greenland-Ice-Sheet
Last year there was much to do because of a slow melt season, that the Greenland ice sheet might, for the first time in the instrumental record, record a net gain for the year.
An important satellite failed, so the jury may still be out on the close of the year. Read the report, which covers mostly April 2016- April 2017.
If anyone has any updated info on whether 2017 was a mass gain or loss, please bring it here.
barry…”An important satellite failed, so the jury may still be out on the close of the year. Read the report, which covers mostly April 2016- April 2017″.
What are the chances the fudgers at NOAA will replace it since they discovered their own sat data contradicts their fudged surface data?
What are the odds you would show some actual interest in science and find out, rather than pitching the usual knee-jerk snark?
Unfortunately, the best satellite for making such assessments, the Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment (GRACE), ceased to operate prior to summer 2017. The replacement satellite, GRACE-Follow-On (GRACE-FO), is scheduled to launch this spring.
https://tinyurl.com/yavegs79
DA,
You mean by ‘scientific literature’, can you find this in glossy cover post 20th century comic books dressed as physical science texts published en masse (double entendre intended) and ‘paper’s ‘ published by third rate tax payer funded hacks with a big ‘government approved thought’ stamp on the Abstract.
So you admit there is no science you can cite.
That’s just what I expected. Thanks.
–barry
June 5, 2018
Kristian, the hotspot is a theorized result of enhanced warming in the tropical mid troposphere regardless of the source of warming. Its not a unique signature of greenhouse warming.–
Tropical ocean is heat engine of world, I imagine alarmist believe the tropics must get warmer due to greenhouse gases, in order to increase global average temperature.
I would guess this particularly true of those who believe that without any CO2, earth would have average temperature of -18 C, that water vapor is passive and CO2 is a forcing agent.
Also those that believe in the snowball earth, would also believe that tropics is capable of getting cold. And greenhouse gases are only factor which causes the tropics to have average temperature of about 26 C.
“… those who believe that without any CO2, earth would have average temperature of -18 C …”
Without any GREENHOUSE GASES, not just CO2.
Whatever you guess, gbakie, the enhanced warming in the tropical mid troposphere in response to surface warming is an emergent feature in the models regardless of the cause of warming. IE, same for solar, volcanic etc, as well as GHG warming. It’s not a ‘signature’ of warming unique to GHGs. It’s simply a result of heat transport in a warming atmosphere and a decrease in the lapse rate gradient in this region.
Jury is still out on whether this has actually been observed long-term. More solid are observed short-term responses in response to ENSO and volcanic events. It remains an active area of research.
Moving the goalposts to keep the hysteria going?
“Large climate uncertainty even with a 1.5-degree temperature increase”
June 7, 2018 by Peter Rüegg, ETH Zurich
https://phys.org/news/2018-06-large-climate-uncertainty-degree-temperature.html#jCp
Do you have a way to reduce the uncertainties? Every climate scientist on the planet would love to hear about it, if you do.
If you do.
Of course, you don’t.
How about scaring women, children and even a pope with planetary doom? How about demanding skeptics be silenced, punished, or jailed? How about demanding billions be spent or pointless tangential research? How about demanding trillions be transferred out of productive economies?
How about a cause that has, for decades, adjusted claims, definitions, data, and even its name to disguise its uncertainties?
Is that your approved method of handling uncertainty, David?
In response the WUWT article trying to say the very weak short lived La Nina is causing this oceanic/global cool off. I do not think so , it may be playing a part but the real reason is the very low solar conditions, in my opinion.
This is the first inning of the cooling. I say as long as solar stays in the tank the cooling will proceed.
ENSO , is not the reason why the temperatures of the oceans and the globe as a whole are dropping.
The REAL reason is due to the very low solar activity we have had for 10+ years now and within this sub solar activity the very low average solar parameters we now have in year 2018. Year 2018 being a transitional year. This is the first time since the Dalton solar minimum ended that solar is sufficiently low to have a major climatic impact.
I have been saying this for years. Very low solar equates to overall lower sea surface temperatures and a slightly higher albedo which in turn will equate to lower over all global temperatures. A weakening geo magnetic field compounding the solar effects.
I have been saying this for years and ENSO is not the answer this time. If anything if you want to talk oceanic influence on global temperatures look to the North Atlantic which has cooled considerably.
As long as solar stays in the tank this cooling trend will be continuing.
Climate scientist could not see a change in a climatic trend coming if it starred them in the face. They as a whole are useless, all they do is promote AGW.
Maybe this can finally put an end to AGW theory which is a shame.
“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
The recent EL NINO, was much stronger then this recent La Nina.
Just of note.
It is the surface oceanic temperatures which matter when it come to the global climate.
In addition the surface oceanic temperature changes are good indicators as to what is happening with the oceans as a whole.
Again I am looking toward the future not the past which is what is constantly being brought up.
It is where do we go from here and I say lower oceanic and global temperatures for years as long as solar stays sub par as it is now.
Salvatore Del Prete says:
“It is the surface oceanic temperatures which matter”.
But your prediction depends on warming in the deep ocean.
To keep it away from the surface.
Salvatore Del Prete says:
It is the surface oceanic temperatures which matter when it come to the global climate.
Why does it matter more than ocean heat content?
They all matter but I think surface oceanic temperatures cooling will over time translate to less ocean heat content.
Let me put it this way, if ocean heat content keeps increasing I do not think over the long run it would be possible to have sustained lower overall sea surface temperatures.
We will have to see if lower overall sea surface temperatures continue.
Now even +.13c deviation is still on the high side. I want to see if they keep lowering or not.
From NOAA,
“The average depth of the ocean is about 12,100 feet. The deepest part of the ocean is called the Challenger Deep and is located beneath the western Pacific Ocean in the southern end of the Mariana Trench, which runs several hundred kilometers southwest of the U.S. territorial island of Guam. Challenger Deep is approximately 36,200 feet deep. It is named after the HMS Challenger, whose crew first sounded the depths of the trench in 1875.”
So, Sal, why do you think the ocean surface (measured in centimeters?) represents the ocean as a whole?
What has been observed is that colder ocean is a colder global average temperature, and a warmer ocean has higher global average temperature.
What has been imagined is that heat has been “lost” in the ocean and it is heat “lost” in the ocean which is global warming.
Not lost. But over 90% of the trapped heat goes into the ocean.
gbaikie…”What has been imagined is that heat has been lost in the ocean and it is heat lost in the ocean which is global warming”.
I don’t think it is imagination, it’s more desperation. It’s like the dog ate my homework.
Trenberth was in a pickle following Climategate where he was caught in one email expressing frustration over his inability to find a warming signal. Shortly thereafter he came up with the inane theory about the oceans capturing the missing heat.
Of course, NOAA then went out and fudged the SST to find Trenberth’s missing warming.
It’s just moving the goalposts.
Kevin Trenberth:
“In my case, one cherry-picked email quote has gone viral and at last check it was featured in over 107,000 items (in Google). Here is the quote: “The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t.” It is amazing to see this particular quote lambasted so often. It stems from a paper I published this year bemoaning our inability to effectively monitor the energy flows associated with short-term climate variability. It is quite clear from the paper that I was not questioning the link between anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions and warming, or even suggesting that recent temperatures are unusual in the context of short-term natural variability.
http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/staff/trenbert/emails/
Centimeters of ocean surface is average global temperature (it is 70% of Earth surface , it is warmer in terms of average temperature as compared land, and it average temperature of 17 C, warms the land surface average temperature which is about 10 C.
So it is the depth of centimeters which reflects now, or reflects/makes “weather”, though it the deeper waters temperature which determines global climate or long term temperatures on Earth.
Gbaikie
“So it is the depth of centimeters which reflects now, or reflects/makes weather, though it the deeper waters temperature which determines global climate or long term temperatures on Earth.”
I agree with that.
esalil says:
June 5, 2018 at 2:31 AM
There is a clear trend of diminishing the amount of melted ice i.e. diminishing of the amount of heat available in the arctic region.
Someone can maybe find whether this is due to the air temperature during the melting period or due to the SST of the arctic sea.
*
At a first glance I had the impression you’re right.
But then I went to my Excel Colorado spreadsheets and thought: no, esalil isn’t.
The first reason is the good match between the inverted Arctic sea ice extent/area series and oceanic / tropospheric temperatutes in the Arctic region:
http://4gp.me/bbtc/1528395784542/001.jpg
The anomalies were converted by scaling to their respective percentiles within the period, as comparing degrees with km2 makes few sense.
The second reason is that as opposed to your example, time series of yearly maxima minus yearly minima do not show any negative trend, neither for 1979-2017:
http://4gp.me/bbtc/1528396114955/001.jpg
nor for the DMI volume time series (2003-2017):
http://4GP.ME/bbtc/1528396173381/001.jpg
Maybe the sea ice volume / thickness time series differ from the pack ice area, but certainly not to an extent such that it would show a negative trend.
La Pangolina: Why you do not calculate by yourself? All the figures are in the link provided. The ice extent does not tell anything about the amount of heat needed for melting.
esalil….”La Pangolina: Why you do not calculate by yourself? All the figures are in the link provided. The ice extent does not tell anything about the amount of heat needed for melting”.
You’re talking to a poster who posted under the name Bindidon, then left the blog in a snit, bidding everyone farewell. A few days later, the same poster re-appeared as La P. Same demeanor, same memory of past insults directed toward him/her, exactly the same writing style.
Binny/La P is an uber-climate alarmist who fudges UAH data in Excel spreadsheets to make it appear as if there is little or no difference between UAH sat time series and that of NOAA surface time series.
The intention is to counter your views using bogus, layman calculations. Binny likes to call me a troll, on a good day, but I am a skeptic who support the UAH time-series and philosophy while binny/La P is only here to counter it.
Robertson
Binny/La P is an uber-climate alarmist who fudges UAH data in Excel spreadsheets to make it appear as if there is little or no difference between UAH sat time series and that of NOAA surface time series.
Again you give us a proof of how much and how repeatedly you lie. You are a permanent, crank liar, Robertson.
You perfectly know that the UAH data Bindidon alias J.-P. and I present here is not fudged at all.
If you were able to use Excel as does today every 12 year old child, you would create similar charts out of the same data and would not write this ignorant, incompetent and disgusting nonsense.
esalil says:
June 8, 2018 at 3:55 AM
La Pangolina: Why you do not calculate by yourself?
But I did calculate all the stuff, esalil. Didn’t you see that all the figues I published refer not only to the extent but also for the area, i.e. the pack ice?
Please read my comment again.
Hopefully Bindidon will have some time to spend for adapting his Colorado sea ice data to the DMI volume data you published. I can’t modify his software.
The surface temperature of the North Atlantic is still falling.
https://www.tropicaltidbits.com/analysis/ocean/natlssta.png
Not only the North Atlantic but just about the whole globe.
You’re right.
https://www.nsstc.uah.edu/climate/2018/may2018/MAY%202018.png
Ren the AGW enthusiast look into the past rather then the future thinking the past is a guide to the future.
Wrong!
Salvatore…”Ren the AGW enthusiast look into the past rather then the future thinking the past is a guide to the future”.
Yes, but their hindsight is cherry picked and delusional. They refuse to see evidence of a global Little Ice Age where global temps dropped 1C to 2C below average.
The LIA had two solar incidents over it’s 400 years, Dalton and Maunder, and was preceded by other solar minima. There were other solar periods predating those and the following article suggests the Medieval Warm Period, pre-dating the LIA, may have been caused by solar activity as well.
****PLACEHOLDER FOR URL TEST****
URL TO FOLLOW
The reasoning offered by alarmists re CO2 is ‘what else could it be’? It’s there is the sky every day. Solar activity is a far better explanation for warming/cooling than any man-made issue.
There is mention of a 200 year solar cycle in this article. Alarmists have claimed shorter solar cycles cannot produce the kind of warming we are experiencing but the 200 year cycle can.
URL WITH INSTRUCTIONS:
URL won’t post. Copy/paste link to a new window and remove the hyphen from the tail-end of the URL from c4d-cf
https://www.forbes.com/sites/peterferrara/2013/05/26/to-the-horror-of-global-warming-alarmists-global-cooling-is-here/#41e6848c4d-cf
Gordon Robertson says:
They refuse to see evidence of a global Little Ice Age where global temps dropped 1C to 2C below average.
What is the evidence of this?
I’ve asked you this many times, and every time you’ve failed to provide evidence.
I don’t think you have any such evidence.
DA…”What is the evidence of this?
Ive asked you this many times, and every time youve failed to provide evidence”.
I posted a link to the evidence and I have posted numerous links each time you ask that dumb question.
I don’t recall you ever posting any evidence or link.
If you did, please post it again.
Meanwhile:
“There were no globally synchronous multi-decadal warm or cold intervals that define a worldwide Medieval Warm Period or Little Ice Age.”
— “Continental-scale temperature variability during the past two millennia,” PAGES 2k Consortium, Nature Geosciences, April 21, 2013
http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v6/n5/abs/ngeo1797.html
Two hurricanes will reduce the surface temperature of the eastern tropical Atlantic.
Sorry!
Two hurricanes will lower the surface temperature of the eastern tropical Pacific ..
Says what?
Even in the LT you can ‘see’ it:
https://www.nsstc.uah.edu/climate/2017/december/DEC1978_DEC2017_trend_LT.PNG
Salvatore…”There is no global warming due to AGW and the minor recent global warming that did take place is ending this year, year 2018″.
There is certainly something odd going on this year. Here’s an article on the snow in Eastern Canada in early June. Here in Vancouver, we went from temperatures of 20+C in May to a very sudden reversal on June 1st of much cooler weather.
https://www.msn.com/en-ca/weather/topstories/east-snow-falling-like-a-slow-clap-when-does-it-end/ar-AAydz3q?li=AAggNb9&ocid=mailsignout
I get it that weather is not climate but get this from the article:
“Late last week saw high temperatures treading into record-breaking territory across much of the Maritimes, but it was a short-lived burst as a cold front shortly after sent frosty air back into the region. Miramichi, N.B. for example, went from breaking a 140-year-old record high last Friday, to a 91-year-old record low on Sunday”.
No matter how alarmists twist the story, there is no way CO2 could cause such extremes, even though modelers have claimed as much.
Time to throw out the AGW theory so we can study exactly what forces are at work.
Sorry, where have “modellers” claimed that day-to-day variation is “caused by CO2”?
bob/des…”Sorry, where have modellers claimed that day-to-day variation is caused by CO2?”
You have likely been in the Outback too long interfering with sheep. It has become a joke, the way alarmists blame everything on anthropogenic warming. They got it from modelers and their professional enthusiast who have claimed CO2 can explain cooling.
I thought you’d have been up on that at alarm central, aka realclimate. SkS borrows from them regularly and the resident guru there is Pierrehumbert who uses all forms of nonsense science to equate CO2 to cooling as well as warming.
Gordon Robertson wrote:
They got it from modelers and their professional enthusiast who have claimed CO2 can explain cooling.
Who, specifically, claimed that?
GORDAN, I agree this year I think could be the transitional year.
More time needs to pass but thus far good.
“here is my prediction for climate going forward, this decade will be the decade of cooling.”
– Salvatore del Prete, 11/23/2010
http://ourchangingclimate.wordpress.com/2010/10/20/andrew-dessler-debating-richard-lindzen/#comment-8875
Gordon Robertson wrote:
No matter how alarmists twist the story, there is no way CO2 could cause such extremes, even though modelers have claimed as much.
Why not?
Extreme temperatures rise exponentially when average temperature rises linearly:
https://davidappell.blogspot.com/2015/07/why-very-warm-events-are-much-more.html
It’s an easy and straightforward calculation.
DA…”Why not?
Extreme temperatures rise exponentially when average temperature rises linearly:”
Explain the mechanism. I am not interested in what wannabee physicists program incorrectly into climate models, I want to see the physics that explains how a gas making up 0.04% of the atmosphere can cause extreme temperatures, both warming and cooling.
The mechanism is simply the nature of normal distributions. I proved it mathematically here:
https://davidappell.blogspot.com/2015/07/why-very-warm-events-are-much-more.html
The math is basic and the conclusion isn’t surprising. But maybe it’s above you.
Gordon Robertson says:
Explain the mechanism. I am not interested in what wannabee physicists program incorrectly into climate models, I want to see the physics that explains how a gas making up 0.04% of the atmosphere can cause extreme temperatures, both warming and cooling.
I’ve been trying to show you for months, but you never read it or acknowledge it.
If you paint three targets on the side of a barn, what’s the probability an bullet shot at random will hit one?
Simple enough.
Arctic warming faster than tropics.
Temperature gradient decreases.
Jet stream becomes more unstable.
Unstable jet stream allows rapid and extreme temperature variations.
There exists no temperature record of the last 150 years that demonstrates any greater variances than those variances that science tells us have occurred over the last 5000 years.
The world is so well off to the point that so much expensive intellect can be devoted to a discussion that cannot be resolved by even our most advanced computers.
So it must be the camaraderie…………….
Dan Murray says:
There exists no temperature record of the last 150 years that demonstrates any greater variances than those variances that science tells us have occurred over the last 5000 years.
Let’s see your evidence.
Dan…”The world is so well off to the point that so much expensive intellect can be devoted to a discussion that cannot be resolved by even our most advanced computers.
So it must be the camaraderie.”
More than likely it’s stupidity.
Because Gordon knows more than the experts in all things, don’t you understand? Climate science, special and general relativity, thermodynamics, and whatever else you’d care to list. Such a shame he keeps all his insights to the comment section here that no one ever reads.
Let’s see him specify ‘variance’ before we ask for corroboration.
LP
“There is a clear trend of diminishing the amount of melted ice i.e. diminishing of the amount of heat available in the arctic region.”
That could be true, even if melt season loss is increasing as a percentage. Here’s a simple example:
If maxima is 1000 Km2, and minima is 900 Km2, that’s a loss of 100 Km2 = 10%
If maxima is only 800 Km2, a larger percentage loss, say 12%, equals a smaller actual loss (96 Km2).
Read again:
esalil says:
June 5, 2018 at 2:31 AM
Snape: one again, its volume nyt extent I was talking about.
This site is getting worse.
First the identification subroutine stops working.
Then my reply to an earlier post gets dumped at the bottom.
I agree. But no one cares, sorry.
entropic….”This site is getting worse.
First the identification subroutine stops working.
Then my reply to an earlier post gets dumped at the bottom.”
**********
Look on the bright side, 20 years ago, or maybe even 10, there were no blogs let alone scientists like Roy willing to host one. In the mid-80s era I considered myself lucky to have a 9600 BAUD modem, a drastic upgrade from a 300 BAUDer. All we had were Bulletin Board Services.
Roy is a busy man and he doesn’t have the time to patrol this blog. Let’s be grateful for what we have.
I had what’s generally thought to be the first climate science blog, started in early 2003:
https://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.davidappell.com
Barry
“Less melting because less ice to start with at the beginning of each melt season?
No, it is almost all ice covered year round. read the link above.”
*******
What?? Are you thinking there is almost no difference between maxima and minima arctic sea ice?
The explanation I posed (borrowed from Neven’s blog) relates to seasonal changes to the entire Arctic Ocean ice pack, not just the area north of 80′.
The conversation had been about the ice N of 80N. Of course summertime sea ice extent has diminished over the whole Arctic.
Salvatore
Changes in ocean circulation (i.e. ENSO/La nina) can cause more surface heat to be transported downwards. Cooler surface, warmer subsurface.
On the other hand, why would a decline in solar cause only the surface to cool, but allow the ocean as a whole to continue warming?
That’s the big hole in your theory.
We have to see what happens going forward not what has happened.
Transport delay. There’s always a delay.
How much of a delay?
Could be anywhere from tens to thousands of years.
Entropic Man
Same here. I have been reduced to a bottom feeder/poster, and have to re-enter my name and email every time.
“I have been reduced to a bottom feeder/poster”.
Oh no, soon you may feel an urge to deny the science.
Interesting article on NASA GISS data tampering. Of course, GISS gets their data from NOAA where it has already been fudged. GISS simply fudges it it more.
https://principia-scientific.org/why-climate-data-tampering-matters/
Is this the only link you could find? Everyone knows those people are crazy and unscientific. They’ve never published a paper in a real journal about their claims. They’re charlatans.
Naturally Gordon accepts anything they tell him to accept.
DA…”Is this the only link you could find? Everyone knows those people are crazy and unscientific”.
Yes…one has a degree in chemical engineering and another a degree in math.
And I and everyone else has lots of degrees too.
You are biased in whose words you accept, and whose you reject, and your bias has nothing to do with science.
I’m not a fan of the site in question, but your fallacy is: ad hominem.
Even a stopped clock is correct twice a day. You need to address the substance.
Let me guess. Their thesis is that the data has changed over time, therefore there must be fudging.
Estimates of historical global population have changed over time. You reckon this automatically equates to book-cooking?
Barry says: June 8th at 4:21 PM
Let me guess. Their thesis is that the data has changed over time, therefore there must be fudging.
Guess all you want, between March and April 2018 fully 953 changes were made to the “Land-Ocean Temperature Index” LOTI
https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata_v3/GLB.Ts+dSST.txt
that GISS publishes monthly. That’s 55% of the 1740 monthly entries since 1880 where the LOTI data starts. And 160 of those changes were made to data from the 19th century. On average there are only 50 to 100 changes made every month and sometimes there aren’t any – I should look to see that’s in the summer when all the heavy hitters at GISS and NOAA are off on vacation. Whatever the reason for the monthly changes they do add up. Here’s what a chart of that summation looks like:
http://oi68.tinypic.com/wck4lc.jpg
That chart is 3 years old now, but I’d be surprised if it’s changed much since then. Each point on that graph indicates the overall average change made to the year. And as you can see, most of the changes prior to 1980 are negative and all of the changes since then are positive. It’s a matter of opinion as to why those changes form a pattern, but it’s a matter of fact that they do.
It certainly does not lend confidence. If it changed so much today, who’s to say what it will be in the future?
Who controls the past controls the future. Who controls the present controls the past.
― George Orwell, 1984
1) GHCN receive data from a few thousand stations by the 8th of each month. These are the ‘near real-time’ updates. There were about 1500 stations 20 years ago, and there are more of these now.
After that more data from weather services keep coming in for the same month that are not included in the batch that are part of the near real-time stream.
Information for a certain month keeps accumulating after the data are first posted online, and then the data are updated to reflect any new averages. You can see many changes occur to monthly values, although typically they are not large.
2) Revisions to methods can change the data. The data compilers do not and never have considered their data perfect. It isn’t.
3) UAH also make data revisions that are not publicly documented – no one seems to be interested in that. For instance, there was a large-scale change to anomalies from about 2000 onwards a year or so ago. No peer-reviewed study accompanied this change, and no one would have known if it hadn’t been given a sentence in one of Dr Spencer’s updates. I saw it many times with 5.5 and 5.6 versions.
There are plenty of changes to UAH monthly anomalies between the Dec 2017 update and the current one 6 months later. I just checked.
The problem with all criticism of the global temp data sets is that critics have zero curiosity about the reasons for the change, and instead take the fact of change as something nefarious – instead of taking the opinion that diligent people run near-constant quality control on imperfect data, and receive constant updates to the actual data that change the averages for the most recent months and years.
Basically, people snark in willful ignorance. Actually investigating why changes occur is totally eclipsed by their need to cast aspersions and fulfill their political narrative.
‘Skeptics’ my arse.
Regarding your “Arse,” back in January this reply to the question of why 100 year old data is being changed was supplied:
Your main concern seems to be why data from 1880 get affected by the addition of 2018 January data and a few late reports from the end of 2017. To illustrate that, assume that a station moves or gets a new instrument that is placed in a different location than the old one, so that the measured temperatures are now e.g. about half a degree higher than before. To make the temperature series for that station consistent, you will either have to lower all new readings by that amount or to increase the old readings once and for all by half a degree. The second option is preferred, because you can use future readings as they are, rather than having to remember to change them. However, it has the consequence that such a change impacts all the old data back to the beginning of the station record.
Hope that answers your concern.
Best regards,
Reto A. Ruedy
Head Research Department
SciSpace, LLC
NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies
2880 Broadway, Rm. 201A, New York, NY 10025
ph: 212-678-5541; email:[email protected]
If that explains why there’s a pattern of lowering old records and warming up the recent entries, I fail to understand how that works. Maybe you can cut through the mumbo-jumbo to discern why that is.
Granted, Dr. Ruedy wasn’t asked to explain why since 2005 there are nearly 100,000 changes made to the monthly LOTI publications and why they constitute an obvious pattern.
Another useful article debunking GHE and AGW from a Ph.D in chemical engineering, who has worked for the NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory.
Chemical engineering at an undergrad level is one of the toughest academic studies at university. To get a Ph.D in the field is something else. He certainly knows how heat and radiative heat transfer works.
I emphasize ‘works’, not the theory, but how it is applied.
http://www.webcommentary.com/php/ShowArticle.php?id=latourp&date=130708
“The GHGT does not follow the rate of radiant energy transfer law used commercially by chemical engineers: Q/s = ET4 – at4. Heat transfers in only one direction, not simultaneously in two….
E = emissivity of radiating surface. Varies with its temperature, roughness and if a metal, degree of oxidation. Large variations are possible in a single material, and,
a = absorp-tivity of atmosphere. Depends on factors affecting emissivity and in addition on the quality of the incident radiation, measured by its distribution in the spectrum. One may assign two subscripts to a, the first to indicate the temperature of the receiver and the second that of the incident radiation.]
GHGT invented the back-radiation mechanism unknown to physics, transferring heat from a cold body to a warmer one, warming it further. In Nov 2011 I proved if it did, it would be a perpetual motion machine…”
Gordo, It appears that you are up to your old tricks again. You’ve posted a link to another claim that AGW violates the 2nd Law, even though it doesn’t and after I’ve shown clearly that “back radiation” can warm a solid body. How convenient that your commentator references a 1950 source, which isn’t available on the net, so we can’t easily check what was actually written.
You just can’t understand that these guys (at slayingtheskydragon) are wrong.
Gordon is well aware that he is misquoting the 2nd law.
He just doesn’t care about the truth, is all. To him, it means more to satisfy his ideology than to correctly present the science.
For some reason, some people are like that.
DA…”Gordon is well aware that he is misquoting the 2nd law”.
I have corresponded with Ralf Tscheuschner of Gerlich and Tscheuschner, who works in the field of thermodynamics, and he agrees with my version. The author of the article I just posted agrees with it too and he is a chemical engineer (Ph.D) who works in a thermodynamics-related field.
Heck, even Clausius, who wrote the law, agrees with me. Heat can NEVER be transferred by its own means from a colder body to a warmer body.
What is it about that definition that bothers you? Is it possible you don’t understand the 2nd law?
Gordon Robertson wrote:
Heck, even Clausius, who wrote the law, agrees with me. Heat can NEVER be transferred by its own means from a colder body to a warmer body.
Stop lying, Gordon. Just stop it.
Please quote for us exactly the Clausius version of the second law.
Cite your source.
swannie…”Gordo, It appears that you are up to your old tricks again. Youve posted a link to another claim that AGW violates the 2nd Law, even though it doesnt and after Ive shown clearly that back radiation can warm a solid body”.
The author of the article has a Ph.D in chemical engineering and applies heat equations on a regular basis. He claims heat can only flow one way, hot to cold. I presume he means without compensation because he agrees that refrig.e.rators can be set up to allow a two way flow.
Why don’t you write to him and offer your theories?
Gordon wrote:
He claims heat can only flow one way, hot to cold.
He’s wrong, unless he has some special, adabatic situation in mind.
Does he, Gordon?
Gordo, I see you are still using the old “appeal to authority” game. You might want to look at Latour’s more recent work for a good laugh. He accepts Stefan-Boltzman as the operational model and includes “back radiation” transfer from cool to warm, writing:
The rest of his analysis completely misses the physics at work in the atmosphere, which is that he includes only radiative transfer, leaving out convection, which causes most of the transfer from the surface thru the lower atmosphere. He also misses the fact that layers in the atmosphere radiate in both upward and downward directions (on average), thus the energy flowing out of each layer is split 50/50 into those directions. When multiple layers are analyzed, the result is the lapse rate in temperature. There’s much more to it than simple radiant energy transfer.
Gordon Robertson
It is true, heat (quantity of energy that transfers from a hot object to a cold object) cannot transfer from a cold object to a hotter one.
Still no-one is making the claim that it does. Energy, IR, will transfer from cold to hot object. Heat flow is stated as a NET energy flow. It can be negative, positive or zero.
Once again for you Gordon (this is what barry demonstrated Clausius was saying in his own works that you lied about and I confronted you on lying intentionally).
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/thermo/seclaw.html
“It is important to note that when it is stated that energy will not spontaneously flow from a cold object to a hot object, that statement is referring to net transfer of energy. Energy can transfer from the cold object to the hot object either by transfer of energetic particles or electromagnetic radiation, but the net transfer will be from the hot object to the cold object in any spontaneous process. Work is required to transfer net energy to the hot object.”
E. Swanson shows you that the colder green plate DOES (in the real world not in your make believe fantasy science world) increase the temperature of the powered blue plate. The green plate transfers ENERGY to the Blue plate that it must get rid of by increasing in temperature. It is really easy to understand. It is also verified with real world experimentation.
Salvatore
You don’t want to answer my question, do you?
“On the other hand, why would a decline in solar cause only the surface to cool, but allow the ocean as a whole to continue warming?”
********
“Confirmation bias is a phenomenon wherein decision makers have been shown to actively seek out and assign more weight to evidence that confirms their hypothesis, and ignore or underweigh evidence that could disconfirm their hypothesis.”
If the surface oceanic waters continue to cool it will translate to the entire ocean over time. That is my answer.
That is only your hope, Salvatore, not anything based on science.
“…here is my prediction for climate going forward, this decade will be the decade of cooling.”
– Salvatore del Prete, 11/23/2010
http://ourchangingclimate.wordpress.com/2010/10/20/andrew-dessler-debating-richard-lindzen/#comment-8875
Gordon Robertson
Taking the advice from La Pangolina I did generate graphs and post them to an internet site hoping they will show up for you to look at.
I am still of the opinion that this information will have zero impact on you.
Maybe someone else can use it. I am hoping that CO2isLife will look at it, not sure they will.
YOU: “normanThanks for the advice. Is it worth the effort? The plots I made show that through 1 meter CO2 absorbs nearly 100% (transmits zero) at the 15 micron wavelength
Good grief, Norman, the two graphs floating around here show CO2 absorbing about 5% at 15 microns. Thats about 5% of nothing.”
I do not know what graphs you are talking about. Definitely you are totally wrong. Nothing unusual with that. Most everything you post is wrong. You don’t care, you won’t correct your flaws and bad thought process. No one has been able to reason with you yet, I do not expect to be able to.
The graphs were created at
http://www.spectralcalc.com/spectral_browser/db_intensity.php
I used the Gas-Cell simulator. I set the wavelength to 14-16 microns (it converts it to wavenumber for the graphs). For the VMR
Volume Mixing Ratio I used 0.03 for Water Vapor (3% of atmosphere).
I used 0.0004 for Carbon Dioxide graphs (0.04% of atmosphere).
The graphs reflect the concentration in the atmosphere.
I made graphs at 1 meter, 10 meter and 100 meter. I set the graph to show how much IR is absorbed through the path lengths at surface atmosphere pressure.
You are very wrong Gordon Robertson. Your posts are poor and mostly meaningless. You are a negative weight to valid skeptics.
Gordon Robertson
The graphs did not post. I will try tiny URL
https://tinyurl.com/yau92g3d
Gordon Robertson
I guess just one graph per post
https://tinyurl.com/y77m92r9
https://tinyurl.com/yblyss3n
https://tinyurl.com/yddkkjty
https://tinyurl.com/y77m92r9
last graph is not posting
test
Hurricane ALETTA
http://www.ssd.noaa.gov/PS/TROP/floaters/02E/flash-vis-long.html
SST Anomaly Time Series
https://www.tropicaltidbits.com/analysis/ocean/global.png
Too short of a time series to mean anything.
Try this:
https://climatedataguide.ucar.edu/sites/default/files/styles/node_teaser_image/public/teaser_images_587?itok=ahNPhYuF
Dave we do not care about what happened in the past it is the future that we are trying to forecast.
That forecast is for lower temperatures.
Salvatore, you’re always been trying to forecast the future. And you’ve always been wrong.
Why should anyone believe you this time? Why do you think you have any credibility left?
Maybe not to you but I take this recent trend as perhaps the start of new long term trend.
According to my studies no further global warming will take place the question is how much cooling. So far so good.
“Dont you realize that, the warming that has now ended, that took place last century was one of the weakess warming periods the earth has undergone ,lets take a time period ,of the last 20,000 years.”
– Salvatore del Prete, April 7, 2011
https://bbickmore.wordpress.com/2011/04/05/roy-spencers-non-response/
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/06/multiple-intense-abrupt-late-pleisitocene-warming-and-cooling-implications-for-understanding-the-cause-of-global-climate-change/
This says it all.
The warming last century is next to nothing in contrast.
How does the current rate of warming compare to back then?
Esalil, LP
The same math idea is relevant to either volume, area or extent. Here it is using sea ice volume:
If maxima is 1000 Km^3, and minima is 900 Km^3, thats a seasonal loss of 100 Km^3 = 10%
If maxima is only 800 Km^3, then a larger percentage loss during melt season, say 12%, equals a smaller actual loss (96 Km^3).
That is evident.
La Pangolina, Snape: You did not want to comprehend my message at all. I wanted to tell that there must have been diminishing amount of heat available in the arctic region during the melting season because the ABSOLUTE amount on the melting ice VOLUME has been decreasing. It was 22% less in the year 2017 compared to year 2003. You cannot calculate this from the ice extent if you do not know the ice thickness. Relative ice loss offered by Snape does not tell the the amount of the heat needed for the melting.
As I wrote above, esalil, I await thickness data I can compare with area (alias pack ice) data.
We will then see.
La Pangolina: you have not used the link I provided. There is only the daily ice volume presented.
Of course I did.
Nate says:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2018/06/uah-global-temperature-update-for-may-2018-0-18-deg-c/#comment-306437
“Apparently the subset of papers with the worst record of replication is high-profile climate contrarian papers:”
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00704-015-1597-5
A brief review of that paper reveals a few major flaws.
The subject papers were admittedly cherry picked.
There were no warmist papers evaluated as controls.
The methodology is insufficient to enable replication.
Essentially, the paper is guilty of the same mistakes it was attempting to expose in other papers.
Speaking of replication, are you aware that UAH is the outlier here, in disagreement with RSS, NO_AA, GI_SS, Had_CRUT, JMA, and BEST?
Appell, you behave exactly like Robertson: you deliberately ignore contradictions to what you pretend.
As I wrote in answer to such comments you published, the disagreement between UAH and JMA is negligible.
30-yr trends:
UAH_LT v6.0: +0.13 C/dec
JMA_ global surface: +0.15 C/dec
NO__AA global surface: +0.18 C/dec
RS_S LT v4: +0.21 C/dec
GI_S_S global surface: +0.19 C/dec
Had_CRUT v4.6 global surface: +0.18 C/dec
So, OK, J_M_A is the lowest of the others. That still doesn’t lend much support to UAH. Why do they differ so much from R_SS? UAH has always been a low outlier — recall the travails over their sign error in the late ’90s. It took year for them to admit their mistake. Somehow they always manage to come in on the low side.
Trends over the full span of the satellite data (1979+):
UAH 0.127
JMA 0.135
NOAA 0.166
GISS 0.173
RSS 0.193
David Appell says:
June 8, 2018 at 2:52 PM
June 8, 2018 at 6:56 PM
Why do you think you can here decide wether UAH or RSS is the outlier?
Why don’t you let the real specialists decide who of both is right?
What the hell are we in comparison with Spencer/Christy and Mears/Wentz?
DA…”Speaking of replication, are you aware that UAH is the outlier here, in disagreement with RSS, NO_AA, GI_SS, Had_CRUT, JMA, and BEST?”
You forgot to mention that UAH is the only time series offered with integrity. The rest are lying, scumbag alarmist cheaters.
Why do you say UAH is the only group with “integrity?”
Based on what?
Gordo, there are those of us who think that the UAH data misrepresents actual changes in temperature. For example, as I demonstrated in my 2003 GRL paper, the UAH data over the Antarctic may be contaminated by changes in sea-ice. RSS simply deletes data from 70S to the South Pole, since the high elevations over the Antarctic intrude into the MSU/AMSU TLT product. Spencer and Christy used to warn their “customers” about using their data from the Antarctic, but they have let that warning disappear from their later works. I conclude that RSS is likely to be closer to reality than UAH in the Southern Hemisphere. And that’s just one problem area…
swannie…”Gordo, there are those of us who think that the UAH data misrepresents actual changes in temperature”.
Yes….and you set up an experiment in which you concluded back-radiation from a cooler target could warm a much warmer source.
It does not surprise me then that you think UAH data is compromised.
Gordo, It’s not what I “think”, it’s what I conclude from my analysis of the data. You, however, appear unable to analyze my Green Plate demo, offering only polemic assertions based on your deviant interpretation of early theoretical work in thermodynamics.
Gordon Robertson says:
June 8, 2018 at 4:29 PM
You forgot to mention that UAH is the only time series offered with integrity. The rest are lying, scumbag alarmist cheaters.
There is only ONE liar here, Robertson: YOU.
You are, as I wrote often enough, an ignorant, incompetent boaster who is expert in nothing but in lying behind a faked pseudoreal name.
I hope one day people working at NOAA, GISS, Had-CRUT, JMA, RSS etc etc will drag you to court.
“I hope one day people working at NOAA, GISS, Had-CRUT, JMA, RSS etc etc will drag you to court.”
Yeah, because the courtroom is the proper venue for settling scientific questions. No need to have better arguments than the opposition if you can just shut them down by force.
Your fallacy is: ad baculum
binny…”I hope one day people working at NOAA, GISS, Had-CRUT, JMA, RSS etc etc will drag you to court”.
I would welcome the opportunity so I could expose them as the lying, cheaters they are. The US government is already investigating NOAA and GISS.
NOAA is refusing to cooperate by withholding data. Why???? They are allegedly a scientific organization financially supported by the US government. Why would they want to withhold honest scientific data?
Your fallacy is: ad populum
Above refers to:
David Appell says:
June 8, 2018 at 2:52 PM
Speaking of replication, are you aware that UAH is the outlier here, in disagreement with RSS, NO_AA, GI_SS, Had_CRUT, JMA, and BEST?
No longer possible to post on the “Greenhouse” thread, it seems:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2018/05/in-defense-of-the-term-greenouse-effect/#comment-306258
So I will have to respond to Norman’s obstinate ramblings over here instead. Sorry about that to everyone, because, yes, it’s a tedious exercise …
Norm’s last post:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2018/05/in-defense-of-the-term-greenouse-effect/#comment-306386
My response:
Norm,
Just stop it. For your own sake, stop it. You’re only embarrassing yourself digging your heels in like you do. There is no way you can argue your way to ‘victory’ on this issue. There are heat fluxes in a steady state. The ASR and the OLR are both heat fluxes. You are wrong. Period.
Stop it.
Again, all you need to know is that there are temperature differences within the Earth system and between the Earth and its surroundings (the Sun is hotter, space is colder).
If there are temperature differences, there are heat fluxes, Norm. That is a universal FACT. And you do not get to just simply deny this because it suits your particular world view. It is not a matter of opinion. It’s PHYSICS.
Steady state:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steady_state
Norm,
Here’s a nice little video for you that I found. You should watch it and gain at least some degree of basic-level understanding of the kind of thermodynamic state the Earth is in. As you can tell, your mind is riddled by pretty profound misconceptions about the nature of heat and heat flow. Your clearly expressed idea that there are apparently no heat flux coming into the Earth system in its steady state, no heat flux moving through the Earth system in its steady state, and no heat flux escaping the Earth system in its steady state, perfectly illustrates this point.
You need to stop being so stubborn and start learning a little.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NlSKAbefDTA
Kristian
I think you neglected to read my last post on the other thread. I did agree that you would have heat flows but I am not sure how useful each heat flow would be. If you wanted to layer the atmosphere you could have hundreds of heat flows from a warmer portion of the atmosphere to a colder layer above. You could call all these heat flows, not sure of how significant it would be.
Also, in heat transfer problems, they are not interested in each individual heat flow. They are interested in the net of all the heat flows to see how it will affect a surface you are wanting information about.
The only heat flow or flux that would be of value for the Earth system would be the NET or total. Then you could determine if the Earth is warming or cooling.
Case of point. You have that the Surface to Atmosphere heat flux is 53 W/m^2. Of what value is this information. It is not a measured value, it is derived from energy flows. You could not tell by measuring the surface if there was a net heat flow loss nor could you tell by measuring the atmosphere temperature. They are in a steady state and not changing (over the entire globe). What value is this 53 W/m^2? You can’t tell what the surface is doing, you can’t tell what the atmosphere is doing.
If you have the surface heat up and the DWIR increase at the same rate you would still get 53 W/m^2 which tells you NOTHING of value and you need to calculate it anyway from the measured energy flows.
So again I really don’t know what your point is or what you are trying to state. If you feel that showing graphs of heat flows are the way to go, do it but you better have hundreds of heat flows for the atmosphere to be accurate.
Far simpler just to model energy flows in and out and see what the balance is. What is the overall heat flux. The rest is just pointless.
norman…”Also, in heat transfer problems, they are not interested in each individual heat flow. They are interested in the net of all the heat flows to see how it will affect a surface you are wanting information about”.
There is no net heat flow with radiation, there is only a temperature difference. Heat does not flow through the air unless by convection therefore there is no net thermal energy to sum.
Also, there is only a one way EM flow from our planet to space, there is no EM flowing in the way from the frigid void of space, only EM from the Sun.
S-B===> q = ebA(T0^4 – T^4)
q should represent the electromagnetic energy density but it’s not heat. It does represent the heat loss at the surface but that heat loss takes place within the surface as atoms become less energetic after emitting EM.
I pointed out before that if you equate W/m^2 to EM it must be as potential thermal energy. There is no acting heat energy (thermally-related kinetic energy) in EM, only the potential to create thermal energy is an absorbing mass.
Gordon Robertson says:
Heat does not flow through the air unless by convection therefore there is no net thermal energy to sum.
So explain a sunburn.
DA…”So explain a sunburn”.
Why not go to university and learn? Actually, you could figure that out taking a minor course about electromagnetic energy, what is is, and how it interacts with molecules in substances like the human skin.
Instead, you go on and on asking the same dumb old questions.
EM carries energy, commonly referred to as “heat” for IR, or UV-B for the radiation that causes sunburns.
Heat is just energy. EM is just energy. One easily translates into the other.
Gordon Robertson
Because you repeat things over and over does not make them correct, it just makes you a crackpot.
YOU keep making this stupid claim that Kristian even corrects you upon and yet you are far too stupid to correct your errors.
I did have the concept of equilibrium mixed up with Steady State, I read up on it and corrected my error and learned. You are not intelligent enough to learn anything. I think you might be a human parrot. You just repeat nonsense every chance you get and want a cracker proud of your own stupid thoughts.
YOUR stupidity on display: “There is no net heat flow with radiation, there is only a temperature difference. Heat does not flow through the air unless by convection therefore there is no net thermal energy to sum.”
Gordon I found this engineering heat transfer webpage. I think you should read it and quit posting stupid comments.
https://www.engineersedge.com/heat_transfer/heat_transfer_table_content.htm
That is the general webpage
Specific to radiant heat transfer.
https://www.engineersedge.com/heat_transfer/thermal_radiation.htm
DA…”EM carries energy, commonly referred to as heat for IR, or UV-B for the radiation that causes sunburns”.
So let me get this straight electromagnetic ENERGY carries THERMAL energy as heat.
So here’s what we have to do…if you are right. We have to go back and change the concepts introduced by Bohr in 1913 and Schrodinger in 1925, which are both the basis of quantum theory. We have to redefine atomic theory to eliminate the electron, which many today think converts heat to EM and EM back to heat.
What do you think the chances are of that happening?
Ironically, you have already agreed that EM is an electric field perpendicular to a magnetic field which is defined primarily by its frequency and partly by its intensity as E = hf. Where do you see any reference to heat in that definition?
Where do you see the atoms required by heat to exist?
If you are right, then heat is transferred from a transmitting radio antenna to a receiving antenna by EM.
In the S-B equation, q = ebA(T0^4 – T^4), where do you see a reference to heat in the radiant energy density, q? All I see is T0 and T which represent the temperatures of the transmitting and receiving bodies, consisting of atoms/molecules.
Once that EM leaves the transmitting body and become far-field radiation, it has no heat associated with it. It has the potential to be converted back to heat but it lacks the kinetic energy ASSOCIATED with the motion of atoms.
norman…I was reading through the textbook you posted on Heat Tranfser and I see where you are getting the nonsense about heat being additive, especially in a two-way transfer.
The book states:
“Radiant heat exchange.
Suppose that a heated object (1 in Fig. 1.16) radiates to some other object (2). Then if both objects are thermally black, the net heat transferred from object1 to object2, Qnet, is the difference between Q1-2”.
That statement is nonsense and they do not back it up with an example of two way radiative transfer. Instead, they give this equation:
Qnet = A[e1(T) – e2(T)] = fi.A1 (T1^4 – T2^4)
Clearly, the 2nd part of this equation is the Stefan-Boltzmann equation, which makes it totally clear that energy is transferred in the direction of the temperature gradient. The first part is nonsense since the emissivity of body 1 minus the emissivity of body 2 clearly does not equal the Stefan-Boltzmann equation.
Then they talk about a ‘view factor’ which involves how much of the EM from body 1 is intercepted by body 2, but they do not talk about how much of body 2 is intercepted by body 1.
The example they give is equally ambiguous.
“A black thermocouple measures the temperature in a chamber with black walls. If the air around the thermocouple is at 20C, the walls are at 100C, and the heat transfer coefficient between the thermocouple and the air is 15 W/m2 K, what temperature will the thermocouple read”?
Solution.
The heat convected away from the thermocouple by the air must exactly balance that radiated to it by the hot walls if the system is steady. Furthermore, F1-2 is unity since the thermocouple is enclosed:
***some bogus math*** then this brilliant solution…
Trial-and-error solution of this equation yields Ttc = 51C.
*********
Nowhere do they address either a two way heat transfer or a two-way EM transfer. Instead, they make an inference about convection and that was not specified in the question.
This is bs science aimed at newbie students in thermodynamics and nowhere in this book do they give an example of what you are talking about.
A word to the wise. Read beginner’s text books with a good deal of skepticism. They tend to dumb subjects down and in doing so they can be seriously misleading.
I would suggest you forget about summing heats, especially in two way flows, and go with the Clausius definition of the 2nd law. Unless of course you are masochistic like swannie and you are trying to disprove the 2nd law throw bogus back-radiation fantasies.
Gordon is still lying about the 2nd law. I don’t think he’ll ever stop.
Gordo, If a theory, such as your peculiar interpretation of the Second Law, fails to explain experimental results, it’s most likely the fault of the theory. You have yet to provide a detailed critique of my Green Plate demos. You would rather spend your efforts looking for yet another authority to point to as proof of your denialist world view.
swannie…”Gordo, If a theory, such as your peculiar interpretation of the Second Law, fails to explain experimental results, its most likely the fault of the theory”.
Or the fault of the experimenter. That is, drawing false conclusions.
Gordon, show an experiment that proves your version of the 2nd law.
Gordon Robertson
Which textbook link are you referring to?
Read the following book:
https://tinyurl.com/HeatAndMassTransfer
First paragraph on page 27 of the book (page 48 of the pdf)
norman…”Which textbook link are you referring to?”
One you posted a while back called A Heat Transfer Textbook by Lienhard.
The link posted by Kristian is done by Lienhard. Although the video is relatively sound I think Lienhard himself tends toward bombast and smugness.
In all the examples he shows of the frying pan on the heater the handle is clearly visible. The last shot taken with an IR camera shows the handle partially hidden and if you capture the scene and clear it up a bit there does not appear to be a handle on it.
I think Lienhard may have fudged the photo to make a point. In the earlier examples he clearly shows a hot spot on the handle where it connects to the pan body.
For some reason, Lienhard is suggesting the handle EXCHANGES heat with the room air. I think he is all wet with his radiation theories, as is evident in his book.
bob/des…re the link to the book on heat transfer,
Thanks for link. However, their chapter on radiation is full of holes.
Early in the book they admit heat is transferred by electromagnetic energy. Later they claim:
“By the emission of thermal radiation, internal energy of the emitting body is converted into energy of the electromagnetic waves or, in the language of quantum theory, the energy of photons, which leave the surface of the radiating body. In this emission process the atoms or molecules of the body change from a state of higher energy to one of lower energy. However we do not need to go into these intramolecular processes for the formulation of the important phenomenological laws of heat transfer”.
I beg to differ, it’s extremely important to go into the atomic theory.
They admit that internal energy is converted to electromagnetic energy but like most people who are not up on heat transfer at the atomic level they obfuscate the meaning of the energies involved.
Internal energy is heat. Clausius defined internal energy as U and he stated that U is both heat and work. He explained the work part as the motions of the atoms bound in lattices and the heat as their kinetic energy.
The authors of the book need to make it clear that it is heat being converted to EM. They also need to get off the bad habit of referring to everything as molecules when in fact they are individual atoms bound by electrons. It is the electrons that carry the KE that is heat and they do the conversion from heat to EM.
The authors admit that the atom cools as the electrons convert heat to EM and that is because the electrons fall to a lower energy level.
These authors are all wet about radiative transfer, claiming heat can flow through space and be summed. They have already admitted it is EM flowing through space yet they insists, like Norman, that it is heat flowing.
That is nonsense. Modern thermodynamics is way off course and it’s time to return to the basics as defined by Clausius.
DA…”Gordon, show an experiment that proves your version of the 2nd law”.
I have, numerous times, I quoted Clausius directly, the scientist who wrote the law. He said heat can NEVER be transferred by its own means from a cooler body to a warmer body.
Norman says, June 8, 2018 at 1:20 PM:
How useful!!!??? In a THERMODYNAMIC steady-state energy budget breakdown!? Hmmmm, let me think … when no work is done on or by the system, they are ALL THAT MATTERS (!), Norm. THEY are the ones we specifically need to keep track of and account for! Everything else is irrelevant.
This is your most fundamental problem, the one that’s causing all your confusion, the one that prevents you from ever moving forward in your understanding of how the Earth system works. Somehow, somewhere, at some point, the weird, topsy-turvy idea that heat flows are just unnecessary mental constructs that don’t really exist and can thus never be perceived, sensed or detected, and so have no place in a thermodynamic analysis, creeped into your head. And it stuck. Now seemingly cemented into your brain. The worst part is, I suspect ‘The Ball4 Troll’ is at least partly responsible.
What you sorely need in this regard, Norm, is to undergo a strict regime of systematic reeducation; I would almost go as far as calling it ‘reprogramming’. The sooner, the better …
But you don’t want to layer the atmosphere, Norm. The troposphere is ONE system in such a steady-state analysis. Did you watch the video I linked to? You should. The troposphere is essentially the metal bar on the hot plate. There’s a temperature gradient THROUGH the bar, from hottest near the heating end at the bottom, to coolest near the cooling end at the top. Heat flows INTO the bar (the troposphere) from the plate (the surface), because the plate (the surface) is hotter than the bar (the troposphere). Then, heat flows THROUGH the bar (the troposphere), down the gradient, from hot (down low) to cool (up high). And finally, heat flows OUT OF the bar (the troposphere) to the surrounding room (space), because the bar (the troposphere) is warmer than the room (space). In the steady state, all of these heat flows balance – there is no change over time.
Oh, we most certainly are. Make no mistake. If we want to break the steady-state budget down into its constituent parts and see what actually makes and maintains the overall balance (or, in the case of the Earth system in the present state, slight ‘imbalance’), and how we might perturb it, we absolutely need to know (and track over time) the individual magnitude of the different heat fluxes at play.
Norm, changes in the transfers of energy to/from a thermodynamic system in the form of HEAT [Q] and WORK [W] are the only transfers of energy capable of affecting the content of internal energy [U], and thus the temperature [T], of that system.
MACROSCOPIC transfers of energy, Norm. THERMODYNAMIC transfers of energy. Heat and work. All there is. If there’s a temperature difference, energy is spontaneously transferred as HEAT. A THERMAL transfer of energy. A heat flux. Heat naturally flows from hot to cold. Only. Invariably.
Yes, that too. But not JUST that. The overall balance doesn’t tell us ANYTHING about causes. About WHY and HOW there’s a balance, or imbalance, in the first place. About why an observed overall imbalance happens to be positive or negative, or why it’s getting bigger or smaller as time passes …
True. But a NET heat flux is not a real heat flux. Not something you can measure directly. It is but a mathematical construct. Q_in minus Q_out. So in order to understand the net – the (im)balance – between the real heat fluxes, the incoming and the outgoing, you will necessarily have to monitor those contributing real heat fluxes. In the case of the Earth system, that would be (at the top of the atmosphere, ToA) the Net SW/ASR_toa [Q_in(sw)] and the Net LW/OLR_toa [Q_out(lw)]. Down at the surface, it would be the Net SW/ASR_s [Q_in(sw)] and the Net LW/OLR_s [Q_out(lw)], the conductive/sensible heat flux [Q_out(cond)], and the evaporative/latent heat flux [Q_out(evap)]:
ToA
Q_in = Q_out
Q_in(sw) = Q_out(lw)
240 W/m^2 = 240 W/m^2
Surface
Q_in = Q_out
Q_in(sw) = Q_out(lw) + Q_out(cond) + Q_out(evap)
165 W/m^2 = 53 W/m^2 + 24 W/m^2 + 88 W/m^2 = 165 W/m^2
No. The ‘surface-to-atmosphere’ heat flux is only ~33 W/m^2. The other ~20 W/m^2 go straight out through the atmospheric window to space; basically, the heat flux between the surface and space.
That fully depends on what you want to investigate, Norm. It is highly important if what you want to find out is whether or not the postulated “greenhouse warming mechanism” at the surface is strengthening over time or not. If that 53 W/m^2 value is reduced, then the mechanism can be said to have strengthened.
It’s a global estimate, so you’re right, it’s not a “measured value”. Just like the global average surface temperature of the Earth isn’t a “measured value”. Just like the average input from the Sun to Earth isn’t a “measured value”. Or the average output from the Earth to space.
That’s not to say that these estimates aren’t BASED ON actual measured values …
Huh? “Measuring the surface”? What does that even mean? HOW are you measuring the surface? What property? Its composition? Its texture? Its firmness? Its colour?
Over time they are changing. You know, ‘climate change’. So you track these variables OVER TIME, Norm. That’s how you find out about what the surface and the atmosphere are “doing”.
By “surface heat up” I’m guessing you mean UWIR. Otherwise, this sentence makes no nense.
Exactly! If you increase the “back radiation” (DWLWIR) term, but increase the “forward radiation” (UWLWIR) term by the same amount, it means the Net LW hasn’t changed.
But the Net LW not changing over time DOES INDEED tell you something of value, IF you observe a rise in the surface TEMPERATURE at the same time.
This IS how the postulated “greenhouse warming mechanism” is supposed to work, after all:
http://www.climatetheory.net/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/greenhouse-effect-held-soden-2000.png
No. As always you’ve got this exactly backwards. The NET is what is detected. The heat flux. The UWLWIR and the DWLWIR have to be computed; THEY are the calculated quantities:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pyrgeometer#Measurement_of_long_wave_downward_radiation
You’ve been given this information so many times now, Norm, not just from me, but also from the likes of Tim Folkerts, who has tried – in vain – to explain these things to you. But you simply seem unable (or utterly unwilling) to take it in. Most likely because it directly conflicts with your warped view of the world.
I mean, how ridiculous is this? When you turn your face to the Sun, when you sit by a bonfire, when you hold your hand above a candle, when you put something hot into your mouth, when you open the door to your freezer, when you take a cold shower, what is that thing that you feel!?
Those are HEAT TRANSFERS, Norm. Heat fluxes. To or from yourself. That is why and how you can tell that something is hot or cold. Your sensory apparatus detects the heat moving to/from your body from/to something (an object or a region) that is hotter/colder than you. It’s real, Norm. Heat fluxes are real! Believe the hype!
No, that’s because your mind is completely locked down. Which means you INSIST on not getting even the simplest of concepts, if they do not somehow fit into your tight little bubble, to square with your narrow belief system.
I simply gave you up, Norm. And I see no signs of improvement …
Er, no. One will do just fine. That is, ONE coming in, ONE moving through, and ONE moving out.
Obviously not. Because such an approach is exactly what has you stuck in what seems like perpetual confusion.
And we’re back to what started this whole affair – phi’s original point on the other thread:
“Conclusion: The diagrams representing backradiations without distinguishing them from heat fluxes are consistent with the theory of the greenhouse effect. Their inconsistency with thermodynamics signals the inconsistency of the greenhouse theory.”
On which I followed up:
“”Back radiation” is not distinguished from real heat fluxes in these diagrams. This is at best confused, at worst willfully deceptive.”
The UWLWIR and the DWLWIR are pointless quantities, yes. Because they’re just conceptual parts of an actual heat flux, the surface Net LW. All we need are the HEAT FLUXES. This is a THERMAL problem.
Kristian
If you think writing a novel makes your points correct I don’t agree.
The flow you can’t measure at all is the HEAT FLUX of 33 W/m^2 that is moving IR from the surface to the atmosphere. There is no instrument you could measure this with. You can’t calculate a heat transfer since no temperatures are changing.
The only real values you can measure are the DWIR and the UPIR and you subtract the two to get a HEAT FLUX.
The UWLWIR and DWLWIR ar not conceptual parts of an actual heat flux. The heat flux is derived from these quantities and basically is just an added number that tells one nothing.
You can get the same using the measured values of 390 UP and 340 Down and they tell you a lot. The 390 Up tells you what the Earth’s surface temperature is. The 33 W/m^2 heat flux gives you no information except that the surface emits more IR than the atmosphere.
Since you are obstinate, won’t link to actual science, act like I don’t know a thing I will link you to actual science pages.
You will no doubt ignore them.
Here:
http://web.mit.edu/lienhard/www/ahttv211.pdf
Page 538 equation 10.10
http://web.mit.edu/16.unified/www/FALL/thermodynamics/notes/node136.html
Equation 19.3 notice qnet! Radiant HEAT transfer is the NET energy between what is emitted by an surface minus what is absorbed.
If you cannot provide a shred of proof I am wrong it is best you do quit talking to me. You remind me of an intelligent version of Gordon Robertson. I will stick to the real science. Not your version. Ball4 is correct and you are not. Nothing at all supports your claims. Every source clearly states two energy flows to a surface (even with multiple objects) the energy the surface emits (which is based only upon itself) and the energy it absorbs from its surroundings. That is it. That is what all science books state.
Kristian
It is very simple. The Earth’s surface will radiate IR based upon its temperature (the other values are mostly constant so they will not change). It will radiate this energy away, it will reach a steady state condition based upon what energy it is receiving from the surrounding and what it is losing. It does not lose all its energy by radiation so the other energy losses have to be taken in.
The Surface will radiate at the rate set by it temperature regardless of the surroundings. Only if the surroundings alter the temperature will the IR rate change. The IR emission from the surface is an independent variable. It does not change based upon how much energy the atmosphere is sending back.
If you add GHG to an atmosphere, the temperature of the atmosphere will cause the GHG to emit IR in all directions. Some of this IR will reach the surface and add to the surface internal energy. If the surface has a constant power source, the Sun, the surface temperature will rise until a new steady state temperature is reached.
Look again at E. Swanson’s excellent experiment with Blue and Green plates. It clearly shows that the addition of the green plate’s IR to the blue plate (more than the surrounding) the temperature of the blue plate increases to match this increase in IR it is absorbing.
If E Swanson wanted to mimic the GHE he would have the green plate made of a material that is transparent to IR so that moving it in place would have no effect on the temperature of the blue plate. He could then paint some areas with IR absorbing paint and now have some IR emitted back to the blue plate, its temperature will start to go up. He could add more painted regions and mimic what happens when you add more GHG, the holes in the plate are filled.
The K rants again, giving another blast of pure BS with little connection to reality. The K essentially ignores vertical convection in his metal bar example and seems to think that the top of the troposphere, aka, the Tropopause, is the last stop for energy leaving the Earth, thus ignoring the effect of the Stratosphere. Of course, he also spouts the usual denial about AGW violating the 2nd Law, without any analysis. Spam, Spam and more Spam, I sez.
Norman,
“The IR emission from the surface is an independent variable.”
This must be a misstatement on your part. Emission from any body is DEPENDENT on its temperature. Naturally if it is absorbing more energy than it is losing, it will warm. If it is losing more than it is receiving, it will cool.
If you believe that your statement is true, it explains the logic of the rest of your argument, which is invalid.
“It does not change based upon how much energy the atmosphere is sending back.”
If by “it” you mean surface temperature, of course it changes. The surface cools much faster on a clear night than a cloudy one.
“If you add GHG to an atmosphere, the temperature of the atmosphere will cause the GHG to emit IR in all directions. Some of this IR will reach the surface and add to the surface internal energy.”
The former sentence implies that more IR-active gases made the atmosphere warmer. This is an unverified assumption with present day CO2 concentrations. The latter sentence is false unless the atmosphere at a given point in time was warmer than the surface, which happens sometimes. Usually the surface is warmer and loses energy to the atmosphere, not gains energy.
“If the surface has a constant power source, the Sun, the surface temperature will rise until a new steady state temperature is reached.”
But the surface doesn’t have a constant power source and the surface temperature is only an average of extremes. So as Kristian is painstaking trying to explain, the perturbation of the “quasi-steady state” has to be estimated based on average measurements of heat fluxes.
Swanson’s experiments illustrate wonderfully the theory of the paradigm you are stuck in. But there is no real life evidence that increasing CO2 will modify the atmosphere analogous to how modifying the green plate will make the blue plate warmer.
E. Swanson says, June 9, 2018 at 8:07 AM:
Says the man who incessantly pushes his pseudoscience on this very blog. The guy who’s unable to conduct a simple experiment without letting his preconceived ideas about the world leak into and dictate his conclusions already in advance, rendering his actual empirical findings completely useless. The bloke who cannot distinguish between his own purely theoretical musings about certain quantum realm phenomena and the real-world observations of macroscopic (thermodynamic) effects he is in fact making.
Spam, indeed!
Chic Bowdrie
I am not sure what your point was to pull a fragment of a thought out an then make a nonsense claim that I made a misstatement.
YOU took out a fragment: “The IR emission from the surface is an independent variable.”
From the complete thought: “The Surface will radiate at the rate set by it temperature regardless of the surroundings. Only if the surroundings alter the temperature will the IR rate change. The IR emission from the surface is an independent variable. It does not change based upon how much energy the atmosphere is sending back.”
YOU: “If by “it” you mean surface temperature, of course it changes. The surface cools much faster on a clear night than a cloudy one.”
No I mean the rate of emission from the surface. It does not change based upon the amount of energy it receives. It changes only when the temperature changes. I am making a simple point, don’t add things I am not saying or try to understand the point before you attempt an analysis. The rate of emission will decrease when the surface cools, it will not change based upon the DWIR, it is dependent upon the surface temperature only. The DWIR may or may not increase the surface temperature, the rate will not change until the temperature does and that can be slow or fast depending upon the material of the surface. With a high heat capacity of water it will change emission rate slowly as it warms or cools.
swannie…”The K rants again, giving another blast of pure BS with little connection to reality”.
I thought Kristian was spot-on with his insistence that the only thermodynamic quantities that matter are heat and work. Norman is confusing heat with EM, which is a true flux (lines/unit area).
Heat cannot flow as a flux, it has to be transferred through space as a mass via convection. EM can be converted back to heat IN A COOLER BODY but it does not represent heat flowing as a flux.
As Kristian has pointed out, radiation flows from a hotter surface to a cooler space at a temperature of nearly 3K. What he talks about obeys the 2nd law and what you guys talk about does not.
Norman says, June 9, 2018 at 7:44 AM:
Yes there is. It is called a THERMAL RADIOMETRIC DETECTOR. A pyrgeometer uses a thermal radiometric detector (a thermopile). Bolometers and microbolometers are also thermal detectors.
You don’t have to calculate the heat transfer. You can MEASURE it.
Why are you just constantly repeating this mantra, even after you’ve been shown a hundred times that it’s incorrect!? It is false. Not the case. The OPPOSITE of what you claim is correct, Norm! Didn’t you read my link?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pyrgeometer#Measurement_of_long_wave_downward_radiation
“The atmosphere and the pyrgeometer (in effect its sensor surface) EXCHANGE long wave IR radiation. This results in a NET RADIATION BALANCE balance according to:
E_net = E_in – E_out
Where:
E_net – net radiation at sensor surface [W/m^2]
E_in – Long-wave radiation received from the atmosphere [W/m^2]
E_out – Long-wave radiation emitted by the sensor surface [W/m^2]
[Which is to say that this is equal to: Net LW (Q_lw) = DWLWIR – UWLWIR, for the global surface -53 W/m^2 = 345 W/m^2 – 398 W/m^2.]
The pyrgeometer’s thermopile DETECTS THE NET RADIATION BALANCE between the incoming and outgoing long wave radiation flux and converts it to a voltage according to the equation below.
E_net = U_emf / S
Where:
E_net – net radiation at sensor surface [W/m^2]
U_emf – thermopile output voltage [V]
S – sensitivity/calibration factor of instrument [V/W/m^2]
The value for S is determined during calibration of the instrument. The calibration is performed at the production factory with a reference instrument traceable to a regional calibration center.
To DERIVE the absolute downward long wave flux, the TEMPERATURE OF THE PYRGEOMETER has to be taken into account. It is measured using a temperature sensor inside the instrument, near the cold junctions of the thermopile. The pyrgeometer is considered to approximate a black body. Due to this it emits long wave radiation according to:
E_out = σT^4
Where:
E_out – Long-wave radiation emitted by the earth surface [W/m^2]
σ – Stefan-Boltzmann constant [W/(m^2*K^4)]
T – Absolute temperature of pyrgeometer detector [kelvins]
From the calculations above the incoming long wave radiation can be derived. This is usually done by rearranging the equations above to yield the so-called pyrgeometer equation by Albrecht and Cox.
E_in = (U_emf / S) + σT^4
Where all the variables have the same meaning as before.
As a result, the detected voltage and instrument temperature yield the total global long wave downward radiation.”
From one of the main pyrgeometer manufacturers, Kipp & Zonen:
http://www.kippzonen.com/Download/36/CGR-Pyrgeometers-Brochure?ShowInfo=true (p.2)
“A pyrgeometer provides a voltage that is proportional to the RADIATION EXCHANGE [Net LW (Q_lw)] between the instrument and the sky (or ground) in its field of view. The DETECTOR SIGNAL OUTPUT can be positive or negative.
For example, if the sky is colder than the pyrgeometer, the instrument radiates energy to the sky and the OUTPUT is NEGATIVE.
In order to CALCULATE the incoming or outgoing FIR it is necessary to know the temperature of the instrument housing close to the detector and the data must be recorded simultaneously with the detector signal.”
You are wrong, Norman. But you are just too stubborn and stupid to admit it.
The UWLWIR and DWLWIR ar not conceptual parts of an actual heat flux.
Yes, they are.
Norman…”From the complete thought: The Surface will radiate at the rate set by it temperature regardless of the surroundings”.
That’s not what Stefan-Boltzmann claimed, they required a temperature gradient.
If the air temperature immediately above the surface was greater than the surface temperature, do you think the surface would continue to radiate to the air, or would it absorb heat from the air and warm?
Sorry, botched it. Again:
Norman says, June 9, 2018 at 7:44 AM:
Yes there is. It is called a THERMAL RADIOMETRIC DETECTOR. A pyrgeometer uses a thermal radiometric detector (a thermopile). Bolometers and microbolometers are also thermal detectors.
You don’t have to calculate the heat transfer. You can MEASURE it.
Why are you just constantly repeating this mantra, even after you’ve been shown a hundred times that it’s incorrect!? It is false. Not the case. The OPPOSITE of what you claim is correct, Norm! Didn’t you read my link?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pyrgeometer#Measurement_of_long_wave_downward_radiation
“The atmosphere and the pyrgeometer (in effect its sensor surface) EXCHANGE long wave IR radiation. This results in a NET RADIATION BALANCE according to:
E_net = E_in – E_out
Where:
E_net – net radiation at sensor surface [W/m^2]
E_in – Long-wave radiation received from the atmosphere [W/m^2]
E_out – Long-wave radiation emitted by the sensor surface [W/m^2]
[Which is to say that this is equal to: Net LW (Q_lw) = DWLWIR – UWLWIR, for the global surface -53 W/m^2 = 345 W/m^2 – 398 W/m^2.]
The pyrgeometer’s thermopile DETECTS THE NET RADIATION BALANCE between the incoming and outgoing long wave radiation flux and converts it to a voltage according to the equation below.
E_net = U_emf / S
Where:
E_net – net radiation at sensor surface [W/m^2]
U_emf – thermopile output voltage [V]
S – sensitivity/calibration factor of instrument [V/W/m^2]
The value for S is determined during calibration of the instrument. The calibration is performed at the production factory with a reference instrument traceable to a regional calibration center.
To DERIVE the absolute downward long wave flux, the TEMPERATURE OF THE PYRGEOMETER has to be taken into account. It is measured using a temperature sensor inside the instrument, near the cold junctions of the thermopile. The pyrgeometer is considered to approximate a black body. Due to this it emits long wave radiation according to:
E_out = σT^4
Where:
E_out – Long-wave radiation emitted by the earth surface [W/m^2]
σ – Stefan-Boltzmann constant [W/(m^2*K^4)]
T – Absolute temperature of pyrgeometer detector [kelvins]
From the calculations above the incoming long wave radiation can be derived. This is usually done by rearranging the equations above to yield the so-called pyrgeometer equation by Albrecht and Cox.
E_in = (U_emf / S) + σT^4
Where all the variables have the same meaning as before.
As a result, the detected voltage and instrument temperature yield the total global long wave downward radiation.”
From one of the main pyrgeometer manufacturers, Kipp & Zonen:
http://www.kippzonen.com/Download/36/CGR-Pyrgeometers-Brochure?ShowInfo=true (p.2)
“A pyrgeometer provides a voltage that is proportional to the RADIATION EXCHANGE [Net LW (Q_lw)] between the instrument and the sky (or ground) in its field of view. The DETECTOR SIGNAL OUTPUT can be positive or negative.
For example, if the sky is colder than the pyrgeometer, the instrument radiates energy to the sky and the OUTPUT is NEGATIVE.
In order to CALCULATE the incoming or outgoing FIR it is necessary to know the temperature of the instrument housing close to the detector and the data must be recorded simultaneously with the detector signal.”
You are wrong, Norman. But you are just too stubborn and stupid to admit it.
Yes, they are.
No, the opposite is true.
You remind me now of why I stopped interacting with you the first time. This is a hopeless endeavour. It’s like banging one’s head into a brick wall. It will only ever feel good once you stop …
Hahahaha! I mean … I simply don’t know what to say. I laughed out loud, but I might as well have cried.
No, Norm. The Earth’s surface temperature dictates its radiant exitance. Once again you’ve got reality turned on its head. You CALCULATE the surface BB emission flux from its temperature, not the other way around. YOU DO NOT MEASURE THE 390 W/m^2. YOU CALCULATE IT!
Which is the main point, after all. The radiative heat flows from the warmer surface to the cooler atmosphere. Like the Kipp & Zonen introductory brochure on pyrgeometers stated above: “(…) if the sky is colder than the pyrgeometer, the instrument radiates energy to the sky and the output is negative.”
I’m not obstinate. I’m just tired of your seemingly boundless ignorance. No more.
That really is priceless. I do, Norm. All the time. However, you keep ignoring it. Every single time. You did it again just above. I can’t force you to read, force you to understand. I can only lead the horse to the water …
You DON’T know a thing, Norm!! Not about this topic. Yet you THINK you do. Oh, yes. You think you know it all. From having quickly skimmed through a couple of passages here and there after googling some term of choice. It’s precisely WHY you come off as such a pretender.
Yes, Norm. This has never been contested. A heat flux is the net energy moving between two regions at different temps. Whether conductive, convective or radiative.
Back to the dime analogy. You know, the one you didn’t get.
MICRO (quantum) => statistical mechanics => MACRO (thermo)
MICRO: each individual photon
MACRO: the full exchange
You’re not wrong, Norm. Just utterly misguided and confused. You have absolutely no contextual understanding of what you’re reading. You are unable to distinguish between quantum and thermo phenomena, between simplifying model descriptions of reality and reality itself. You appear incapable of entertaining more than one idea about the world simultaneously, especially if another idea comes along that, on the face of it, seems incompatible with your first one. I’m of course referring to the whole MICRO vs. MACRO situation. And, very much related to this, you most certainly don’t understand the first thing about statistical mechanics and how that pertains to the specific issue under discussion.
But don’t worry. I am hereby done talking to you. I honestly don’t know why I started addressing you again to begin with. That irrepressible masochistic streak, I guess …
Norman,
“No I mean the rate of emission from the surface. It does not change based upon the amount of energy it receives. It changes only when the temperature changes.”
Now you are saying the rate of emission is dependent on the temperature. Before you said independent. It seems you have corrected yourself. If so, I am in agreement with your clarifying response.
Do you agree that your assertion about additional IR-active gases warming the atmosphere is hypothesis and not fact?
I realize the thread is about your disagreement with Kristian on heat fluxes. But if you want to have constructive discussions with me, you should avoid asserting facts not in evidence. In any case, I am following your argument with Kristian intently.
Gordo wrote some silly half truths
Gordo and the K confuse work (joules) and power (watts). Temperature is a measure of internal energy, relative to absolute zero, aka, heat capacity per unit mass. Heat transfer is a power function, as in IR EM measured in watts/m^2 or energy released by burning fossil fuel in a furnace measured in BTU/hour. I suppose that means they didn’t do well in physics class either.
Chic Bowdrie
YOU: “Now you are saying the rate of emission is dependent on the temperature. Before you said independent. It seems you have corrected yourself. If so, I am in agreement with your clarifying response.”
You have misread what I wrote. I did not change anything. I have not corrected myself.
I will try to be more clear. I stated that the emission rate is dependent upon temperature earlier. Read the post again if you have to. It is independent of the energy the surface absorbs. Do you understand that point? It is in the original post. I never stated that the surface emission rate was independent of the surface temperature. You read my post wrong and concluded this.
MY original post you chose to incorrectly respond to.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2018/06/uah-global-temperature-update-for-may-2018-0-18-deg-c/#comment-306579
Kristian
Another novel. Do you do this to make it almost impossible to respond to your endless post?
I can take parts of it.
YOU: “No, Norm. The Earths surface temperature dictates its radiant exitance. Once again youve got reality turned on its head. You CALCULATE the surface BB emission flux from its temperature, not the other way around. YOU DO NOT MEASURE THE 390 W/m^2. YOU CALCULATE IT!”
NO you actually measure it, you take a sensor, face the Earth, measure the IR it emits and you can calculate the temperature.
Are you unable to understand that with an equation you can determine any variable within the equation if you have known values? If you know the radiant energy emitted and the emissivity you can calculate the temperature from that value. You can do it both ways. If you don’t have a measure of the temperature but a measure of the radiant energy it emits, you can determine the temperature.
Norman,
I’m moving my response to the question on the independence of IR emission to a new thread leaving this one for any further responses from Kristian. Don’t hold your breath.
Letter to CSIRO in Australia
All climate change is natural and follows several natural cycles. The mechanism regulating such cycles is primarily to do with variations in cloud cover which in turn are affected by variations in cosmic ray intensity. As solar activity increases the heliosphere expands and this reduces the influx of cosmic rays entering the inner Solar System. Magnetic fields from the planets also affect cosmic ray intensity reaching Earth because they can alter the paths of such rays.
I will soon be framing a Freedom of Information question seeking internal documentation relating to any attempts to pay due diligence in checking what was totally false physics originating in the early 1980’s from a small group of overseas climatologists. It all hinges on the false claim that Earth’s mean surface temperature can be explained by adding to the solar flux of about 168W/m^2 a further flux of about 324W/m^2 from the colder atmosphere, that flux including some radiation from carbon dioxide. But radiation from different sources cannot be added like that to determine resulting temperatures.
The required input of thermal energy needed to warm the surfaces of planets like Earth and Venus on their sunlit sides is primarily supplied by non-radiative processes that have nothing to do with carbon dioxide concentrations. Your physicists cannot prove otherwise and they certainly cannot produce any established physics supporting the compounding of radiation, let alone any empirical evidence.
Nor has anyone at the CSIRO produced empirical evidence of either of the “greenhouse” gases water vapour or carbon dioxide actually warming the Earth. In fact empirical evidence clearly shows that water vapour cools it. My 2013 paper “Planetary Core and Surface Temperatures” and my other two papers support what I am saying and, for the first time in world literature, present the correct physics which does explain the necessary heat transfers and resulting temperatures on Earth, Venus and even at the base of the 350Km high nominal troposphere of the planet Uranus where it is hotter than Earth’s surface despite being many times further from the Sun.
Please forward this email to those involved and refer them again to my papers at https://ssrn.com/author=2627605.
Hello Do-ug Cot-ton!
How are you?
Well well well!
Old sox is back for another round.
I thought he had retired due to brain injury.
This is Do.ug Cot.ton?? In that case, there is someone impersonating Do.ug Cot.ton on YouTube. Because I was in conversation with someone on YouTube by the name of Do.ug Cot.ton who was defending the Guy McPherson BS.
OMG, the Cot_ton Crackpot is back. What is it about this site that attracts so many of them?
and now you can’t use the word “Cot ton” (no space) on this site.
“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.”
– Roy Spencer
*******
According to the author above, energy transferred from a colder body to a warmer body is only a “contributory transfer” and is therefore NOT HEAT.
According to the author, energy transferred from a warmer body to a colder body is only a “contributory transfer” and is therefore NOT HEAT
The NET transfer of energy, i.e. the difference between those two contributions, is what the author, and Clausius, are referring to as heat.
And mathematically, the net transfer must always move from the larger emitter (the warm body) to the lesser emitter (the cold body). Which means “heat can never pass from a colder to a warmer body…..”
Actually this is a statistical concept. And as is the case with all statistical ideas like this, it is theoretically possible for heat to travel from a cold body to a warm body momentarily. But the chance of this happening is one in a zillion.
bob/des…”Actually this is a statistical concept. And as is the case with all statistical ideas like this, it is theoretically possible for heat to travel from a cold body to a warm body momentarily. But the chance of this happening is one in a zillion”.
I agree with you on the statistical part but it also depends on what you mean by hot and cold. Can you define an individual atom statistically as being hot or cold? I suggest that in examples using electrons but I know it is grossly simplified.
At temperatures near thermal equilibrium there is more reason to presume what you are saying. The question arises as to how far you can move from thermal equilibrium before it is insignificant.
Planck admitted in his book on heat that no way exists to visualize statistical mechanics. I think it’s the same with quantum theory. You are at the mercy of mathematicians and their particular logic and conclusions.
I am not defining a single atom as hot or cold. I am simply stating that, on an individual photon basis, energy can be transferred from a cold body to a hot one.
Gordon Robertson says:
Planck admitted in his book on heat that no way exists to visualize statistical mechanics.
I doubt that. Quote him on this.
I think its the same with quantum theory. You are at the mercy of mathematicians and their particular logic and conclusions.
Ye, that’s true.
So what?
snape…”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….”
The statement of Clausius is clear, heat can NEVER pass from a colder to a warmer body…
Nowhere in his statement is there a reference to heat as a concept or to a net transfer of energy.
If you took the time to read the reasoning of Clausius leading up to his statement of the law, you’d understand why.
He based it on heat engine theory wherein temperature, volume, and pressure change throughout a process. If you try to reverse the process it cannot work. Therefore, the process wherein heat tries to transfer from cold to hot won’t work.
It’s the same with radiation.
Gordon Robertson says:
The statement of Clausius is clear, heat can NEVER pass from a colder to a warmer body
See Gordon lie. Again.
Clausius: “Heat can never pass from a colder to a warmer body without some other change, connected therewith, occurring at the same time.”
Gordon ignored everything after the word “body,” and is afraid to even discuss it. It can’t exist according to his ideology.
Figure 4. Magnitudes of the largest warming/cooling events over the past 25,000 years. Temperatures on the vertical axis are rise or fall of temperatures in about a century. Event number 1 is about 24,000years ago and event number 15 is about 11,000 years old. At least three warming events were 20 to 24 times the magnitude of warming over the past century and four were 6 to 9 times the magnitude of warming over the past century. The magnitude of the only modern warming which might possibly have been caused by CO2. (1978-1998) is insignificant compared to the earlier periods of warming. (Plotted from data in Cuffy and Clow, 1997 and Alley, 2000)
Implications of multiple You
DAVID, this says how the modern warm period compared to past warmings. This is from the post I sent yesterday on this subject.
Non-glacial periods please. As we are right now.
Salvatore, what is your point?
That there is more than one factor that can change climate?
Scientists discovered this long long ago.
Notice our current rate of warming is at least 30 times faster than when the Earth left its last deep frozen period.
Kristian
The earth’s surface OUTPUT in w/m^2
emits IR ~ 398.2
Evaporation: 86.4 conduction/convection: 18.4
Total: 503
If the total INPUT is less than that, the surface will cool. If the total input is greater, the surface will warm. Simple!
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/bb/The-NASA-Earth%27s-Energy-Budget-Poster-Radiant-Energy-System-satellite-infrared-radiation-fluxes.jpg/828px-The-NASA-Earth%27s-Energy-Budget-Poster-Radiant-Energy-System-satellite-infrared-radiation-fluxes.jpg
Snape says, June 9, 2018 at 1:54 PM:
Nope. You have two heat fluxes there and one temperature-calculated radiance (radiant exitance, really).
The surface budget in W/m^2 looks like this:
Heat IN = Heat OUT
Q_in(sw) = Q_out(lw) + Q_out(cond) + Q_out(evap)
165 W/m^2 = 53 W/m^2 + 24 W/m^2 + 88 W/m^2 = 165 W/m^2
You’re conflating heat and thermal radiation (IR photons).
Kristian
And it is just as valid to describe the process as energy in and energy out. Heat is energy anyway. Heat is in joules and heat flux is in watts/m^2.
You can describe all with energy as the global budget graphs do. They are in no way incorrect and are based upon measured values. The heat fluxes can only be determined by finding the Net of energy flows (as described in all heat transfer textbooks). For radiant energy you need to take the Net energy of the LWIR to find the heat flux.
You can’t measure the heat flux from surface to atmosphere. If you take a calibrated instrument and point it at the surface it will not give you a 33 W/m^2 value. It does not exist. What actually exists are energy flows. 390 W/m^2 emitted by the surface. 340 W/m^2 emitted by the atmosphere to the surface and most being absorbed by the surface. So you can get a NET energy flow (heat flow) by taking the amount emitted minus the amount received 340 watts/m^2 and get a heat flux from the surface of 50 W/m^2. This is a value you can’t measure, it does not exist as an actual flow of energy.
The textbook posted by Boddesbond
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Vl02ky5h40xDygiCIvDHFrj5c9hYvcNN/view
Page 27 of this textbook says exactly what I am saying. All sources to date say exactly what I am saying. Not one states what you state, and yet I am wrong? Hmmm? The thing about me and you is I actually look at the links and read the material. I want to learn and correct my thought process. Refine it. You do not look or post to any valid science source. You still have not and I doubt you ever will. Like I stated you are just an intelligent Gordon Robertson. You can play like you know things and it is harder to find your errors. But at the end of the day, you make up your own ideas and peddle them just like Gordon. Your ideas are just more complex.
Norman…” Heat is in joules and heat flux is in watts/m^2″.
Why not call heat flux what it is, electromagnetic energy?
The W/m^2 used in Stefan-Boltzmann tends to be confusing. They seem to be talking about heat loss rather than radiation density.
In the days of Clausius, Stefan, Boltzmann, and Planck they thought of heat as somehow flowing through space via an aether. Planck actually called them heat rays and that has stuck to this day where EM is referred to as thermal radiation.
Thermal radiation is fine as long as it’s made clear the radiation came from a heat source and is not heat itself. Heat flux is obscure, however. A flux is a reference to lines per unit area as in a magnetic field. Vector calculus treats fluxes as vectors moving in curved trajectories.
If you think of an EM flux, you could liken it to the number of photons passing through an area. The more photons per unit area the denser the flux. However, a photon is defined as E = hf where the E came from the energy level difference between electron energy bands in an atom. E is not a reference to heat.
Heat does not move as a flux through space, it does not leave the heated surface. Even in a solid, heat moves valence electron to valence electron and although it is often taught as a vector flow it is not practically a vector quantity. It’s motion electron to electron would be far too erratic.
norman…”The textbook posted by Boddesbond…Page 27 of this textbook says exactly what I am saying.
Here’s the opeing of page 27 and it’s dead wrong.
“In heat transfer, the heat transmitted by radiation between two bodies at different temperatures is very important. It is not only the hotter body that radiates heat to warm the body at the lower temperature, the colder one also emits electromagnetic waves which transfer energy to the body at the higher temperature. It is therefore applicable here to talk of an exchange of radiation. Finally the net heat flow from the body at the higher temperature to that at the lower temperature is of interest”.
This directly contradicts the 2nd law and Clausius claimed that radiation must obey the 2nd law.
I don’t know where these authors get this nonsense but they obviously had it spoon fed to them without questioning the theory.
This pap not only contradicts the 2nd law it also contradicts quantum theory as laid down by Bohr and Schrodinger. According to what they claim, a hotter body radiates to a cooler body, warming it, then the cooler body radiates to the warmer body, raising it’s temperature.
The cycle continues with each body warming the other and we have perpetual motion.
Bohr stated specifically that bodies can only absorb energy that fits the electron’s need to have a quanta of energy that is exactly the difference between its available energy levels. Specifically the electron needs a frequency that will resonate with its natural frequency. That frequency is too low from a cooler body.
What the authors don’t understand is that their theories apply only at thermal equilibrium. When one body radiates to the other it cools slightly and when the other body radiates back it cools as well. There are net losses in each body therefore no perpetual motion.
The authors ignore atomic theory and presume a mechanism exists to allow for mutual bodies warming each other without heating indefinitely.
ps. It also contradicts Stefan-Boltzmann, which requires a unidirectional temperature gradient.
Gordon Robertson
The textbook in no way makes your twisted notion:
YOU: “This pap not only contradicts the 2nd law it also contradicts quantum theory as laid down by Bohr and Schrodinger. According to what they claim, a hotter body radiates to a cooler body, warming it, then the cooler body radiates to the warmer body, raising its temperature.”
That is NOT what they are saying at all. That is a twisted screwed up notion you made up that in no way reflects anything stated in a valid science textbook.
How, exactly, does there statement leas to a cooler body raising the temperature of the hotter one? You are not thinking logically at all. Just some emotional reaction with little to no thought on your part. When the hotter body radiates energy to the cooler one (raising its temperature) it cools. The energy it receives from the warmed cooler object is not enough to raise its temperature.
You are unable to understand the mechanism, why don’t you try?
If the hot object is not powered the sequence is,
It loses energy at a greater rate than the cold object returns to it. The hot object cools at a faster rate than the cold object warms. The two will reach equilibrium when the temperature are the same. That is both objects are radiating the same amount of energy to each other.
norman…”How, exactly, does there statement leas to a cooler body raising the temperature of the hotter one?”
********
In the textbook they are always talking about idealized blackbodies that MUST absorb all radiation that reaches them. The idea for a blackbody came from Kircheoff around the same era that Clausius was stating the 2nd law. The BB concept was continued by Boltzmann then Planck, both of whom were heavily into statistical analysis where the BB concept suited their purposes.
You have to understand that Planck in particular seriously fudged his math to get the results he required. He admitted that and it bothered him deeply. Boltzmann committed suicide over a similar angst. There is no way to arbitrarily assign statistical probabilities to heat transfer in atoms without fudging the math to make it fit.
I don’t see anything wrong with that provided the results can be verified experimentally. However, as Planck admitted, there is no way to verify the process VISUALLY to explain the physical reality.
However, in 1913, Bohr stood the scientific world on its ear by suggesting real bodies do not behave like BBs. Real bodies depend on the electrons in atoms and the energy level at which the electron resides. Bohr gave a quantity to the interaction of EM and electrons as E = hf.
Remember, Kircheoff lived in an era where it was believed heat flowed throw space as heat rays. They could not explain it, presuming their was an aether of some kind to conduct the heat just as it is conducted through a solid. Clausius seemed to believe that himself, hence his words seem to be contradictory in places regarded radiative heat transfer.
Bohr also made it clear that rules apply to the absorp-tion of EM by electrons and the rules are stringent. The frequency of the EM must match that of the electron, and if not, the EM is not absorbed.
You posted a video explaining that kind of resonance with EM absorp-tion but the meaning seems to have escaped you.
Bohr’s theories, expanded by Schrodinger to form quantum mechanics, throws out the concept of two BBs radiating at each other since each body MUST absorb the EM from the other according to definition. The BBs MUST remain at the same temperature since their temperature is defined by the EM rattling around inside.
Kircheoff did all of his work based on BBs at thermal equilibrium yet modernists seem to feel free to extrapolate his equilibrium work to any temperature difference. The fly in the ointment is that they never give real world examples, only inferences.
As I tried to explain, the current paradigm on radiative heat transfer is established on ancient paradigms that have been surpassed by quantum theory.
Have you noticed in your textbook that they completely avoid Clausius and his 2nd law and that they feel free to redefine entropy while ignoring the definition of entropy that he created?
I am telling you, the authors of your book are grasping at straws in their theories on heat transfer by radiation. They give no concrete examples of how a two way heat transfer works. They are mechanical engineers and not specialists in atomic theory.
I have conceded in previous posts that there may be grounds for their theories when two very hot independent radiators of similar temperature radiate at each other. I don’t know. Even they concede that radiation at terrestrial temperatures is insignificant, that radiation only applies at very hot temperatures.
Your point out that the radiating hotter body cools is correct, however, that does not explain the hotter body absorbing EM from the cooler body. If it does absorb EM it has to warm. The electrons in atoms in the hotter body must rise to a higher energy level at the same time they are trying to go to a lower energy level to emit EM.
This suggests both bodies must warm, on average. Either that or one must warm and one must cool. Presumably, we are talking about independent radiators, to keep things relatively simple.
Gordon Robertson says:
You have to understand that Planck in particular seriously fudged his math to get the results he required.
What a gigantic lie, that Gordon repeats again and again.
Planck made an ansatz.
This is, in fact, where almost all fundamental equations come from. The Einstein equations of GR. F=ma. Schrodinger’s equation. Dirac’s equation. Bohr’s model.
These (and many more) come from guessing, making a model, and then seeing if it makes predictions that agree with experiment.
Those that do are kept, and tested again. Those that don’t are discarded.
Gordon Robertson says:
Bohrs theories, expanded by Schrodinger to form quantum mechanics, throws out the concept of two BBs radiating at each other since each body MUST absorb the EM from the other according to definition.
Gordon, each and every time you show how utterly ignorant you are.
Neither Bohr’s model or Schrodinger’s equation said anything about blackbodies, didn’t come from thinking about blackbodies, and didn’t imply anything about blackbodies.
Let alone two blackbodies.
I really hope no one is listening to you.
An IR thermometer uses the same principle. The sensors emit IR at a rate proportional to their temperature. If you point it at a colder object, the rate of IR emitted will be greater than received. This will produce a change in temperature (cooling), which can be detected by the device.
The opposite is true when pointed at a warmer object.
Yes, back to the dime analogy. The point of which none of you got.
MICRO vs. MACRO. Sounds familiar?
snape…”An IR thermometer uses the same principle. The sensors emit IR at a rate proportional to their temperature. If you point it at a colder object, the rate of IR emitted will be greater than received. This will produce a change in temperature (cooling), which can be detected by the device”.
No way. Hand held IR detectors use a detector only. It does not transmit. The detector reacts to the frequency of the IR and the unit is pre-calibrated in a lab to equate the received frequency to a specific temperature.
Hand-helds do not measure the temperature of the source, only the frequency. A more sophisticated bolometer, as used in astronomy, has a pre-cooled detector rated to have a temperature cooler than the target.
Can you imagine the size of a hand-held with a refrigeration unit to cool the detector?
Kristian
Your dime analogy does not apply to the world of radiant energy. The two processes (emission and absorb) are not related. They are independent of each other.
A correct analogy would be to have a bin of dimes. The rate dimes are removed is only dependent on the total number of dimes in the bin. The rate dimes are added has no connection to the amount of dimes removed. You have two macroscopic activities going on.
All textbooks on heat transfer state this. So if I am wrong then the entire science of heat transfer is wrong and only you know the truth. The rest of the scientists are wrong and have no clue of what they are saying. They need to consult you to find out what is really going on. Even though you don’t know what is going on and demonstrate you don’t with your dime analogy.
Norman…”All textbooks on heat transfer state this. So if I am wrong then the entire science of heat transfer is wrong and only you know the truth”.
It’s entirely possible that Kristian is right and the few text books YOU HAVE READ…are wrong.
I studied electrical engineering and they stubbornly taught that electric current flows positive to negative. That was a theory developed in the 1920s and the paradigm monster prevalent in EE won’t allow it to change. It will likely be taught for another century.
The entire field of electronics is based on a negative to positive flow and all meters used in the field are calibrated on a negative to positive flow. Leads on meters are often marked red and black in accordance with negative to positive flow.
The irony is that we had labs using those meters with the red positive lead on a meter and the black negative lead.
The EE department would have us believe that in a vacuum tube, where electrons are boiled off a tungsten heater and attracted to a 400 volt positive plate, it’s not the electrons flowing from negative to positive, it’s mysterious positive charges flowing from the positive plate to holes left in the tungsten by electrons.
As Kuhn pointed out, established paradigms are resistant to change sometimes taking decades to give way. I am afraid your two way heat/radiation transfer between bodies of different temperatures is one of those stubborn paradigms that refuses to die.
The paradigm re heat/radiative transfer taught in the text’s to which you refer seems to have its basis in the days of Boltzmann and Planck, some 120 – 135 years ago. Even at that, there is nothing in the S-B equation that indicates heat can be transferred both ways between bodies of different temperatures.
I should point out that the theories of Bolzmann/Planck that seem to persist, pre-date quantum theory by 15 to 30 years, and quantum theory disagrees with the paradigm.
Gordon Robertson
The current flow debate you brought up is not so clear cut and it seems it is just an arbitrary convention.
Here is a long debate on the issue.
https://tinyurl.com/ycadk3ur
Also this one
https://tinyurl.com/y7rwqqq3
“Electrons have a negative charge. Current is Coulombs per second. Coulombs are positive, so a coulomb moving one direction is actually caused by electrons moving the other direction in meta.
When we discuss current we are discussing the flow of positive charge particles. If the flow of current is actually made up of negative particles flowing in the opposite direction it makes no difference, that is two negatives which cancel. It is just a case of math and sign convention.”
norman…”Electrons have a negative charge. Current is Coulombs per second. Coulombs are positive, so a coulomb moving one direction is actually caused by electrons moving the other direction in meta”.
Sometimes I wonder if you are dealing with a full deck. You seem to read nonsense and take it verbatim.
A coulomb is not a particle and it does not have a positive charge, it is a MEASURE OF CHARGE. Electrons are particles with a negative charge. The particles with the positive charge are protons, and in a conductor they are bound in a lattice so they cannot move.
In a conductor, the electrons carry the charge and the charge is free to move electron to electron. A coulomb is defined as the quantity of charge in an electrical current of 1 amp per second. The amp is measured in electrons/-ve charges.
Even wiki is politically-correct about the definition, calling current flow ‘elementary charges’. Sheer nonsense. Protons do not flow, otherwise the entire atom would flow and the conductor would be destroyed.
I defy these idiots to show me one situation in which protons in a conductor flow positive to negative. It could happen with a beam in an accelerator, where protons as hydrogen nucleii minus their electrons are fired through a vacuum. In air, there would be massive collisions between the protons and the air particles. That happens in electron tubes when air leaks in and the electrons collide with air molecules.
That’s not what the convention states anyway, they are talking about a positive charge related to an electron vacating a valence band position. Obviously, if there was an electron and it moved, it would leave the atom with a net positive charge, as an ion. That is not a real positive charge, it is a relative positive charge, relative to a normal copper atom.
How long would such an ionic condition exist with a healthy current running through a conductor? If you were anal, and wanted to track the temporary relatively positive positions you might notice they are moving in the opposite direction as the electrons. That is insufficient justification for claiming it as a current flow and the entire field of electronics, except at the engineering level, have turned their back on that absurdity.
Even the majority of electrons in copper do not flow, only the valence electrons in the outer shell.
Gordon, what’s called “positive” and what’s called “negative” is completely arbitrary. There is no cosmis rule on way or the other.
You just have to be sure to be consistent.
DA…”Gordon, whats called positive and whats called negative is completely arbitrary. There is no cosmis rule on way or the other”.
Then you are claiming the difference between an electron and a proton is arbitrary.
What you are referencing is the practice in circuit analysis that it doesn’t matter which way current flows as long as you keep the voltage drops consistent between battery terminals. That’s what saved me in EE. After years of working in the field of electronics before returning to the uni to study EE, I had become adept at circuit analysis based on a -ve to +ve current flow. I simply ignored their convention and worked the analysis in the opposite direction.
The arrows in a diode and BJT transistor mark conventional flow. I read them as electrons flowing against the arrow and have never had an issue.
All I was getting at in my reply to Norman is that old paradigms die hard. In EE, that conventional nonsense has persisted for a century in face of an electronics and electrical industry that recognizes current flow as electron flow from negative to positive. I feel sorry for graduating EEs encountering that reality once they graduate.
I think much of the radiation theory we get today suffers from the same paradigm resistance. I did not encounter it at all in electronics communication theory since we always treated EM as a separate energy from the electrical current that created it.
We treated EM as induction and in essence that’s still what it is when related to heat conversion. EM is caused by the motion of electrons in a conductor in communications circles and in the atom itself, it’s due to an instantaneous, albeit unexplained, timeless transition between energy orbitals by an electron in an atom.
In electronics, a radiative field around a conductor is treated as a near-field form of EM whereas in an atom, when the EM leaves the atom, it is regarded as far-field radiation.
However you look at it, the EM is not heat and it cannot be summed as heat. With heat, the 2nd law must apply, and that means from hot to cold with no summation involved.
Kristian
“Energy is the capacity for doing work”.
“Heat is work and work is heat”.
Heat is not a separate entity, it is just another form of energy.
As long as you fail to grasp this elementary concept any meaningful conversation with the rest of the scientific community is going to be unproductive.
entropic…”Heat is work and work is heat.”
More correctly, heat is the equivalent of work. They are not the same, they have different units. Heat is thermal energy and work is mechanical energy. One converts to the other and one is used up during the conversion.
Joule proved that circa 1940+ in a rather brilliant experiment. He immersed a small paddle in water and observed the power used by the paddle and the subsequent increase of water temperature. Based on that he gave a conversion factor between heat and work, or vice-versa.
Gordon Robertson
Heat and Work do not have different units. Both are in joules the basic unit of energy and they produce the same result on the internal energy of a system. When said and done there is no real difference. If the system loses heat or does work it loses energy (joules).
Again you use Heat incorrectly. You think Heat and Internal Energy are the same. You are wrong.
Here is the correct form.
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/thermo/firlaw.html
Someday, I hope, you will understand. Heat is what is added or subtracted from Internal Energy. It is not the same as internal energy. If Internal Energy does not change the Heat is zero. I am not sure how you got so confused and I am less sure of why you stay in such a confused state. Look again at the equation.
Norman…”Heat and Work do not have different units. Both are in joules the basic unit of energy…”
bob/des…”How uneducated in physics must one be to believe that heat and work have different units”.
DA..”Still Gordon fancies himself an expert in science”.
*********
I hope you guys get it that you are making complete asses of yourself on a potential international stage.
I said heat and work do not have units in common I did not say they have no equivalent energy. In fact, I pointed out the equivalence, giving the experiment of Joule as an example.
Do you not get it? Joule??? He did an experiment proving the EQUIVALENCE of heat and work, and the Joule is a term of equivalence, not a unit of measure for each.
Here it is from Clausius, because Normie thinks I make this up:
“While the mechanical principle asserts that the changes in the Vis Viva [kinetic energy] and in the corresponding Work done are actually equal to each other, the principle which expresses the relation between Heat and Work is one of Proportion only. The reason is that heat and work are not measured on the same scale. Work is measured by the mechanical unit of the kilogrammetre, whilst the unit of heat, chosen for convenience of measurement, is That amount of heat which is required to raise one kilogram of water from 0C to 1C ( Centigrade). Hence the relation existing between heat and work can be one of proportion only, and the numerical value must be specially determined”.
“If this numerical value is so chosen as to give the work corresponding to an unit of heat, it is called the Mechanical Equivalent of Heat; if on the contrary it gives the heat corresponding to an unit of work, it is called the Thermal Equivalent of Work. We shall denote the former by E, and the latter by 1/E”.
*******
The Joule is the MECHANICAL EQUIVALENT OR THE THERMAL EQUIVALENT.
If you continue to read Wikipedia and take it verbatim you will become even more stupid than you are now.
**********
“The result, expressed in English measures, is that in order to produce an amount of heat which will raise 1 pound of water through 1 degree Fahrenheit, an amount of work equal to 772.695 foot-pounds must be consumed”.
********
Will one you rocket-scientists tell me where you have seen heat rated in foot-pounds, or work rated in degrees F?
I warned in an earlier post about taking these stupid honorary units out of context. A Joule equates heat and work through equivalence not through direct units. The direct units in my day were calories for heat and the calorie makes far more sense than a Joule. A calorie is defined as the amount of heat required to raise a cc of water through 1C. In his reference above, Clausius was referring to a kilocalorie.
Gordo, I think you are confused because of the post Clausius advances in the understanding of entropy. Heat may be converted into work, but a process which can accomplish this conversion is never 100% efficient. That’s because the real world we live in has a surrounding temperature much above absolute zero and Carnot cycle devices must use the surrounding environment as a heat sink for their lower temperature. Thus, BTU’s can never be completely converted to the equivalent in pound-feet. The pre-internal combustion engines werre steam powered, which was much less efficient than the ideal Carnot cycle. It’s clear to me that Clausius was writing about mechanical systems and processes, thus his 1854 statement of the Second Law was an early attempt to discuss this limitation.
How uneducated in physics must one be to believe that heat and work have different units.
+1
Still Gordon fancies himself an expert in science.
Guess what?
UAH change their data on a regular basis. There are numerous changes to monthly anomalies between the December 2017 update and the latest update. I checked.
People who criticize changes simply because there ARE changes are not skeptics. They are idiots.
I challenge those critics (eg, Bart, Gordon) to explain why UAH keep revising monthly anomaly data without publishing papers for each revision.
It will be interesting to see how this fits with their ‘narrative’.
barry says:
People who criticize changes simply because there ARE changes are not skeptics. They are idiots.
hear hear.
barry…”People who criticize changes simply because there ARE changes are not skeptics. They are idiots.
I challenge those critics (eg, Bart, Gordon) to explain why UAH keep revising monthly anomaly data without publishing papers for each revision”.
UAH does not discard over 75% of it’s data and fudge the missing data in a climate model using statistical interpolation and homogenization.
UAH does not retroactively fudge data to change the trend from a flat trend to a positive trend.
Neither do they declare mild years as the hottest on record by reducing the confidence level.
And that would be Mr. Idiot to you.
When the changes go so overwhelmingly in the direction of producing greater consistency with the prevailing paradigm, you don’t have to be a weather man to know which way the wind is blowing. Barry is being extremely naive.
The prevailing paradigm is prevailing because it’s truth.
You’re just trying to wish away the truth by insulting it, and those who accept it, but that never works. You’re trying to skip the hard work of disproving AGW, by insulting it and those who accept it. If you had disproof you’d produce it. No contrarians ever do. It won’t work and it’s actually kind of pathetic.
This should be in the dictionary as an example under “confirmation bias”.
I also have “confirmation bias” about Newton’s Laws, Maxwell’s equations, and the Stefan-Boltzmann law.
Meanwhile, you haven’t and can’t disprove AGW. Anything else is just verbiage.
It is disproved to my satisfaction. For the rest –
Your fallacy is: ignoratio elenchi
Bart is expert at finding logical fails of others. Why is he so unable to see his own, increasingly common, logic errors?
Your fallacy is: loaded question.
Bart’s perennial fallacies – argument by assertion, evidence suppression and confirmation bias.
With plenty of tactics from the sophist school.
His latest logic fail:
Some proven geniuses like Galileo opposed the paradigm.
Bart is against the paradigm of climate science.
Therefore Bart is likely to be right.
Your fallacy is: straw man.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2018/06/uah-global-temperature-update-for-may-2018-0-18-deg-c/#comment-306508
Your fallacies are Hasty generalization and False Dichotomy.
Just stop with ad-homs, if you dont apply them to yourself
I point out flaws in Bart’s analysis. His response is
“Its the same impulse that led church leaders to insist upon epicycles. Sure, the orbits looked like ellipses, but they should have been circles, therefore, they were. And, all those monks had labored so hard to fit the motion of the planets to those epicycles. Who was this upstart Galileo to come in and suggest he knew more than the experts?”
Strawman?
Ah yes, here it is.
‘Galileo’s Gambit’
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Galileo_gambit
Again with the straw man. You really are beating the stuffing out of him.
Its all there-I dont need to embellish it.
Gordon Robertson says:
UAH does not retroactively fudge data to change the trend from a flat trend to a positive trend.
Wow, you’re completely unaware of the history of the UAH record, and of all the effort in the 1990s to get the UAH group to finally accept that they made a sign error that changed their trend from negative to positive.
You really should learn about that before making grand pronouncements.
UAH has a long history of corrections, as all time series do (though UAH’s have generally been larger; for example about 3 times larger than the NO_AA corrections Gordon rails against).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UAH_satellite_temperature_dataset#Corrections_made
DA…”UAH has a long history of corrections…”
Do you ever read these articles before posting them? This one is ridiculous and it has that alarmist odour of William Connolley the resident uber-alarmist from real science.
Here are the corrections ALLEGEDLY applied:
0, -0.03, +0.03, +0.1, -0.07, +0.008, -0.004, +0.035, 0, 0, -0.026.
2 and 3 cancel,
Throw out 6 and 7 since they measure in thousandths of a degree.
That leaves us with (+0.1 – 0.07 + 0.035 -0.026)/4 = 0.0098C
What are you whining about? One one-hundredths of a degree C?
Besides, the 0.01C for 1998 was in the Tropics only and it was within the declared margin of error. It barely affected the global average. It looks to me like all the errors were within the margin of error.
That’s not what you see with NOAA and GISS. You see blatant changes in the data retroactively as well as over 75% of real data being thrown out and replaced with data synthesized in a climate model. Not only that, you see confidence levels halved and reduced by two-thirds to make cool years appear as record warmth.
Gordo, There have been other questions raised regarding the UAH products. For example, UAH never published a description of the method used to construct their TLT before V6. The latest V6 is based on models of the absorp-tion and emission of oxygen and these models rely on the same theoretical foundation as that for the effects of CO2 on IR EM radiation, aka, AGW.
RSS removes regions which include high mountains and also the Antarctic poleward of 70S for the same reason. UAH continues to include these data and even interpolates beyond the available data over the poles, a dubious choice. As I recall, the earlier data was scrubbed of the influence of intense storms, since the effects of hydrometeors appears as cooler brightness temperature measurements. This process appears to have been dropped for the latest V6, thus a trend of increasing storm intensity would bleed into the UAH product, perhaps as a cooling trend.
Do you really want to bet the farm on one set of data?
Gordo, another point for your closed mind to consider. The original UAH TLT used the MSU channel 2 measurements, which gave 11 data points for each scan across the ground track. The algorithm included only the 8 outermost positions, ignoring the middle three around nadir. Of the 8 positions, only four were actually used to define the core value, the other four were used in a correction of the first four. Thus, one might say that only 4 of the 11 data points were actually included or 36% of the available data.
Gordon
“If the target object is warmer than the viewing end of the thermopile, the net IR flow is from the object toward the thermopile, which begins to warm. Circuitry measures how fast those temperature changes occur and extrapolates an estimate of the target objects temperature. (The thermometer has no idea what the infrared emissivity of the object is, so my unit simply assumes an emissivity of 0.95).
If the target object is colder than the thermocouple, the net flow of IR radiation is from the thermocouple to the object, and the thermocouple cools.”
There was some discussion of this here:
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/06/ocean-indicators-suggest-co2-isnt-the-strongest-driver-of-climate/#comment-2371923
snape…”If the target object is warmer than the viewing end of the thermopile, the net IR flow is from the object toward the thermopile, which begins to warm”.
Not possible in a hand-held, there is no sink (detector) in it able to warm/cool due to IR. Hand-helds measure frequency only, not heat due to IR. They have an algorithm or look-up table to convert the detected frequency to the EQUIVALENT IR temperature.
You are describing an expensive bolometer with a cooled detector. In that case, there would never be an IR flow that could be absorbed from the detector to a warmer target.
Gordon,
As I showed you before,
‘Not possible in a hand-held, there is no sink (detector) in it able to warm/cool due to IR. ‘
That is absolutely FALSE.
Two of my handhelds have thermopiles in them. Most on the market do.
For some reason, I’m not able to show the link. Search: Direct Evidence of Earths Greenhouse Effect/Roy Spencer
Kristian
“The earths surface OUTPUT in w/m^2
emits IR ~ 398.2
Evaporation: 86.4 conduction/convection: 18.4
Total: 503”
*******
Yes, the 86.4 is a net: Latent heat UP – latent heat DOWN. Since we don’t have an actual figure, let’s look at how the math would work and imagine latent heat UP = 286.4
The 18.4 is a net as well:
Imagine conduction/convection UP = 118.4
Using those numbers, we get the following surface OUTPUT:
Emits IR: 398.2
Evaporation: 286.4
Conduction: 118.4
Total: 803
Like I said before, if the total INPUT is less than that, the surface will cool. If the total INPUT is greater, the surface will warm. Simple!
(The idea is the same regardless of the numbers we plug in)
******
A heat flux diagram using those figures requires an extra calculation (4th grade math):
SW DOWN: 163.3
LW UP: 398.2 – 340.3 = 57.9
Evaporation UP: 286.4 – 200 = 86.4
Conduction/convection UP: 118.4 – 100 = 18.4
Total heat down: 163.3
Total heat up: 162.7
********
Two ways of looking at the same thing. Changes nothing.
Snape says, June 9, 2018 at 10:48 PM:
Duh! What have I been trying to tell you all this time, Snape!?
The mathematical RESULT will be exactly the same. That’s a no-brainer. THAT’S not the objection.
The problem is not in the net result. Just like the problem is not in the EFFECT. The effect arises from the net result, after all.
The problem is only – and as always – in the “back radiation” EXPLANATION of the effect. Which has been pointed out ad nauseam over the last couple of few years. But to no avail. Because you just don’t see it. None of you do.
It is when you TREAT the two ‘hemifluxes’ (none of which are heats, that is, thermodynamically independent fluxes of energy) as SEPARATE, INDEPENDENT entities in your explanation that you violate the 2nd Law. Not otherwise. Not as long as you keep them safely inside the same bracket, always together, integrated into ONE (net) transfer.
It is only in treating them as separate thermodynamic fluxes that you violate thermodynamic laws, Snape.
The church of thermodynamics admits no heresy, but in the physical world radiation passes to and from hot and cold objects and both are affected by the exchange.
Kristian
I do not care one bit if you quit responding to me. I won’t let you discredit my intelligence and leave. I don’t care if you respond or not but I will defend myself against your unfounded attacks.
YOU: “That really is priceless. I do, Norm. All the time. However, you keep ignoring it. Every single time. You did it again just above. I cant force you to read, force you to understand. I can only lead the horse to the water ”
NO you do not link to textbooks on heat transfer that support you view. You link to your own blog and act like an expert. Not to valid science.
Kristian
ME: “The flow you cant measure at all is the HEAT FLUX of 33 W/m^2 that is moving IR from the surface to the atmosphere. There is no instrument you could measure this with.
YOU: Yes there is. It is called a THERMAL RADIOMETRIC DETECTOR. A pyrgeometer uses a thermal radiometric detector (a thermopile). Bolometers and microbolometers are also thermal detectors.”
So where are these measurements? Where is this 33 or 53 W/m^2 measurements you claim are measured? Find a link or source to prove your statement. This confirms what I say about you. You make claims with no supporting evidence. You do it often.
Here is the actual values:
https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/webdata/tmp/surfrad_5b1cba7565ab5.png
You point a detector up and get a DWIR
Point another detector down and you get UPIR
No value gives you a heat flux
https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/webdata/tmp/surfrad_5b1cba4c71a9c.png
This is the Heat Flux from surface into atmosphere. It is a calculated value. This value is the difference between the two measured energy flows. Negative because the heat flux is leaving the surface.
You spend considerable time trying to explain how these detectors work. They measure a NET between the detector and the IR you want to measure. They do not measure the NET heat flux from the Surface to the atmosphere. I have already told you that you can cool a sensor with liquid helium and there is no real NET, you will get a pure measure of the actual value of DWIR. Scientists found that room temperature sensors gave a close enough value that they could save no the refrigeration. I do not know what you are trying to point out with your long explanation of how the detectors work. They still don’t measure a heat flux between surface and air. You have yet to link to a source that does that. You won’t and you can’t because you don’t understand what you think you do.
I may have missed your explanation of how the IR detectors work. What are they called? Do you have a link to the details where I could check your explanation vs. Kristian’s?
Kristian
ME: “The UWLWIR and DWLWIR ar not conceptual parts of an actual heat flux.”
YOU: “Yes, they are.”
ME: “The heat flux is derived from these quantities ()”
YOU: “No, the opposite is true.”
No Mr. Backward. The energy flows are the measured value not the Heat flux. That is what is derived from the energy flows.
All heat transfer problems, that find heat flow, find the individual energy flows and use these to calculate a surface heat flow.
Find one heat flow problem that has a heat flow and then uses this to find energy flows. Find one that works backward like you think it works.
I can tell you that you can’t. If you have a heat flow say of 100 Watts/m^2 you can’t find what the energy flows are.
The equation: q = ε σ (Th4 – Tc4) Ac
You can’t determine any of the variable temperatures from that value so you will be unable to determine the energy flows. But if you have the energy flows, you can find the heat flow.
The first term (Th^4) is the energy emitted by a surface at a certain temperature. The second term is (Tc^4) the energy the surface absorbs from the surroundings. When plugged in you can see how much heat flows from the hot surface. That is the only time you will be able to find the heat flow. You can’t measure this value with a detector. You can measure the radiant energy emitted by the hot object by pointing the detector at it. You can measure the radiant energy moving to the the hot surface by pointed the detector 180 away from the surface. You can’t measure a heat flow from the hot object because the heat flow is a sum of two values. There is no Heat flux moving through space. There are two energy flows moving through each other, one moving away from the surface (emitted) and the other moving toward the surface (absorbed). No measurable heat flux. The heat flux is a variable quantity that depends upon what is around the hot surface. The energy flows are independent and do not depend upon any outside energy. The depend only upon the object’s temperature (and emissivity). You are the backward thinker and you won’t supply any data to support your point.
You bluster and puff but never provide data.
Norman,
I can’t speak for Kristian, but I will try to explain why he says UWLWIR and DWLWIR are derived from a heat flux, not the opposite.
You say “If you have a heat flow say of 100 Watts/m^2 you cant find what the energy flows are.” But how did you come up with a measurement of 100 W/m2 in the first place? By some detector right? If I were to build an IR detector, I would calibrate it using known temperatures. One of the temperatures will always be my device’s temperature, because that is the one reference temperature that I can use to determine all unknown temperatures once my device is calibrated. How do I calibrate my detector? I point my detector at an object with a known temperature. Using your q = e(sigma)(T1^4 – T2^4)Ac equation, I can convert the temperature differences into a heat flux.
Now that my detector is calibrated, I can measure some unknown heat fluxes. So I point my detector up and measure a heat flux from my detector to cooler air above (DWLWIR). If I turn the detector around 180 degrees, I can measure another heat flux from the surface to my detector (UWLWIR). If I subract (or add?) the two, I think that calculation constitutes a net heat flux.
I think both you and Kristian are describing the same phenomena, but you are looking at it through a rear view mirror.
But then I read this:
“There is no Heat flux moving through space.”
And I wonder could you possible think that heat doesn’t come in from the sun and go out at the TOA, both of them measurable heat fluxes?????????????
Chic Bowdrie
There is no Heat flux moving through space.
It is in the context of what I am talking about. Not a general statement. I am stating you don’t have any energy flux of 33 W/m^2 actually moving from the surface to the atmosphere. You have an energy flux of 390 or so W/m^2 moving through space. I may write confusing post if I type too fast (I do notice a lot of typos in my posts).
This may help. If you use Kristian’s thinking the solar incoming flux at the TOA can not be 1362 W/m^2 because you have to subtract the 240 emitted by the Earth. So the Solar flux is only a real energy flow of 1,122 W/m^2. There is no two way flows in his world.
You may believe this, I don’t and have not seen any proof of his assertions.
I am saying there is not a 33 or 53 Watt flow of energy that is detectable, it does not exist as an actual flow of energy. The actual flows are like this:
https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/webdata/tmp/surfrad_5b1df17f5a715.png
These are the actual measurable energy flows.
https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/webdata/tmp/surfrad_5b1df1c7da8b8.png
This is what is calculated by taking the difference between the actual energy flows.
Where is the instrument that measures a heat flow?
Chic Bowdrie says, June 10, 2018 at 8:10 PM:
Indeed. And he has been shown and explained this simple fact a hundred times. But he just reflexively blocks off that part of his brain whenever he perceives something that might conflict with his narrow belief system.
Norman doesn’t understand this and is utterly unwilling to learn. He will just repeat the same mantra over and over, as if only for comfort and solace, without ever even attempting to think things through, to take in the new information.
This is what we call “cognitive dissonance” and “dissonance reduction”:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_dissonance#Reduction
What he will do is just “Ignore or deny information that conflicts with [his] existing beliefs.”
You will never get through to such a specimen, Chic. You see the way he operates …
Kristian
I am throwing out the BS flag on your rant. I get tired of your endless crap against me when I link you over an over to actual science. It says exactly the same thing I am saying. You are unable to find any material that disagrees with me so you attack my intelligence. You act like I am this closed minded idiot. This annoys me and is a false tactic.
I ask you to provide proof and evidence of your claims and you do not.
On the instrument I have already told you in the past, you can surround the detector with liquid helium and the only input and NET will be the actual value of the DWIR or the UPIR and you will have values very near to the ones used at air temperature. The NET measured is not the HEAT FLOW from the surface to the atmosphere. IT IS THE HEAT FLOW of the instrument temperature and either the DWIR or the UPIR.
I looked up your Classical Thermodynamics.
“Classical thermodynamics[edit]
Classical thermodynamics is the description of the states of thermodynamic systems at near-equilibrium, that uses macroscopic, measurable properties. It is used to model exchanges of energy, work and heat based on the laws of thermodynamics. The qualifier classical reflects the fact that it represents the first level of understanding of the subject as it developed in the 19th century and describes the changes of a system in terms of macroscopic empirical (large scale, and measurable) parameters. A microscopic interpretation of these concepts was later provided by the development of statistical mechanics.”
You are a Gordon Robertson clone. The energy flows are macroscopic and you dime analogy is garbage and does not apply. You do not understand photon flows and think they act like solid particles colliding with each other and changing direction. No you are the one with issues not me. You are not an authority on the topic and make up stuff rather than attempt to support it with evidence. You exactly ignore evidence that conflicts with your made up version of thermodynamics and dime analogies.
You are a silly person as you describe yourself and attribute it to me.
YOU: “Norman doesn’t understand this and is utterly unwilling to learn. He will just repeat the same mantra over and over, as if only for comfort and solace, without ever even attempting to think things through, to take in the new information.”
I look in textbooks. I link you to several different sources. I copy and paste some of the material.
You make stupid claims that what they are stating is not what they mean when they say that a surface has two energy flows to it. One is the energy it emits (based upon its temperature) and the other is the energy it absorbs from its surroundings.
The heat flow is the calculated value of the difference between what is emitted and what is absorbed. It is not my mantra, it is what all valid sources of heat transfer say. NOT one says these energy flows are modeled. All claim they are real macroscopic measureable flows of energy with the heat being the NET calculated sum of the energy flows.
You attack my character with stupid points but will NEVER seem to find evidence to disprove any of what I state. You have not done so yet and I do not expect you to do so in the future. If you supply a valid source of science to support your opinion I will read it and learn. I am not going to reject valid science because of your stupid dime analogy. Not a good analogy at all!
Norman,
The NET measured is not the HEAT FLOW from the surface to the atmosphere. IT IS THE HEAT FLOW of the instrument temperature and either the DWIR or the UPIR.
Good. So, you agree that only heat flows are directly detectable, that the two-way model can be correct but that the double flows are inseparable anyway?
phi
YOU: “Good. So, you agree that only heat flows are directly detectable, that the two-way model can be correct but that the double flows are inseparable anyway?”
I am not sure what you mean by double flows are inseparable.
The energy flowing from the atmosphere is an independent energy flow created by the temperature of the atmosphere and moves downward through the upwelling energy flow from the surface without changing the upward flow.
You will have to explain what you mean and hopefully you will not be like Kristian and state your opinion about it with no supporting evidence or come up with a dime analogy.
How are there not two energy flows moving in opposite directions if you have two emitting sources? Explain please.
Norman
I am not sure what you mean by double flows are inseparable.
They are undetectable separately. You can only admit that there are two opposite flows of energy, it’s a model, not more.
The energy flowing from the atmosphere is an independent energy flow created by the temperature of the atmosphere and moves downward through the upwelling energy flow from the surface without changing the upward flow.
No. By virtue of the second principle, which has a lot to do with entropy, the energy flow modeled from a cold body to a hot body can not have an independent effect on matter. Never this modeled energy flow can be used to provide work.
I repeat it again and again. The evocation of backradiations in the framework of the theory of the greenhouse effect has nothing to do with the understood physics but has for origin a trick used by the theorists: Ramanathan and Coakley 1978, chapter convective adjustment.
I agree with phi. The two energy flows are inseparable. You can’t split the q = e(sigma)(T1^4 – T2^4) into two halves except conceptually.
I’m starting another thread to pick up on another disturbing sentence in your latest response to Kristian.
Phi,
Look, if the cold dark side of the moon emits IR towards Earth, and it takes ~ 1.3 s to make the journey, then of course it exists on the journey, independent of the telescope which intercepts it. Just as the outgoing IR emitted by the telescope exists, independent of the moon.
The telescope could have been pointed to empty space, next to the moon, and would receive much less IR, in that case.
If it were a thermopyle, it would indicate a higher temperature when pointed at the moon than when pointed at space.
I don’t see how this squares with
‘No. By virtue of the second principle, which has a lot to do with entropy, the energy flow modeled from a cold body to a hot body can not have an independent effect on matter.’
Nate,
I do not see very well what bothers you. What happens between the moon and the telescope is not determined or at least not directly determinable. What can be detected is only through a material interaction and thus in the form of an unidirectional heat flow. The rest is modeling and calculation.
The important thing is that there is not the slightest possibility of separating the two supposed opposite flows. Backradiations can be modeled as an energy flow, it is only a modeling of a calculated entity. They have absolutely not the status of a heat flux and have not a direct effect, they are only a measure of a decrease in the cooling capacity.
‘Backradiations can be modeled as an energy flow, it is only a modeling of a calculated entity.’
So, the IR emitted by the moon is only a ‘calculated entity’? Its not a real flow of energy? Did it only materialize upon striking the detector?
You are getting into the philosophical mumbo-jumbo of what is the nature of reality, or some such nonsense.
Such things that can be said of almost any measurement: temperature, mass, etc. All are quantities calculated from a measurement of something else.
Nate,
No, a mass can be isolated, a temperature measured by its direct effect. Backradiations are just a model, they have no independent existence and no independent effect. You confuse with irradiance which is a valid and measurable notion.
‘Backradiations are just a model, they have no independent existence’
I see, argument by assertion.
‘No, a mass can be isolated, a temperature measured by its direct effect.’
If I wanted measure mass and temperature of a moon rock, how would I do that, except through its interaction with my measuring devices?
Phi,
Got nothin? Ok.
Let me just add that every course on radiative heat transfer teaches that energy flows from both surfaces, E1, E2.
And that the net energy (heat) transfer is simply the difference (accounting for view factors, F_12).
Such as this one from MIT
http://web.mit.edu/16.unified/www/FALL/thermodynamics/notes/node137.html
wherein they say:
The energy leaving body 1 and arriving (and being absorbed) at body 2 is E_1 A_1 F_1-2 . The energy leaving body 2 and being absorbed at body 1 is E_2 A_2 F_2-1 . The net energy interchange from body 1 to body 2 is
E_1 A_1 F_1-2 – E_2 A_2 F_2-1 = Qdot_1-2
phi says:
Backradiations are just a model
All objects radiate. So, so does the atmosphere.
Backradiation is just the radiation from the atmosphere.
It can be measured, and has.
Why is this so difficult to accept?
Kristian
YOU: “Back to the dime analogy. You know, the one you didnt get.
MICRO (quantum) => statistical mechanics => MACRO (thermo)”
Your dime analogy is not a good one. It does not represent what is going on in the real world.
The energy flows are both macro. They are not statistical. They exist and are measured daily. You push points that are not based upon reality. At a surface you have a macroscopic amount of energy emitted and you have a macroscopic amount of energy absorbed. Heat is the derived dependent value that depends upon both these energies.
Kristian
YOU: “MICRO: each individual photon
MACRO: the full exchange”
Indeed. The full exchange of energy emitted which are all the photons leaving the surface. A macroscopic energy flow of zillions of photons all moving away from an emitting surface. At the same time a separate and macroscopic energy flow of zillions of photons moving through the emitted photons with no interaction and absorbed by the surface.
No one is talking about individual photons. You just don’t know that photons are not molecules, they do not collide with each other to produce a gas of photons moving in all directions.
You can prove yourself wrong with simple tests you can do at home.
Take an IR camera or sensing device. Point it at your stove and you detect lots of IR entering the device. Now point it 90 away from the stove and you detect nothing from the stove. That is because the photons are moving away from the stove in straight lines. They are not colliding and moving every which way. I think you need to read up on the nature of photons. They do not behave as mass particles. They move through each other. Ball4 has attempted numerous times to tell you this. So far it seems it was wasted effort.
Ahem…
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photon_gas
I’m not saying you are wrong, and in this situation, it may not apply to any significance. Just warning that one must be precise.
A big drop in temperature in western North America.
https://pics.tinypic.pl/i/00966/8vhm46y3t851.png
A useless graph with no labeling whatsoever.
Norman,
Continued from your comment on an earlier thread: http://www.drroyspencer.com/2018/06/uah-global-temperature-update-for-may-2018-0-18-deg-c/#comment-306651
“I stated that the emission rate is dependent upon temperature earlier.”
What you actually wrote earlier was this:
“It is very simple. The Earths surface will radiate IR based upon its temperature (the other values are mostly constant so they will not change).”
That does not imply that “IR emission from the surface is an independent variable,” which is what troubled me and why I called foul.
“[The emission rate] is independent of the energy the surface absorbs. Do you understand that point? It is in the original post.”
I now understand how wrong your point was and still is. The emission rate is dependent on temperature which is in turn dependent on, not independent of, the energy the surface absorbs. How could the temperature of anything not be dependent on how much energy it absorbs?
“I never stated that the surface emission rate was independent of the surface temperature.”
What you wrote was “IR emission from the surface is an independent variable.”
You can’t have it both ways.
Chic Bowdrie
You still do not understand the concept I am stating. It was a statement against Kristian’s dime analogy.
What that statement “IR emission from the surface is an independent variable.”
It is independent of the energy the surface absorbs. The energy that is absorbed does not determine the emission rate. Only the temperature does. The absorbed rate can cause the temperature to increase which in turn will cause the emission rate to increase but the emission rate does not depend at all on the rate the surface absorbs.
It is not as difficult as you seem to make it.
If you have a surface at 100 C and it emits IR at a 1090 W/m^2, then you add a hot IR source that it absorbs that is emitting 2000 W/m^2 to the surface. This 2000 W/m^2 does not change the rate of emission. It will still emit the 1090 W/m^2 until the temperature changes which is dependent upon lots of variables. Heat capacity, mass, conductivity of the material.
It is a counter to what some claim. It would be like the surface stop emitting 1090 W/m^2 and not only absorbs 910 W/m^2. I find that position ludicrous and not supported by any science.
If you want you can have the case where the surface is emitting 1090 W/m^2 and receiving 1090 W/m^2. In this case the emission rate won’t change at all. The emission rate can be changed by external IR but only when the surface temperature changes. That is what I mean when I say it is independent of the energy absorbed. The absorbed energy has no DIRECT effect on the amount emitted. The two are separate processes. They both affect the temperature of the surface but they are independent of each other. If that does not clear it up for you I am not sure what will.
That is what I mean when I say it is independent of the energy absorbed.
Indeed, Norman.
And this “independence” is precisely the result of thermalization and the existence of local thermodynamic equilibrium and a well defined local temperature that describes the statistical distribution of the internal energy among the various molecules and their degrees of freedom.
All concepts, your interlocutor has absolutely no clue what they mean yet readily invokes in his blabber as alleged evidence against CO2 GHE.
Hilarious.
You have now earned the distinction of troll #2. That does not mean you are any less vapid or annoying than the other troll.
Norman,
“If that does not clear it up for you I am not sure what will.”
What will clear it up is for you to stop making statements that are either wrong or misleading. I think Kristian has sized you up correctly. You are stuck in a paradigm likely caused by the whole “CO2 causes global warming” assumption. Everything you write follows from that. Why not start with the null hypothesis and look for evidence to the contrary?
Another sidebar, I think you have a misunderstanding concerning energy transfer. Here again I think you are stuck in an energy diagram world where average energy fluxes can be added up as a zero-sum game. In the real world, energy is constantly moving around only constrained by the physical laws, like the laws of thermodynamics and radiative transfer and heat diffusion equations. These equations are so complicated, there still is no solution for the change in surface temperature with time as a function of all the radiative, evaporative, and conductive processes occurring at the same time.
Anyway, back to the issue of the independence of IR emission. Your belief seems to be that IR emission from a surface is independent of the energy that the surface absorbs. You say it is not as difficult [to understand] as I seem to make it. Then you provide several examples that are incoherent, contradictory, or just plain wrong. I don’t see how you expect anyone to understand, let alone someone like me who has been following your discussions with Kristian.
The emission from a surface depends on its temperature. The surface temperature depends on the surface’s energy inputs and outputs. There is no independence there at all unless you specify a condition where the temperature cannot change, i.e. a controlled experiment. Even then, temperature is the independent variable not the IR emission. How would you hold the emission constant while temperature is not? In other words, how can you hold the emission constant without holding every other energy flux at the surface constant?
Chic Bowdrie
YOU: “The emission from a surface depends on its temperature. The surface temperature depends on the surfaces energy inputs and outputs.”
Right. That makes emission dependent upon temperature only, not the input energy. I actually think I clearly stated it. The temperature is the variable that determines emission rate. The amount of energy absorbed does not directly affect the emission rate.
The emission rate does not directly depend upon the rate it absorbs.
If you vary the energy received by the surface the emission rate does not change with this energy in a direct dependent fashion. You could cycle the energy a surface receives in such a way that the temperature does not change and the emission rate would not change.
If the emission rate were directly dependent upon the rate of incoming energy it would exactly match. If you increase the incoming energy the emission rate would change right away. The emission rate is only dependent upon the surface temperature. The surface temperature is dependent upon the emission and absorbed rates. I don’t think I can explain it to you any better. If you don’t want to attempt to understand what I am saying then I can’t help you.
Norman,
“The emission rate [of a surface] does not directly depend upon the rate [that surface] absorbs [energy].”
If I paraphrased you correctly, then I need to ask a follow up question.
Let emission rate be E = ae(T^4) and T = V + W – X – Y – Z. Isn’t E dependent on any change in V, W, X, Y, or Z?
If you can’t see why you aren’t making sense, then I can’t help you.
Well, maybe one last try. If A depends on B and B depends on C, then logically doesn’t A depend on C?
OK, this is definitely the last try:
“The emission rate is only dependent upon the surface temperature. The surface temperature is dependent upon the emission and absorbed rates.”
The logic of those two sentences is: A is only dependent on B. B is dependent on A and D. So, how can A be an independent variable?
Chic Bowdrie
You are intelligent and have good arguments.
But you still are not understanding my point at all. Your point is correct but it is not the same one I am stating.
I have already said that the energy absorbed can change the temperature. I am not oblivious to this reality and even stated it (I believe more than once).
The change in temperature is not a given by the amount of energy absorbed. So the rate of emission is not set by the amount of energy absorbed.
I am making a simple point that the two processes are not directly linked as some skeptics (like Kristian and Gordon Robertson) believe them to be. You can’t directly change the emission rate by varying the energy you send to the surface. The absorbed energy is not changing the process of emission. It has no direct effect. I think the problem is with your and view of the concept of direct effect and indirect effects. You
You can change the surface temperature by changing the amount of energy absorbed but that absorbed energy does not directly affect the rate of emission. The energy must be absorbed, turned into random kinetic energy, distributed in such a way as it will increase the surface temperature.
In Steady State conditions the energy being emitted by a surface equals the energy being absorbed. The temperature does not change over the long run.
It might be hard to debate with you since your understanding of words and meaning is on another level than mine. I will not say yours is wrong and mine is right. I would view the global temperature to be in a near steady state condition with some warming going on. You do not think it is such. We have vastly different understandings here. In your understanding of this concept you do not think a global temperature that has a maximum temperature difference in 39 years of 1.4 C is a Steady State condition. In my view that is really close to a Steady State.
If I have a pool of water that only varied 1 C in 40 years I would think that the energy in and out are very close to balanced.
YOUR POINT “Well, maybe one last try. If A depends on B and B depends on C, then logically doesnt A depend on C?”
The thing is that B (surface temperature) does not directly depend upon C (energy absorbed). Surface temperature depends upon both A and C. It is not an isolated problem and in the most likely case for most heated systems, they achieve a steady state at some point.
I do not think your logic thought applies in the case of surface temperature and emission.
Some more, Snape tried to help you with the water example.
If you had a swimming pool at 30 C. It is emitting radiant energy at a certain rate. If you take a heat lamp that emits 150 Watts of energy and shine it on the pool you will not see any measurable effect on the water temperature you may not even be able to measure a change in emission rate. You take the same heat lamp and shine it on a cup of water and you get a measurable effect very soon on the water temperature. Both water sources are absorbing the same amount of energy. The effect is much different. It would be hard in any real world situation where I would see that energy absorbed had a direct effect on the emission rate. It will have an indirect effect and may show up in time but it will not be a direct one.
Norman,
What characterizes your speech is the total absence of a thermodynamic framework.
Once again, these delusional words (I do not think only of yours, it is a standard with the greenhouse effect), do not have for origin any ambiguity of the laws of thermodynamics but the practical impossibility to calculate convection. This impossibility led theorists to evacuate thermodynamics from the quantitative theory of the greenhouse effect. See Ramanathan and Coakley 1978 : convective adjustment.
Norman,
“If you take a heat lamp that emits 150 Watts of energy and shine it on the pool you will not see any measurable effect on the water temperature you may not even be able to measure a change in emission rate.”
Just because the increase in temperature is too little to measure, doesn’t mean it didn’t happen. The resulting rise in pool temperature will result no doubt in an equally immeasurable increase in emissions and some additional evaporation, too.
More on this in the new thread.
Norman….”The change in temperature is not a given by the amount of energy absorbed”.
Huh??? Since temperature is a measure of the average kinetic energy of atoms/molecules in a body, and you add energy, why would the temperature not respond in proportion?
What kind of energy could you add besides thermal energy or mechanical energy from work? You could add thermal energy by doing work on the system or irradiating it with EM from a hotter source, or by transferring heat from a hotter body or putting the body in contact with heated air.
Gordon Robertson
YOU: “Norman….”The change in temperature is not a given by the amount of energy absorbed”.
Huh??? Since temperature is a measure of the average kinetic energy of atoms/molecules in a body, and you add energy, why would the temperature not respond in proportion?”
This is why you cannot understand the GHE and need to make up a distorted concept of the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics.
You can add energy and not increase the temperature. None of the skeptics can grasp the easy and real concept. If you would open your mind to the idea that energy can flow in more than one direction.
You seem like a researcher, why not do some study of the nature of photons. They do not exchange energy with each other. They can move through each other with not exchange. They do not behave like electrons, protons or any other subatomic particle. They are not like electrons responding to an electric potential, they do not act like air molecules that move based upon pressure gradients. They move through each other.
I have not had a reasonable reply from any of the skeptics. Kristian ignores me, you don’t have an answer. phi certainly will not answer, maybe Chic Bowdrie will.
Question is, why do you think that two objects with temperature will not both radiate energy. Why do you believe the two energy flows will be connected somehow? Where do these ideas come from. They are not based upon any rational thought process, no logic, not from any understanding of the quantum process that creates photons and what causes them to be absorbed. So far this question is ignored and all I get are declarative statements that are based upon nothing at all. Fake science. A type of science where people just declare things. They no longer have to prove them, you all attack a very valid researcher E. Swanson that actually did a real empirical test and proved you all wrong. All you do is tell him he does not understand physics but not a one of you has done any experiments proving your false delusions.
I have done lots of tests with IR cameras which clearly show that not one of you know what you are talking about. You just make up stuff over and over and Kristian is one of those as well. Sad state for the skeptics when all they can do is make up ideas and pat each other on the back and attack those doing real empirical science.
I guess since Dr. Spencer lets you all have an open Mike to peddle your fake science we must all deal with it.
Norman,
You are in a problem of thermodynamics and you stubbornly refuse to introduce thermodynamics into your reasoning. We can do nothing against this obstinacy. But just two details.
In the case of conduction, the bodies are in direct contact but one can also model a dual energy flow carried by the molecular shocks. In the case of radiation, the contact is optical without this changing anything to the principle. Two opposing energy flows can be modeled, but they are not more independent than two opposite conductive flows.
Your microscopic model allows to imagine a difference in value for the coefficients of emissivity and absor.ption of a body since the two phenomena are distinguished. In reality, these two phenomena form only one, for if there were any difference between these two modeled phenomena, there might be a decrease in entropy and the laws of the universe would be shaken.
And once again:
Ramanathan and Coakley 1978, Climate Modeling Through Radiative-Convective Models. See Convective Adjustment.
http://www-ramanathan.ucsd.edu/files/pr15.pdf
The parameterization of the thermal gradient leaves the system with only one degree of freedom. Any radiative imbalance can be rebalanced by only one means. It follows that in this arbitrary model, there is a perfect equality between the solar heat flux and backradiations.
Norman,
“You can add energy and not increase the temperature.”
This is your problem. You throw out these half truths like you are paraphrasing some law of thermodynamics. What is the context? If you add energy to well-stirred ice water, the temperature will remain constant until the ice is all melted. You can heat a surface just enough to replenish what is being lost. So what else aren’t we skeptics getting?
“If you would open your mind to the idea that energy can flow in more than one direction.”
What is that supposed to mean? The sentence Gordon responded with Huh??? was unintelligible. Did you mean the change in temperature is not determined/influenced/caused by the amount of energy absorbed? What else does change temperature other than a loss or gain of energy?
I think your AGW paradigm prevents you from proper understanding of basic physics. This is what I am interested in discussing with you. Frankly, I would avoid discussions with folk who think EM waves are not a form of energy and stick to the heat/energy flow arguments.
Chic Bowdrie
Yes you can add energy and the temperature does not rise, this takes place in many steady state conditions. There is an addition of energy but the temperature no longer is changing. It is not so hard to determine what I mean.
You can think a little on your own. If you see such a statement maybe think about it a bit before claiming I have a problem with understanding science.
YOU: ““You can add energy and not increase the temperature.”
This is your problem. You throw out these half truths like you are paraphrasing some law of thermodynamics. What is the context?”
You provided one. I did not make a claim that in all cases that adding energy would not increase temperature. I clearly used the word “can” which means in some conditions you can add energy and not increase temperature. I am using the words correctly. Your own desire to prove something wrong or that I don’t know what I am stating leads you to false conclusions.
A burner on the stove does change temperature initially when you add power to it. After a time it no longer changes temperature but you even have to keep adding energy or it will change temperature (cool off).
When the burner reaches a steady state condition with its surroundings you add energy and the temperature does not change. I did not think this was such a hard thing for an intelligent poster like yourself to figure out. Also I was not responding to you at all. I guess you are someone who does not like to think about what you read and need a very clear and precise wording or you will not be able to come up with your own thoughts of what a person might be saying.
Also what basic physics do you believe I lack in understanding. I think I know it fairly well and if you can clearly point out where I am stating flaws that would be useful and I will adapt to the correct view. At this time you have not done so.
Norman,
I started this thread here …
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2018/06/uah-global-temperature-update-for-may-2018-0-18-deg-c/#comment-306669
…to discuss basic physics with you, so I don’t need your permission to respond to what you post.
“I guess you are someone who does not like to think about what you read and need a very clear and precise wording or you will not be able to come up with your own thoughts of what a person might be saying.”
I spend way to much time trying to figure out what you write and even more being careful to write exactly what I mean. Life’s too short and time is money, etc.
Time to get ready for the Mann-Curry debate. I’ll make a list of the basic physics we may disagree on and post later.
Phi – the parametrization of convection in R&C ’78 was very simple. Can you say why you think it is unsatisfactory?
barry,
You ask the question the wrong way and ask the wrong person. You should talk to the authors of the Quantitative Theory (not just Ramanathan and Coakley) and ask them:
Can you say why you think it is satisfactory?
Chic, if you think emissions depend on ab.sorp.tion, then give us the equation that describes that.
David,
Separate equations are required for liquid/atmosphere interfaces and solid/atmosphere surfaces. On a dry surface you can ignore the evaporation term. In general, you have the basic diffusion equation dT/dt = (K/cp)d2T/dx2 where d represents partial derivatives, T temp, t time, K heat conductivity, c specific heat, p density, and x some distance relative to the surface/air interface.
You would have to solve that equation with boundary conditions defined at the surface x=0, -K(dT/dx) = S(t) – H(Ts – Ta), where S is the solar input function, H represents a combination of radiation, evaporation, and conduction rate coefficients, and Ts and Ta represent the temperatures of the surface and air. If it could be solved, theoretically you could let time go to infinity and make a few assumptions like no wind, but in the end I think you would still be left with estimates for the relative contributions of radiation, evaporation, and conduction.
Gordon
“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 word heat is used to mean different things. Just like the word “chip” means one thing in the US, and something different in England.
Some use it as a verb, “to make hotter”, or a noun, “the sensation of warmth”. David Appell calls EMR heat. You and Ball4 and many others call the kinetic energy of vibrating atoms heat.
Roy Spencer explains that in thermodynamics, heat is often used to describe the net transfer of energy, and believes that was the intent of Clausius when he stated the 2LOT.
When used in that way, energy can only pass from a cold body to a warmer one, and is NOT heat. Used in that way, heat can ONLY pass from warm to cold. I would not presume to disagree.
Perhaps you could quote Clausius definition of heat?
Used in that way, heat can ONLY pass from warm to cold. I would not presume to disagree.
Only in adiabatic systems.
The Earth isn’t an adiabatic system.
snape…”Roy Spencer explains that in thermodynamics, heat is often used to describe the net transfer of energy, and believes that was the intent of Clausius when he stated the 2LOT”.
I’m not getting into a p***ing contest with Roy. I am a guest here and I respect the work Roy does at UAH. I also agree with him in principle on his views on global warming. However, Clausius said nothing about the net transfer of energy when he formulated the 2nd law.
You should actually read both the older book and the 1879 edition to see how he arrived at his conclusions.
As far as his statement of the 2nd law, which he called the 2nd principle, He states on page 79 of the 1879 edition of the Mechanical Theory of Heat:
“A passage of heat from a colder to a hotter body cannot take place without compensation”.
His explanation of compensation as posted by me was quoted out of context by some posters here as Clausius claiming heat could be transferred both ways. He said:
“It is true that by such a process (as we have seen by going through the original cycle in the reverse direction) heat may be carried over from a colder into a hotter body: our principle however declares that simultaneously with this passage of heat from a colder to a hotter body there must either take place an opposite passage of heat from a hotter to a colder body…”.
This compensation does take place in a refrig.e.r.ator or an air conditioner but with normal heat transfer it does not. He made the statement in regarding a heat engine in which T, P, and V are changing. During that process, heat is drawn naturally from a heat bath when T must remain constant. It’s not possible under those conditions to reverse that process unless you change the system so you can simultaneously replace the heat lost by the colder body.
The following is the quote re radiation which posters on here took as proof of a two way transfer via radiation:
from Chapter 12 page 295…(actual page not Adobe page)
“Again as regards the ordinary radiation of heat, it is of course well known that not only do hot bodies radiate to cold, but also cold bodies conversely to hot; nevertheless the general result of this simultaneous double exchange of heat always consists, as is established by experience, as increase of heat in the colder body at the expense of the hotter”.
I have tried to explain that Clausius, as well as Kircheoff, Boltzmann, and Planck, regarded heat as rays that could be radiated from a body. Here, Clausius is obviously calling the EM radiation heat. He is not implying that heat can be TRANSFERRED both ways and he makes that abundantly clear.
He states that heat increases in the colder body at the expense of the hotter body. He does not in any way infer a heat transfer from cold to hot.
Clausius can be forgiven that ambiguity because he was not privy to the relationship between EM and electrons, as suggested by Bohr in 1913. Even at that he does not suggest a net transfer of energy of any kind. He states clearly that the radiation both ways ALWAYS results in the heating of the colder body at the expense of the hotter body.
Whoops! I meant to write, “used in that way, energy can pass from a cold body to a warmer one, and is NOT heat.”
The word “only” was a typo.
The temperature of the Eastern Pacific falls.
https://www.tropicaltidbits.com/analysis/ocean/nino12.png
https://www.tropicaltidbits.com/analysis/ocean/cdas-sflux_ssta_global_1.png
Ren, your above comment is very strange, as per usual.
The actual temperature of the Eastern Pacific seems to have risen significantly over the last 3 months see –
https://www.tropicaltidbits.com/analysis/ocean/nino34.png
.
Years ago, I posted about how much energy would needed to heat an atmosphere without having the energy of sunlight.
So you have small dwarf planet, and fly towards to stars, and heat an atmosphere with nuclear power.
One could say it was a thought experiment, and maybe one could even travel to a different star at a relatively slow speed- hundreds of km per second, rather a fraction of speed of light, around hundred thousand km per second.
Nothing new about taking slow boat to stars, but instead was the question could the pseudo science of “greenhouse effect theory” provide an answer. Or would using the magical powers of greenhouse gases reduce the energy needed.
There would be a greenhouse effect if there are greenhouses gases in the atmosphere.
So use super greenhouse gases?
“The Intergovernmental Panel of Climate Change (IPCC) deemed sulfur hexafluoride the world’s most powerful greenhouse gas, with the chemical weighing in at a stout 22,200 times more heat trapping than CO2.”
https://www.popsci.com/environment/article/2009-03/top-ten-greenhouse-gases#page-4
And/or:
“Scientists say they have discovered a man-made greenhouse gas 7,100 times as strong as carbon dioxide. More bad news: It has a lifetime of hundreds of years.
Researchers at the University of Toronto in Canada say the chemical perfluorotributylamine (PFTBA) is the most radiatively efficient chemical found to date, breaking all other chemical records for its potential to impact climate. ”
https://www.voanews.com/a/perfluorotrybutylamine-greenhouse-gas/1807593.html
And:
“…
But theoretically, if we were able to pump greenhouse gases into Mars atmosphere, we could warm the surface of the planet enough for liquid water to be stable on the surface, as it was in the distant past (roughly 3.5 billion years ago). The thicker atmosphere would also provide enough pressure to help water remain stable.
One way this might be possible, McKay says, is to manufacture super-greenhouse gases or perfluorocarbons (PFCs) in automated factories. These compounds would trap the heat from sunlight on Mars, without disrupting the planet’s fragile ozone layer or posing a toxic threat to human settlers. ”
https://www.popsci.com/climate-change-on-red-planet#page-2
In fact we can go even further — any planet with an atmosphere has a greenhouse effect.
(Due to collisional states that temporarily ab.sorb IR.)
I was having problems posting, and that was a test.
Since time, I learned a few things, and now would do it differently.
One problem of using a dwarf planet is the lack of gravity and if you want pressure, you have to have a very tall atmosphere.
Since that time, I thought idea of using water to give enough pressure for humans to breathe without a pressure suit. So all need is enough air pressure so as to increase boiling point of water.
This would lessen the problem of the lack of gravity, but lower gravity is still a problem. Now one can solve lack of gravity by simply creating artificial gravity- you create a large wheel, spin wheel, and live within the rim of wheel.
As is described in L5 society:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/L5_Society
(space habitat called the Stanford torus)
But as said main thing, was question how much energy is needed to heat an atmosphere.
And related to this, is a question, would more atmosphere require more heating or less heating.
Or since on topic, how about, would the Stanford torus require less heating as compared to dwarf planet?
gbaikie…”Nothing new about taking slow boat to stars, but instead was the question could the pseudo science of greenhouse effect theory provide an answer”.
If there was no Sun, no weather, just a still atmosphere under the influence of a significant gravitational field, I think the Ideal Gas Law could apply. However, the proximity of a +3K space temperature beyond the atmosphere would make it very difficult to warm the place.
I don’t think any greenhouse of any kind would help, unless as you, say, you built a nuclear reactor under a real greenhouse.
“I dont think any greenhouse of any kind would help, unless as you, say, you built a nuclear reactor under a real greenhouse. ”
Say have 2 million square km of real greenhouses vs an atmosphere over 2 million square km.
What is difference in terms energy used?
Or say had choice of the height of real greenhouse. A greenhouse with ceiling 10 meters high, vs ceiling 50 km high which height of ceiling require least energy to maintain a temperature?
And let’s say air temperature was -80 C or 200 K at the surface.
And also say didn’t have atmosphere or real greenhouse and wanted to keep the surface at 200 K. Would/could a surface require less energy to keep at 200 K (2 million square km of surface).
How about something smaller.
100 km diameter dome which was hemisphere.
Within it, a 80, 60, 40, and 20 km diameter dome.
The 100 km diameter dome has .5 psi air pressure and air temperature of 200 K. The 80 km diameter dome has 1 psi, and 60 km has 1.5 psi, 40 km has 2 psi, and 20 km diameter dome has 2.5 psi pressure with air temperature of 10 C.
How energy is needed to maintain 10 C (283 K) air temperature in the 20 km diameter dome?
Try it on a planet, Mars, have 100 km diameter dome and it is .5 psi pressure at the top dome. So it has 1/2 psi greater pressure than air above it (which near zero psi, being 50 km in elevation) and should significantly more pressure than .5 psi at the Mars surface. And air temperature at surface is 200 K – which colder than average temperature of Mars. So rather than cool it, we could put it in the shade and/polar regions. So say, polar regions in large impact crater.
Or skip the 200 K, how warm would be if at equator due to sunlight, during the daytime, and then want to heat it during night so as to maintain a constant pressure of 1/2 psi at top of dome.
To determine night time heat needed, first need to know how much air is heated during day. And it gets about 600 watts per square meter of sunlight.
And for air to warm, the surface needs to warm. If you reduce the amount the surface warms, the air warms slower.
So to save the heating needed you could cover surface with water, and you could warm the air by warming the water.
So got meter depth of water, and in morning is heated to 1 C, and how much does water warm during the day?
Now, it seems to me, that if had a smaller greenhouse, the water would warm faster. Or seems 100 meter diameter greenhouse should warm faster than 100 km diameter greenhouse (both at .5 psi pressure). Though it seems larger greenhouse takes longer to cool.
Mars pressure: “The resulting mean surface pressure is only 0.6% of that of Earth (101.3 kPa).” – wiki
14.7 psi times .6% is .088 psi or .5 psi is about 5.7 times more pressure.
If tried to make 100 km diameter dome on Earth and had .5 psi at top of dome, that would make pressure quite a bit higher at surface. You could solve that problem by using helium gas, which would rise, which should allow less pressure difference at surface. And with Mars, if air is CO2, water vapor might work somewhat similar to using helium on Earth. Though with Mars the difference at surface should not be a lot even if did not have the added water vapor.
DA
“Used in that way, heat can ONLY pass from warm to cold. I would not presume to disagree.
Only in adiabatic systems.
The Earth isnt an adiabatic system.”
***********
When used that way, heat can only pass from warm to cold……..even in an adiabatic system. If you disagree, give an example where that is not true.
Earth’s atmosphere warming the surface.
David,
Another whoops! I meant to write:
“When used that way, heat can only pass from warm to cold..even in an OPEN system. If you disagree, give an example where that is not true.”
Sorry about that.
Earth’s atmosphere warming the surface.
Gbaikie
From the photos, the Stanford torus was designed to have a Biosphere II style managed ecosystem as a life support system, rather than the machinery you might use on a nuclear submarine.
That limits what you can do with the atmosphere. You could get away with 700 millibars pressure to ease the pressure load on the structure.
Learn the lesson of Apollo I. You would need a breathable nitrogen/oxygen atmosphere to limit the fire risk.
CO2 would need to be enough for plant growth, but far enough below 3% to make it breathable for the occupants. The GHE would contain some heat, but you would need a lot more detail to work out sensible numbers.
Heating the atmosphere would only be part of temperature management for the whole structure. Also too complex to make guesses here.
Considering the problems with Biosphere II, you might have to build several toruses and be willing to tinker until you got it right.
The carbon dioxide in the blood ensures the release of oxygen into the cells. When you breathe quickly, you exhale too much carbon dioxide and the brain is hypoxic.
Carbon dioxide is a great remedy for many diseases if there is enough oxygen in the air.
“In the course of evolution the human organism and the highest animals have developed a self-governing aerial system in the form of pulmonary alveolar air which contains about 6.5% of CO2 and 7% less oxygen than in the ambient air. This is apparently the minimum level of CO2 that provides normal metabolic activities in cells. For example, reduction of CO2 in the lungs due to hyperventilation offsets рН to the alkaline medium which alters vitamin and ferment activity. When the activity of metabolic regulators changes, normal metabolism shutters and this leads to loss of cells. If CO2 comes down to 3% and рН offsets to 8%, the organism dies.”
https://www.buteyko.ru/eng/interw.shtml
David
Read again: “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 atmosphere absorbs 358.2 w/m^2 from the surface. The surface only absorbs 340.3 from the atmosphere. The net transfer of energy, i.e. “passage of heat” is therefore 17.9 w/m^2 from surface to atmosphere.
(note: the atmosphere receives an additional net gain (heat) from the surface in the form of evaporation and conduction/convection)
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/bb/The-NASA-Earth%27s-Energy-Budget-Poster-Radiant-Energy-System-satellite-infrared-radiation-fluxes.jpg/640px-The-NASA-Earth%27s-Energy-Budget-Poster-Radiant-Energy-System-satellite-infrared-radiation-fluxes.jpg
You numbers are wrong. See
https://scied.ucar.edu/radiation-budget-diagram-earth-atmosphere
As I have said I think AGW is over with this year being the first of lower temperatures with many to come.
If my theory is correct then my prediction will be correct. We are finding out now.
Salvatore, your predictions have always been wrong. No one cares what you say anymore.
David no one cares what any one says unless they are correct.
Thus far that has not been resolved. Once resolved which will be soon , then will see who cares and does nor care about what is said.
cor does not care about what is said.
You’ve NEVER been correct.
Meanwhile the world keeps warming, ice keeps melting, the sea keeps rising.
But you are impervious to evidence.
Correction that is what has happened and (it has been modest at best)0it does not mean it will continue to happen.
David
Both sets of numbers show the net energy flows are from surface to atmosphere. Do you not see that?
How so?
Your numbers are wrong. You could at least acknowledge that, instead of trying to include them as part of the analysis.
They’re wrong.
A PREDICTION I KNOW THAT IS CORRECT.
No matter how steep and or quick global temperatures fall(IF), David will be the last man standing when it comes to defending AGW, and will still say it is still alive and well.
Last man standing.
I defend AGW because it’s been right all along now.
I call BS on you because you’ve always been wrong.
My point, David.
David,
You defend AGW because you are a true believer. Some believe the evidence and allow others to believe as they will. You, and many of your religion, decry any who disagree with you, using ad hominem remarks among other denigrating statements. This is not the stuff of discussion, but of bullying because your insecurities cause you to be afraid of any disagreement.
Best wishes,
David
“Your numbers are wrong. You could at least acknowledge that, instead of trying to include them as part of the analysis.
Theyre wrong.”
What? How are they wrong? The graph I linked came from NASA. Yours was Trenberth. Both show net energy flows from surface to atmosphere.
*****
Trenberth diagram/
-Net latent heat: 80 w/m^2
-Net thermals: 17 w/m^2
-Net LWIR: 41 w/m^2
I have never been wrong or correct because the solar conditions I have said that are necessary for cooling have not come to be until now.
Chic
“The emission rate is only dependent upon the surface temperature. The surface temperature is dependent upon the emission and absorbed rates.”
i can see how that’s confusing. Let’s say you have an object that is emitting and absorbing at the same rate, and a heat lamp is the main source of heat.
Turn off the lamp. The rate of absorbshun drops to zero, but the object will, initially at least, keep radiating almost the same rate as before. The rate of emission is DIRECTLY dependent on temperature.
But yes, Indirectly on absorb-tion because that effects temperature.
Another example is a large and small pool of water. Apply the same heat source to both……..equal rates of absorb-tion. They will soon radiate at different rates (again, according to temperature).
Snape,
The picosecond the energy source is turned off, the temperature and the emission simultaneously drop. There is no “initially at least, keep radiating ALMOST the same rate as before.” By now you should know that close only counts in horseshoes, etc.
“Another example is a large and small pool of water. Apply the same heat source to both..equal rates of absorb-tion. They will soon radiate at different rates (again, according to temperature).”
If the pools have the same heat source then they won’t have the same absorp-tion rate/surface area. If the heat source is adjusted so that both pools have the same absorp-tion rates, then their radiation rates will be the same. Bad analogy, Snape.
Emission depends on temperature, and temperature depends on the sum of inputs and outputs. Therefore emission depends the sum of inputs and outputs and, therefore, is not independent of them. QED.
Chic
When the lamp is turned off, emission and absorp-tion rates are completely different. That’s the point.
You are obviously right that absorp-tion affects emission by affecting temperature, but the two are different processes.
********
The pool example assumes same surface area, different depths. I thought that would be obvious.
******
Most clear example is the blue plate in Eli’s green plate thought experiment:
When the blue plate is introduced it receives 400 w/m^2 from the sun, but does not immediately radiate at that rate. Input and output are not the same. It only radiates 400 w/m^2 when it’s temperature has risen accordingly.
Snape says, June 10, 2018 at 9:20 PM:
Here’s what you people absolutely cannot get yourselves to understand:
Absor.ption and emission of IR are indeed different QUANTUM processes. They are, however, both part of one and the same THERMODYNAMIC process.
MICRO vs. MACRO. Dime analogy.
Chic
Sorry for the rude, “I thought that would be obvious.” I see it wasn’t obvious at all.
The number of neutron counts in Oulu has increased significantly. When it reaches up to 6,800 counts, it will mean solar activity at the level of 2009.
https://cosmicrays.oulu.fi/
Low solar activity will result in extremely temperatures on the lands and low temperatures of the oceans.
Just the start Ren.
Gordon,
UAH does not retroactively fudge data to change the trend from a flat trend to a positive trend.
UAH changed the data from 1998 to 2015 resulting in a flat trend when it had been a warm trend in the change from version 5.6 to 6.0.
Does this mean they are corrupt, too?
barry says:
June 11, 2018 at 1:10 AM
Yes barry, this is correct:
http://fs1.directupload.net/images/180611/zs3mcnke.jpg
And the differences between the two records at the Poles were even by far higher:
http://fs1.directupload.net/images/180611/xytzol6o.jpg
These differences are known, barry.
Corrupt are neither NOAA let alone UAH. Corrupt is just Robertson.
Bart,
When the changes go so overwhelmingly in the direction of producing greater consistency with the prevailing paradigm, you dont have to be a weather man to know which way the wind is blowing.
Hahaha. When challenged that you do not look at the substance behind revisions you come out with this piece of rhetoric.
Skeptic my arse.
Thanks for proving the point.
Your argument is akin to the Civil Rights cases of the past century. There was always a perfectly reasonable explanation as to why a particular policy was implemented. That all the policies just happened in the aggregate to have disparate impact on minorities and prevent them from joining the mainstream of economic life and opportunity well, you know, that’s just random chance, said the existing power structure.
The Courts eventually said, “enough of the BS”, and required changes.
You don’t investigate the reasons, which are documented. You don’t test your own premise which is incorrect.
You do what every shit-kicker WUWT bottom-feeder ‘skeptic’ does – talk about the optics, which you overblow to boot. Sheer politics.
I have respect for true skeptics. Not for this kind of BS.
I have zero respect for anyone who looks at that CF, and sees nothing untoward. So, I guess we’re even.
We’re even when you have investigated the matter by reading widely – from skeptical and ‘warmist’ sources and anywhere else. When you’ve spent a hundred hours informing yourself.
This I’ve done. I see no evidence that you’ve applied yourself in any meaningful way on this subject.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2018/06/uah-global-temperature-update-for-may-2018-0-18-deg-c/#comment-307065
Well, of course Barry. You’re sympathetic to the argument. You want to be convinced. So, you don’t look deeply, and you accept flaccid reasoning without question.
I’ve been watching the manipulations unfold in real time since nearly 20 years ago. Even ten years ago, all the major data sets were in rough agreement, modulo an arbitrary baseline. But, then the reality of the “pause” became apparent, and something clearly had to be done. They started searching for reasons to change things, and change them they did.
For such a complicated system with reams and reams of data available, one can ALWAYS find justifiable reasons to tweak things if one keeps on looking. ALWAYS.
The problem isn’t so much that the changes they made were unreasonable. They were simply biased. It is more an error of omission than commission.
Every manipulation they could find that could adjust the “pause” out of existence was done. What they didn’t do was look for adjustments that would go the other way. And, as a result, the temperature records diverge from where they were.
I know the data are wrong. I know it because they deviate now from the CO2 rate of change proxy, when they were in agreement before. You cannot convince me otherwise.
So, call me stupid all you like. Stamp your feet and hold your breath, if it makes you feel any better. I know the score. I know the fix is in. Eventually, one day, when you are wiping the egg off your face, you may realize it, too.
Ok, so you’ll ignore the fact that various data do not line up with the ‘prevailing paradigm’, which speaks against this conspiracy theory of yours, and focus on the slowdown in temperatures from 1998 to 2013 – the so-called pause.
Cool. I’ll ignore that you suppressed evidence that was inconvenient to your narrative and follow your narrow lead.
In the 2013 IPCC report, the figure was given as 0.05 C/decade for that period, based on the average of the 3 main surface temp records.
The trend for that period under today’s data is:
0.075 C/decade.
Is this what you are referring to regarding the fudging of data? Let’s be clear.
Every manipulation they could find that could adjust the “pause” out of existence was done.
But this is an assertion. There’s no evidence to suggest that they didn’t simply apply best practice and the result was a warmer trend.
For that kind of criticism you need to actually look at what was done. You only look at the optics. It’s not skeptical. You talk about juries? You need to talk about detectives.
What they didnt do was look for adjustments that would go the other way.
ERSSTv5 – the latest revision last year – LOWERED recent trends in SSTs – also lowering global.
Did the skeptiverse note that? Of course not. It runs counter to the narrative so the histrionics that followed the v4 revisions didn’t occur. Skeptiverse was silent – so the bottom-feeders have no idea that the latest revision cooled the record.
You’ve “been watching developments unfold in real time?” So why didn’t you mention that latest revision cooled the record?
Ignorance, bias, evidence suppression?
Every manipulation they could find that could adjust the “pause” out of existence was done.”
What caused you to be less than honestly skeptical?
Bart,
Your fallacy is faulty analogy.
Political choices are not comparable..
Mmm… No. Pretty much the same. Disparate impact is prima facie evidence of intentional bias.
I see you believe legislators make primarily evidence-based choices? Riiight..
Also false premise:
‘When the changes go so overwhelmingly in the direction of producing greater consistency with the prevailing paradigm’
IE the great lump that has now appeared in 1940s temperatures…
Yes, there are a number of anomalies WRT to the ‘prevailing paradigm’ that get swept under the rug with that silly premise.
But of course, these are retained so as to make the actual fudging look less obvious….. Any fool can write these conspiracy theories.
Nonsense. If it weren’t more supportive, you guys wouldn’t be supporting it. Gimme a break.
‘If it werent more supportive, you guys wouldnt be supporting it.”
False premise.
Argument by assertion.
Just weird.
‘I know the data are wrong. I know it because they deviate now from the CO2 rate of change proxy’
False premise.
Circular logic.
That’s it. Your logician license is revoked!
Please stop. You don’t do it well. It’s just painful to watch.
Please stop make ridiculous posts.
Snape says:
“I have been reduced to a bottom feeder/poster”.
Nice effort balancing the 97% bottom feeder majority though.
It’s more evenly messed up now.
Barry is down here too, oh dear.
I’m no snob.
A russian physicist has eventually conquered the ugly CO2 GHE.
Once more.
As a result, one can evaluate an additional radiative flux to the Earth’s surface due to a change of the atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration, and the corresponding analysis convinces us that contemporary injection of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere as a result of combustion of fossil fuels is not important for the greenhouse effect.
From peer reviewed paper in respected Journal of Physics D !
http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1361-6463/aabac6/meta
The idiots are happy.
esalil says:
June 5, 2018 at 2:31 AM
From the data
http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/icethickness/txt/IceVol.txt
I picked up the highest and the lowest ice volume of each year and from the highest value I subtracted the lowest value to get the total amount of melted ice of each year.
esalil says:
June 9, 2018 at 5:25 AM
La Pangolina, Snape: You did not want to comprehend my message at all. I wanted to tell that there must have been diminishing amount of heat available in the arctic region during the melting season because the ABSOLUTE amount on the melting ice VOLUME has been decreasing. It was 22% less in the year 2017 compared to year 2003.
*
esalil, your numbers are correct. To eliminate possible biases due to extreme daily differences, I repeated your test – this time on a monthly basis:
2003 | 22.38
2004 | 19.00
2005 | 19.95
2006 | 18.56
2007 | 20.13
2008 | 19.97
2009 | 18.41
2010 | 19.78
2011 | 19.19
2012 | 19.02
2013 | 17.94
2014 | 17.83
2015 | 19.47
2016 | 18.50
2017 | 17.47
The numbers (here: Mkm³) keep nearly the same as in your comment dated June 5, 2018 at 2:31 AM.
But… if you took the time for this nice computation: didn’t you manage to also compute the trend within the DMI time series you published the link to?
It is, for the period Jan 2003 – May 2018:
-2.12 ± 0.20 Mkm³ / decade.
Does that not speak to you, esalil?
Here is a chart showing plots of absolute monthly values for sea ice extent, area and volume:
http://4gp.me/bbtc/152871448838.jpg
And here a chart out of the same data in anomalies wrt the monthly means of 2003-2018:
http://4gp.me/bbtc/1528714616597.jpg
ren’s claim for a sea ice volume reversal by 2012 is based on statistically insignificant data.
The 2 sigma CI in the trend for 2012-2018 is roughly 20 times higher than the value:
+0.03 ± 0.720 Mkm³ / decade
But when you look at
http://4gp.me/bbtc/1528715283236.jpg
you can be sure that sooner or later some pseudoskeptic will come around and cry ” Yahoo! Arctic sea ice volume again higher than evah! “.
So what remains, esalil, is that you were understood.
But… what do your numbers really mean?
I forgot to add a chart comparing, for the period 2003-2017, the yearly anomalies wrt 2003-2017 of:
– the Arctic sea ice data (extent, area: SIDADS; volume: DMI)
with
– the temperature records (surface: NOAA Arctic ocean; lower troposphere: UAH 6.0 Arctic ocean).
Here it is:
http://4gp.me/bbtc/1528723705691.jpg
You see that both surface and LT temperatures are increasing (resp. 0.33 °C and 0.18 °C / decade) while all sea ice measurements show a decline.
All this is a small detail compared to the discussion about GHE. But correct is correct, isn’t it?
BTW, this site’s least intelligent commenter might note that though NOAA’s data shows in the graph above a trend roughly 100% higher than UAH’s, the following graph nevertheless was made out of NOAA and UAH6.0 data using the same EXCEL tools.
It’s just a different region of our planet…
La Pangolina: seems that you refuse to understand that the absolute amount of yearly melting is the only measure of the amount of heat available in the arctic region during the melting season. Heat of fusion of ice is 0.3 GJ/m3. And the amount of melted ice you can get only by subtracting the lowest volume value from the highest value. Ice extent and area matter only if you know the changes in ice thickness. Yearly ice volume charts matter only if you can calculate the amount of melted ice from them.
Moreover, from the link I provided you can estimate the average day for the start and the end of melting which are about 21st of April and 25th of August. The arctic air temperature rises above 0C at about 10th of June and sinks below 0C at about 20th of August. It is obvious that the melting starts nearly 2 months before the air temperature reaches 0C but stops at the same time when the air temperature sinks below 0C. As you see the melting season starts nearly exactly 2 months before the solstice and ends 2 months after. This suggests that the heat radiation of the sun is the major factor in the process of ice melting, not the air temperature. I guess that winds and storms affect the ice extent. So, why is there a recent diminishing in the available heat radiation? Is the cloudiness increased during the melting season? I have not found up to date data about that. However, there are reports that at early years of 2000 the cloudiness of the arctic region increased.The reports also state that the cloudiness is the highest when the ice area is the lowest. That could be a feedback mechanism: when the ice area is diminishing the cloudiness is increasing and the amount of melting is diminishing.
Thanks esalil for your reply.
I do not refuse to understand whatever you wrote until now.
The key is in your answer: This suggests that the heat radiation of the sun is the major factor in the process of ice melting, not the air temperature.
Persons living in Western Europe, far from the Poles, are told a life long: “Ice melts from the bottom”.
Does that become invalid when passing over the Polar circle?
I understand what you mean. But why do you reduce the ice thickness problem to a decrease of solar radiation?
What about Ocean Heat Contents in the Polar regions, and their effect on ice (thickness) there?
(Btw: I would understand you far better if we were speaking about the pack ice area.)
La Pangolina: The melting requires about 0.6xe22 J of heat. I found an interesting thesis by DiMaggio (2014) “The role and variability of ocean heat content in the Arctic Ocean 1948-2009”. It seems that the heat content diminishes roughly to the same amount that melting consumes. So, you are right; Ice melts from bottom. Why it coincides with the solar radiation? And why has the heat content of the arctic ocean diminished gradually as shown by the thesis? Anyway, the heat content of the ocean is about ten times higher than needed for the melting. Why is the melting dimished?
Oops, again forgotten:
http://4gp.me/bbtc/1528725012729.jpg
La Pangolina: Rethinking: the heat content diminishes during the summer months when the sea is open. So, the diminishing can be also due to the heat radiation to space. Thus, it is open question how much the ice volume diminishing is due to the solar radiation and how much due to the heat of the ocean?
esalil says:
June 14, 2018 at 4:53 AM
esalil says:
June 14, 2018 at 6:07 AM
You are bringing your different ways of thinking together, no doubt.
We we are reaching a point in the discussion where no one of us can contribute any further.
*
My only point: you were asking about why the melting diminishes although the oceans have enough heat.
Oceans are not homogeneous entities, they are dominated by currents we still know few about, e.g. the Thermohaline Circulation.
Maybe these currents actually behave such that less heat circulates around the North Pole? No se!
Wrong?
There are a number of energy budget charts in circulation. Good to see this work replicated.
The original is from Kiehl and Trenberth 2009. More recent is from Wilde et al, 2013 which was used in AR5.
https://rmets.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/qj.2704
(Just for fun, this link gives Wilde’s numbers for the Earth, plus several other bodies)
They differ in detail, which is not surprising when you consider measurement uncertainties and that every year will be slightly different. They do show similar patterns.
The Martian data is perfect for calculating the Earth’s radiation budget without the atmosphere.
Thank you for this interesting paper.
http://www.climatedepot.com/2018/06/07/scientists-find-sun-driven-temperature-changes-led-co2-changes-by-1300-6500-years-in-the-ancient-past/
More data to show AGW theory is a sham.
Pretty soon global temperatures will also show it is a sham.
Salvatore del Prete
“More data to show AGW theory is a sham.”
Talk to anyone in the climate consensus and they will agree that natural temperature changes often behave as your link describes, with temperature leading CO2.
For glacial-interglacial transitions the cause is orbital changes. The effect is increased global temperatures. Carbon sinks respond to increased temperatures by releasing CO2. The extra CO2 acts as an amplifying feedback.
Do the maths and you find that the extra CO2 amplified a 1.2C rise into a 5C rise.
This does not invalidate AGW for two reasons.
1) The physics which describes the CO2 amplifying feedback is the same physics which describes AGW.
2) Under natural conditions orbital changes would be producing slow cooling and slowly decreasing CO2. We are not under natural conditions. Our activities are releasing large amounts of CO2. The increased CO2 is driving the increase in temperature.
I do not agree. We will know soon enough.
Salvatore
We already know.An increase in CO2 leads to an increase in temperature.
In your link the increased CO2 is amplifying a natural temperature rise.
In AGW the anthropogenic CO2 increase is producing the temperature rise, overcoming a natural cooling trend.
No it isn’t.
Let me answer it this way we will be finding out from here going forward. We will know in a year or so.
Salvatore Del Prete says:
June 11, 2018 at 6:43 PM
Let me answer it this way we will be finding out from here going forward. We will know in a year or so.
*
This, Salvatore, is exactly what you tell us since 2010.
Norman,
Continued from your post here:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2018/06/uah-global-temperature-update-for-may-2018-0-18-deg-c/#comment-306776
“The heat flow is the calculated value of the difference between what is emitted and what is absorbed.”
This is not always correct, but it is evidence of how stuck you are in your paradigm. There is a steady state where the heat in equals heat out, no temperature change. There may be a time when the ocean is absorbing solar heat, emitting IR, and evaporating water while the temperature remains constant. Although the net heat flux is zero, the difference between what is emitted and what is absorbed is not zero.
I’m sure you have some excuse for misstating what you mean or I didn’t understand what you clearly wrote, etc. At some point I recommend you stop trying to teach what you are not an expert on. I’m not expert either but I want to understand what is real, not what I think I understand from a blog or some textbook. Or worse, AGW hype.
On other subjects, cooling the detector doesn’t change what is being measured by the detector. It is still measuring a heat flux from a warmer object to the detector or a heat flux from the detector to a cooler object. I’m not “teaching” this, just throwing it out there to see if you agree or if you can correct me.
Referring to an energy flow between two objects instead of a heat flow is acceptable if you don’t know which object is warmer. But a detector immediately knows if it is warmer or cooler than an object it is pointed to. So a detector pointed up knows that downward IR is a heat flux from itself to the cooler atmosphere. It can translate that heat flux into W/m2 using the SB equation. Whether that is accurate or not requires another discussion.
To summarize, energy flow is vague. Heat flow is more specific and the heat flux from hot to cold can be calculated using some form of SB equation and the temperatures of the hot and cold objects. If detectors do more than that, I would like to know.
I’m no expert at all in the energy/heat/flux discussion, but this is in my opinion a really good comment.
chic…”But a detector immediately knows if it is warmer or cooler than an object it is pointed to”.
With hand helds it’s because they are set at a set point frequency and they can tell whether the received frequency is higher or lower. They are not detecting heat, that would require a pre-cooled detector that has a temperature below the detected heat source temperature.
The only reason a hand held can tell the difference is because it’s calibrated to do that in a lab based on the temperature versus frequency of a calibration heat source.
chic…”To summarize, energy flow is vague. Heat flow is more specific and the heat flux from hot to cold can be calculated using some form of SB equation and the temperatures of the hot and cold objects”.
Heat flow, or flux, only makes sense in a solid conductor or via convection in liquids or gases. It makes no sense with radiative transfer since no heat is flowing.
With radiative transfer, heat is lost as it is converted to EM. If the EM from a hotter body is intercepted by a cooler body, the EM can be converted back to heat. It is that loss in the hotter object and the gain in the colder object that is referred to as heat transfer. It is an apparent transfer, not an actual transfer.
S-B only measures radiation density which is EM only. S-B does not measure heat it measures the EM generated due to a temperature gradient between a source and a target. You might say that S-B measures heat loss, or heat dissipation.
If you followed swannie’s experiment in a vacuum, he changed the temperature gradient and reduced the heat dissipation in the hotter body, therefore the hotter body warmed. It did not warm due to the back-radiation he claimed since that would have been a contravention of the 2nd law.
Gordon Robertson
More screwball made up junk. You are so cluesless about heat transfer. EMR is heat transfer regardless of what you think. The molecules in the surface MUST be absorbing energy to convert it to kinetic energy and increase temperature.
YOU: “If you followed swannies experiment in a vacuum, he changed the temperature gradient and reduced the heat dissipation in the hotter body, therefore the hotter body warmed. It did not warm due to the back-radiation he claimed since that would have been a contravention of the 2nd law.:
What exactly do you mean that it reduced heat dissipation. You use that term, what does it mean? How exactly does the green plate reduce the heat dissipation? What mechanism is doing this? E. Swanson did not change the temperature gradient. The green plate absorbed energy from the blue plate and heated up.
You have zero understanding of what photons are, how they behave. You need to read up on them so you don’t sound so incredibly clueless. Presenting stupidity as if it were knowledge does not make it better. I await an explanation from the clueless one.
Norman,
“E. Swanson did not change the temperature gradient.”
That statement indicates that you are either reckless with your description of the experiment or just don’t understand heat transfer sufficiently.
Let’s assume nearly steady state heat flows before and after moving the green plate. That is not exactly true, but close enough for government work. Before the move, the gradient between the blue plate and the green plate was greater than after. Also the gradient between the green plate and inside of the bell jar increased. This indicates the green plate was insulating the blue plate from radiating as much to the bell jar as before. That’s why it warmed.
You may have meant Swanson didn’t change the power source. If so, that’s what you should have said to avoid confusion.
Yes, the Green plate “insulates” the Blue plate. It does this by emitting IR EM radiation which the Blue plate absorbs. The Blue plate’s temperature must increase in order for the IR EM it emits to increase to reach the new steady state.
E. Swanson,
You worded your description of the energy transfer process to emphasize radiation from the green plate increasing absorp-tion of radiation by the blue plate when moved alongside. You failed to mention that the blue plate which was emitting more to the cooler bell jar, subsequently emitted less to the warmer green plate. So an alternative explanation is that the blue plate continued to receive energy from the source at the same rate, but was losing energy at a slower rate while warming the green plate, therefore the blue plate warmed.
Regardless of how we word it, at no time was there any heat flow from the green plate to the blue plate.
As Norman notes, Gordo again delivers another impressive display of his ignorance of heat transfer. He confuses conduction, in which the energy flow is a function of the difference in temperature between two points in a solid, with EM radiation, in which is the energy flow as a function of each body’s absolute temperature to the fourth power.
The net thermal energy always flows from hot to cold, eventually ending up at the same entropy level as the surrounding “heat sink”, (i.e., the Earth for us mortals). In the Green Plate demo, there’s no change in the overall “heat dissipation”, as the same rate of energy flow (aka, transfer) results in each of the three modes in the demo. The energy flowing from the work light passes thru the bell jar and back out to the surrounding environment, with zero change in the rate of transfer to the environment between each configuration. What has changed are the steady state temperatures at different points along the way because of the physical changes within the bell jar. With convection suppressed and nearly zero conduction, the change in temperature in the Blue plate can only be explained via EM back radiation.
E. Swanson,
“The energy flowing from the work light passes thru the bell jar and back out to the surrounding environment, with zero change in the rate of transfer to the environment between each configuration. What has changed are the steady state temperatures at different points along the way because of the physical changes within the bell jar.”
This is poorly worded, as well, if not flat out wrong for the same reason as I wrote in response to Norman. If the steady state temperatures change, the rates of transfer between the plates and the inside of the bell jar have demonstrably changed.
swannie…”As Norman notes, Gordo again delivers another impressive display of his ignorance of heat transfer. He confuses conduction, in which the energy flow is a function of the difference in temperature between two points in a solid, with EM radiation, in which is the energy flow as a function of each body’s absolute temperature to the fourth power”.
You gave the relationship for the EM emitted by a body and the body temperature. S-B has another equation where two bodies of different temperatures are involved. It has a temperature gradient To^4 – T^4 in place of T^4.
Please note that the temperature gradient is in one direction only from hot, To, to cold T. There are no provisions in S-B for the back-radiation you claim.
Yes, Gordo, the S-B equation involves emissions from 2 bodies. Your equation represents the “back radiation” from the cooler one which is absorbed by the hotter one, thus the net energy flowing from the hotter one is reduced. There’s no “gradient”, such as there is in in a conduction situation, that is, there’s no intermediate temperature at some point in the “aether” between the two bodies. You are still clueless.
Chic
Your comment was directed at Norman, but I can’t help butting in, especially since it’s down here at the bottom of the thread.
Let’s say a senser emits IR at a rate of 300 w/m^2
If it then absorbs IR at a rate of 320 w/m^2, a change of temperature is produced and detected by the device.
The “heat flow” is 20 w/m^2, and that’s what caused the temperature change, but the device actually absorbed all 320 w/m^2, not just the 20. (How could the device have known to only absorb those 20 w/m^2?)
Wiki explains that energy is EXCHANGED at the surface of the device: “The atmosphere and the pyrgeometer (in effect its sensor surface) exchange long wave IR radiation. This results in a net radiation……..”
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pyrgeometer
Snape,
Thank you for posting this example. You assumed there was a change in temperature. Technically there must have been. But if the masses of the objects are sufficiently large, there would be no detectable change. Let’s use your pool analogy. The detector senses the temperature difference, but there’s no significant change in the pool temperature or the detector. The detector sensed it was looking at 320 W/m2, but it only received 20 W/m2 which caused a negligible change in its temperature.
On the other hand, if it had been pointed to the sun, the 1000 W/m2 received might be noticeable.
It sounds like you two about have it figured out. My one comment here is that typically detectors are designed to have a small masses precisely so they WILL change temperature easily and quickly to respond to changes around them.
Tim,
That makes sense.
As for me, I’m far from having anything figured out. For example, how is the radiation measured? By taking the area under the Planck curve? If so, a reading up into the atmosphere is measuring the collective radiation from many altitudes totally unlike the radiation it would receive from a ceiling at a fixed distance.
snape…”Lets say a senser emits IR at a rate of 300 w/m^2
If it then absorbs IR at a rate of 320 w/m^2, a change of temperature is produced and detected by the device.
The heat flow is 20 w/m^2, and thats what caused the temperature change…”
There is no heat flow via IR. The temperature gain was due to electrons in the sensor absorbing EM FROM A HOTTER SOURCE and converting the IR to heat.
Chic
I’ve seen an alternate theory on this blog, where it’s believed a warmer object in view only sends the net (heat flux). This would require an inanimate object to know its own temperature, and the temperature of the pyrgeometer sensor, and then calculate the proper net w/m^2 to send.
That is so cool. I remember reading discussions of exactly that alternate theory sometime back. At the time, the “inanimate object’s omniscience” sounded implausible. But after observing the Kristian/Norman debate, I can see how objects do know their own temperature. I am a heat detector. I am comfortable in a room not too much colder than me. When I enter a beer cooler, I sense the cold. When I go in the sauna, I sense the heat.
The pyrgeometer knows its temperature and learns how to detect incoming temperature after it is calibrated using known temperatures.
Another way of looking at it: An object at a given temperature is capable of emitting all of its SB energy, but only loses or gains energy and changes temperature based on its surroundings. The heat transfers happen in real time, so fast, calculators aren’t needed to figure out how much.
‘An object at a given temperature is capable of emitting all of its SB energy, but only loses or gains energy and changes temperature based on its surroundings.’
Its pretty good, but why not be a tad more explicit
‘An object at a given temperature is capable of emitting all of its SB energy, but only loses or gains energy and changes temperature depending on the energy it receives and absorbs from the SB emissions of its surroundings.’
An object at a given temperature is capable of emitting all of its SB energy, but only loses or gains energy and changes temperature depending on the energy it receives and absorbs from the SB emissions of its surroundings.
That last part only applies if the object is suspended in a vacuum. Otherwise it is going to receive and lose temperature by other means than radiation.
OK. Yes, indeed.
See also http://www.drroyspencer.com/2018/06/uah-global-temperature-update-for-may-2018-0-18-deg-c/#comment-307039
Snape says, June 11, 2018 at 11:41 AM:
The perpetual misrepresenter. Are you doing this on purpose?
It is not “believed a warmer object in view only sends the net (heat flux)”, Snape. This is just your straw man. Or, your own lack of understanding …
Chic bowdrie
“a detector immediately knows if it is warmer or cooler than an object it is pointed to”
Knows?
A photocell cannot know anything or choose how to behave.It is just matter following the laws of physics.
I hope this was just sloppy writing and not some form of animism.
Hmm, a potential candidate for troll #3.
“In Internet slang, a troll is a person who sows discord on the Internet by starting quarrels or upsetting people, by posting inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community with the intent of provoking readers into an emotional response or of otherwise disrupting normal, on-topic discussion, often for the troll’s amusement.”
Chic Bowdrie
You havent answered the question.
To work, your physics requires photons and simple physical sensors to gain impossible amounts of information about their environment and make impossible choices in response.
Please explain, for example, the physical mechanism by which a photon emitted from a surface “knows” whether the surface it is approaching is warmer or cooler than the surface it came from. You can then explain how the photon uses that information to “decide” whether to be absorbed or reflected.
You are not remotely comparable to a photon. You are a complex living organism equipped with sensors to detect temperature, a brain to process that information and effectors to actively control your body temperature.
Yet you suggest that a photon is alive and can behave as you do.That is animism.
No, I’m not an animist. That’s for warmists like the Gaia proponent, James Lovelock.
“You can then explain how the photon uses that information to ‘decide’ whether to be absorbed or reflected.”
No, I can’t explain how a photon decides whether to be absorbed or reflected. Trolls make assumptions like that. I never said I could. Can you explain how?
Once more, in simpler terms, I will describe my understanding of how an IR detector works. It contains a sensor, like a thermometer in your mouth, so it “knows” its own temperature. It has another sensor that detects radiation from a remote source. The two sensors are in kahoots, meaning there is an electrical connection between the two sensors sending current back and forth depending on the strength of the radiation from the detector or the remote source. The detector “feels” the difference in radiation by a voltage difference created by a change in current flow.
The detector has to be taught what the difference in voltage means. So he goes to school where they have objects at various temperatures. When pointed at an object with the same temperature as himself, the detector “learns” that voltage stands for his temperature. When pointed at an object with a different temperature, the detector records the voltage that corresponds to her temperature. Hopefully, the detector remembers this calibration so he can measure the temperature of other objects by extrapolation.
Next the detector has to learn how to convert a temperature into some units of radiation. So he goes to college to learn the SB equation. That’s probably where he forgets he is measuring a heat flux not an energy flow.
If you have a better way to describe how an IR-detector works, please enlighten me.
Chic
“But if the masses of the objects are sufficiently large, there would be no detectable change. Lets use your pool analogy. The detector senses the temperature difference, but theres no significant change…….”
You’re losing me here. Are you aware
that a small object will emit the same power per surface area as a larger object if they are the same temperature?
Also, (maybe you didn’t see my reply?) my pool analogy was assuming two pools with the same surface area/different depths.
“The StefanBoltzmann law describes the power radiated from a black body in terms of its temperature. Specifically, the StefanBoltzmann law states that the total energy radiated per unit surface area of a black body across all wavelengths per unit time (also known as the black-body radiant emittance) is directly proportional to the fourth power of the black body’s thermodynamic temperature T:”
Snape,
You seem sincere, but this is too simple a point to make a thesis out of it.
If I point my detector at a drop of ice water, is it going to change either objects temperature much?
Chic
“At the time, the “inanimate objects omniscience” sounded implausible. But after observing the Kristian/Norman debate, I can see how objects do know their own temperature.”
*******
Uh oh. I think Kristian is luring you down his rabbit hole.
https://vignette.wikia.nocookie.net/aliceinwonderland/images/b/b3/Alice-disneyscreencaps.com-424.jpg/revision/latest/scale-to-width-down/185?cb=20120703230309
I think you are right, Snape.
While you’re there, say hello to Flynn (far left) and Gordon (the one with the hat).
https://i.ebayimg.com/images/g/fk8AAOSwfpBaUNl-/s-l300.jpg
Sorry Snape, here I don’t agree: the man with the hat can’t be Robertson. He looks by far too intelligent.
binny..”Sorry Snape, here I dont agree: the man with the hat cant be Robertson. He looks by far too intelligent”.
I did not claim to be intelligent only to be devastatingly handsome.
LP
Yes, I could be mistaken. Maybe Gordon is the caterpillar? It would explain a lot.
https://i.pinimg.com/originals/48/08/9f/48089f9d44ad6297f54350804f98865b.jpg
I’m not really following, but are people still trying to argue that photons from a cold object do not reach and interact with a warmer object?
Yes, they pretty much are.
Two new trolls for Chic (#4 et #5) ?
Honestly, I spend too much time here as it is. I guess a poll on who qualifies as a troll would be out of the question?
barry…”Im not really following, but are people still trying to argue that photons from a cold object do not reach and interact with a warmer object?”
No, only that the EM from the cooler object has no effect on the hotter object.
2nd law.
“No”
Good. So in what way do photons radiated by a cooler object interact with a warmer object.
barry says, June 12, 2018 at 4:29 PM:
I guess they make its U and T rise directly upon absorp.tion. In direct violation of the 2nd Law. Or ..?
MICRO vs. MACRO. Dime analogy.
You can’t conceptually follow single photons, barry, or some chosen sample of photons out of a larger whole, and expect to see any thermal effects. Photons are quantum entities. They exist outside the ‘thermodynamic limit’ only.
It’s not in violation if the NET flow of heat is hot to cold. This remains the case even if the warmer object gets warmer from the appearance of a cooler object slowing down the warmer objects rate of heat loss (the cooler object replaces an even cooler heat sink).
In space this occurs through radiation. Radiation from cooler objects do have an effect on warmer objects.
And AT ALL TIMES IN THESE INTERACTIONS – the NET flow of heat is from hot to cold.
The 2nd Law is not violated. The 2nd Law is ONLY concerned with net flow.
1st example requires a heat source acting on the warmer object, of course.
barry…”Its not in violation if the NET flow of heat is hot to cold”.
There is not a hint in the definition of the 2nd law by Clausius or Thompson about a net flow of heat. In fact, I’d like to see you explain a net flow of heat using the Bohr/Schrodinger model of the atom.
Another point, Clausius defined entropy as integral dQ/T as an alternate definition of the 2nd law. He stipulated that entropy could only be zero for a reversible process or positive for an irreversible process. Entropy can only be positive if it’s between a hotter temperature and a cooler temperature.
A two way heat flow would require a negative entropy, a no-no.
“Entropy can only be positive if it’s between a hotter temperature and a cooler temperature.”
Clausius writings shows us you are wrong Gordon.
For Clausius Q is energy so whenever energy is absorbed in an object its dQ is positive and T is positive so entropy increases in that irreversible real process.
Object entropy thus increases when its U thermodynamic internal energy increase dQ is absorbed from a lower temperature object and Clausius requires the net energy flow between two objects is always positive to maintain universe entropy increase.
barry says, June 12, 2018 at 6:25 PM:
barry, for the millionth time: The observed thermal EFFECT (!!!) of course doesn’t violate the 2nd Law.
But when you so clearly and eagerly want to EXPLAIN this effect physically by pointing to the photons sent from the cooler object to the warmer object, then your EXPLANATION is in direct violation with the 2nd Law. Not the effect itself. The explanation. Big difference.
You can’t EXPLAIN the further rise in U and T of the already warmer object as a direct result of an extra input of energy from a cooler object. Because then you’re applying THERMODYNAMIC reasoning and terminology to your argumentation. And then your argumentation is bound, I’m afraid, by the Laws of Thermodynamics.
If you want to describe how the atmosphere forces the average surface temperature up, there is only one option: It INSULATES the surface, meaning, it reduces its HEAT loss for any given surface temperature. Because it’s warmer than space, and thermodynamically connected to it.
That’s it. What happens at a microscopic level, in the perfect chaos and disorder that is the quantum realm, is completely irrelevant to this intrinsically THERMAL (thermodynamic/macroscopic) effect.
Kristian: “eagerly want to EXPLAIN this effect physically by pointing to the photons sent from the cooler object to the warmer object, then your EXPLANATION is in direct violation with the 2nd Law. Not the effect itself. The explanation. Big difference.
You can’t EXPLAIN the further rise in U and T of the already warmer object as a direct result of an extra input of energy from a cooler object.”
Even though this is EXACTLY what is in reality happening, Barry, you are not allowed to say it. Keep it to yourself. Because speaking of it will violate the law.
Truly bizarre.
Again, Kristian, there is a communication between H and C, via photons. This is the MECHANISM for nature to determine the quantity of heat that will flow, and to satisfy the statistical laws of thermo. That mechanism is the emission of radiation from each surface, as determined by their temperatures and the SB law.
But that cannot be spoken of.
Nate says, June 13, 2018 at 5:38 AM:
Ok, so in reality, the 2nd law IS violated. Constantly. We just don’t speak loudly about it. And then it’s fine. Good to know. You’ve got it all covered.
No, what’s truly bizarre, Nate, is your complete ignorance on this topic. But that’s what happens when you simply are not able to wrap your head around the fundamental distinction between the quantum (micro) and the thermo (macro) realms.
Again:
PHOTONS cannot violate the 2nd Law. They can and will move freely also from cold to hot. Because they are QUANTUM entities. They exist outside the ‘thermodynamic limit’ only, and so they are not governed by the laws of thermodynamics.
A (macroscopic) radiative FLUX (W/m^2), however, is subject to the laws of thermodynamics, and so can’t just move wherever it feels like moving.
There is simply a different set of physical game rules once you’ve passed into the observable (macroscopic) realm. There are specific dos and don’ts. There is no longer utter chaos, randomness, disorder and uncertainty principles. There are certain consistent patterns emerging. Probabilistic patterns. Averages of large numbers. Of particles. Of individual degrees of freedom. The microscopic particles and their individual quantum properties and effects disappear from view and merge into the background, into the ordered patterns of the macro realm; everyday phenomena like ‘temperature’ and ‘pressure’ exist in the thermodynamic limit, but not outside. Not in the quantum realm. Just like photons and molecules don’t exist in the thermo realm. They’re still THERE, of course, but they don’t exist as separate entities. They only contribute to the AVERAGE, the NET. The property or process actually observed.
I know you don’t want to take any of this in, Nate, because it’s so much easier to just believe that the atmosphere heats the surface (directly providing it with a higher U and T) just like the Sun, without actually heating it. It just … energises it, after all. Exact same thing, exact same result. But as long as you just refrain from CALLING it heat, you’re fine. Energy is energy, right?
Yup. And it’s the TEMPERATURES that speak. No temperature, no thermal radiation. The radiation is a TOOL. For communication. The temperature is the CAUSE. The communicator.
Why not? I’ve been speaking about it for a long time.
You just don’t get the significance of the MICRO/MACRO distinction, and so you mix the two levels of reality into one big mess and end up with an answer that is simple and therefore comforting, but fully detached from the very reality that you think you’ve explained.
You can’t treat anything macroscopic coming from cold to hot, be it real or conceptual, as a separate thermodynamic quantity, Nate. Honestly, that’s actually all you need to remember.
ball4…”For Clausius Q is energy so whenever energy is absorbed in an object its dQ is positive and T is positive so entropy increases in that irreversible real process”.
********
You won’t let it go, will you? Clausius was not talking about a generic energy, he was talking about heat. The title of his book is The Mechanical Theory of Heat and all he talks about is heat and work. He defined heat as the kinetic energy of atoms and he equated heat internally as the kinetic energy related to the work done when atoms vibrate in their lattices.
It’s obvious that atoms in a solid vibrate more energetically as their kinetic energy increases. What causes that increase in KE? Something is absorbed by the atoms and according to Bohr it is the electrons in the atoms that absorb the energy.
Clausius claimed and I claim too, that the ‘something’ is thermal energy, aka heat. The flame heating a metal rod is atoms in acetylene (a molecule) which are agitated to extremely high levels of motion. Those atoms conduct that energy, which I call heat, to the atoms in the metal rod, and they pass it from valence electron to valence electron.
There has to be a name for that energy and most people call it heat. You can call it kinetic energy because it is energy in motion and you can call it internal energy when related to atoms in a body. However, the proper name for the energy is heat, aka thermal energy.
Clausius defined U as internal heat related to the atoms + internal work related to their vibration. He defined Q as external heat applied to an object or removed from it and work as the external work done on an object or by the object.
Kristian may be happy to hear that Clausius claimed the internal energy is not required in calculations since all we need are the initial conditions externally vis a vis temperature, volume and/or pressure. I take that to me that when we state the initial conditions, the internal energy is already defined.
Therefore the 1st law becomes a conservation of heat and work energies wherein external heat into/out of an object minus the work done on/by the object equals the internal energy. There has to be a balance at all times.
Makes sense, if you heat a body with a flame, no work is done ‘on’ the object but the heat is absorbed by the body so the internal energy must increase. That increase goes partially into raising the temperature of the body and part goes to increasing the work done by the atoms in their vibration.
As we know, an increase in temperature is an increase in the average kinetic energy of the volume, which in a solid, like a conducting metal, increases the velocity of the atoms bound in their lattices.
If the heated body, say a body of steam in a steam engine, does work, heat is expended creating the work and the internal energy is reduced. For a steam engine the internal energy must be maintained therefore more heat is required to be input.
Entropy is not the differential dQ/T it is the integral of all differential heat quantities during a process THAT OBEY THE 2ND LAW. Remember, Clausius developed his theory of entropy in conjunction with the 2nd law. Many modernists have taken to forgetting he invented entropy and they go about re-defining it despite his very clear definition.
If a hotter body radiates an instantaneous flux of IR, the heat in the body is reduced by dQ/T during the conversion from heat to EM. Therefore it must be written as -dQ/Thot by convention. The cooler body receiving the EM has it’s heat increased by +dQ/Tcool.
The change in entropy becomes delta S = Q(1/Tcool – 1/Thot) and that equation will only produce a positive entropy if Thot > Tcool.
Try reversing it. dQ/Tcool must now be -ve.
delta S = Q(1/Thot – 1/Tcool). But Tcool < Thot meaning that delta S will be negative.
And no, you cannot add entropies to get a sum of entropies. A process with a negative entropy simply does not work.
I have no idea what happens to EM emitted by a cooler body. It is obviously radiated to space isotropically and if a hotter body is nearby it must encounter a fraction of the EM emitted by the cooler body.
I have pointed to the same situation with visible light. When light interacts with an object, the object absorbs some light and rejects the rest. The rejected light frequencies is what we see as colour. However, if we are not seeing it because our eyes have not intercepted it, what happens to that EM?
nate…”ou can’t EXPLAIN the further rise in U and T of the already warmer object as a direct result of an extra input of energy from a cooler object.
Even though this is EXACTLY what is in reality happening, ”
********
Only at thermal equilibrium. All of the work done by Kircheoff on emissivity and absorp-tion was done at thermal equilibrium. Furthermore, it was done using the theoretical blackbody that is required to absorb all energy, no matter the source.
Two blackbodies AT THERMAL EQUILIBRIUM will have a mutual exchange of EM.
When Kircheoff developed his theories on blackbodies no one knew anything about atoms and how they work. His work even preceded Clausius and his 2nd law.
The notion that two blackbodies of different temperatures radiating at each other must absorb all the energy of either BB is totally erroneous. Bohr, and later, Schrodinger, disproved that. Bodies at a certain temperature only absorb specific frequencies of radiation.
However, some modernists have extended that theory verbatim, using math to prove a two-way transfer of EM and heat. In fact, most of them don’t seem to understand the difference between EM and heat.
Of course the energy from the cooler object is influencing the energy flow of the warmer object. In space the only way the warmer (heated) object can possibly be changed by the introduction of a cooler object is from radiation exchange between them both. The radiation rate from the warmer object has no way of knowing to slow down by itself when the cooler body appears – energy is being added to the warmer object that wasn’t being added before, so energy loss from the warmer object is not as efficient. The warmer object heats up. It was cooler before the presence of the less warm object. It is warmer in the presence of the less warm object. Or in common parlance, you overheated boffins, a cooler object made a warm one warmer.
Because the NET flow remains hot to cold at all times, the 2nd law is not violated.
This has always been a semantical argument. Putting a jumper on makes me feel warmer. Every person in the known universe knows that a jumper is not a heater. The boffins will clamour to explain why, but the effect is the same. Donning a cooler object makes a warmer object warmer.
It’s always been about the words. The endless tailspin into the physics and linguistics was self-serving for most everyone months and years ago.
“You cant treat anything macroscopic coming from cold to hot, be it real or conceptual, as a separate thermodynamic quantity, Nate.”
Such as the separate energy flows emitted by the cold and hot surfaces. Well, but this is exactly what is taught in thermo courses, such as this one:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2018/06/uah-global-temperature-update-for-may-2018-0-18-deg-c/#comment-307039
I searched for any thermo courses agreeing with you on this issue, and cannot find any. You?
“Ok, so in reality, the 2nd law IS violated. Constantly.”
Of course not. Talk alone does not violate the 2nd law. We all agree on the heat flows that happen in the end, hence there is no violation. What a weird idea.
For meteorologists, DWLW exists, and can be measured and described with no ambiguity.
For Engineers and Physicists – see the Thermo course above. There is none of your hand-wringing about this.
The only people raising this as an issue at all seem to be climate
skeptics.
Gordon 4:53pm: “(Clausius) defined heat as the kinetic energy of atoms”
Heat is only a measure of their KE Gordon. I will try to break this gently: heat does not exist per Clausius. Heat is a measure only per Clausius 1st memoir, p.18: “Assume generally that a motion of the particles (in a body) does exist, and that heat is a measure of their kinetic energy.”
Gordon thinks Clausius claimed and Gordon claims too, that the ‘something’ is thermal energy, aka heat. No, Clausius claimed heat is only a measure of the particles’ kinetic energy.
Gordon claims (h)owever, the proper name for the energy is heat.. thermal energy..internal heat..external heat..atoms conduct that energy..the electrons in the atoms that absorb the energy…
Gordon tries awfully hard to give a measure (heat) corporeal existence. No Gordon, per Clauisus 1st memoir, p.18: “Assume generally that a motion of the particles (in a body) does exist, and that heat is a measure of their kinetic energy.”
Gordon claims “Clausius defined U as internal heat”
No, Clausius p.225 on enthalpy H: “Let the quantity of heat (alone not including internal work) contained in it be expressed by H.”
The same can be said for Gordon’s claims about Bohr, Schrodinger, Kirchhoff. Gordon doesn’t use the master’s words, Gordon only uses his own words to misquote the masters.
I’m interested in Gordon’s reply.
When he is so consistently wrong, I find the interest wanes after a while.
Gordon Robertson
YOU: “No, only that the EM from the cooler object has no effect on the hotter object.
2nd law.”
Where in the 2nd Law does it ever make this false and misleading claim. You are making up false physics again! I have asked you to support your stupid comments but you don’t. Yes, we all know that heat cannot transfer from cold to hot. There is nothing at all in any variation but your complete made up version stating that the EM from a cooler object has no effect on a hotter on. It is fake science that has no reality but you act like you are some authority. You are only an authority of making up delusional physics. That is all you seem to be able to do. You are not able to understand and learn real physics. You are so deluded you think the textbook is wrong and you are somehow right. Yet you have done zero experiments on anything and you don’t have logical thought process and you can’t do even easy math. I don’t think you do anything but sit around making up your own physics and posting your stupid ideas on Roy’s blog.
If you did even some simple experiments you could see that the EM emitted by a cold object does effect the hotter object. If you lower the EM the hot objects cools faster or reaches a lower steady state temperature. If you increase the EM then the hot object cools slower or reaches a higher steady state temperature.
E. Swanson did actual experiments in high vacuum conditions. When you start doing some experiments that show your stupid point is valid, I will sit up and pay attention. As of now you are just a deluded. If you would do experiments you would soon discover you are an idiot and were wrong all along. Since you will never do this then you will continue to be a deluded crackpot who does not have a clue about any real science.
norman…”YOU: No, only that the EM from the cooler object has no effect on the hotter object.
2nd law.
Where in the 2nd Law does it ever make this false and misleading claim”.
………
For one, Clausius stated that radiative heat transfer must obey the 2nd law.
For another, the 2nd law states clearly that heat can NEVR be transferred, by its own means, from a colder body to a warmer body. Since EM transfers hear from a hotter body to a colder body, it follows that it cannot transfer heat in the opposite direction.
Furthermore, a transfer of heat by EM from cold to hot represents negative entropy, a no no in physics.
Gordon Robertson
EM transfers energy and it does not care about the temperature of the target. That is a delusional thought you have, it is not real.
Heat (net EM exchange) can never be transferred from a cold body to a warmer one. EM can be absorbed from a colder one to hotter one.
You are just redundant.
You explain E. Swanson’s experiment by saying the green plate prevents heat dissipation. You don’t even know what that means but throw it out.
The facts are real. The colder green plate DID change the temperature of the hotter blue plate. This is reality, you can’t ignore it. You can give a stupid explanation for the reality but it does not change the reality that you are wrong when you claim the EM of a colder object cannot change the affect a hotter body.
Look again Gordon. You are silly with your stupid comments and unreal. Fake science!
Real science:
https://app.box.com/s/5wxidf87li5bo588q2xhcfxhtfy52oba
The cold green plate causes a change in the hotter blue plate. The experiment is done in a strong vacuum. The only substantial energy exchange in this test is EMR. So only the green plate’s EMR can alter the Blue plate, no conduction or convection is doing the changing.
norman…”If you did even some simple experiments you could see that the EM emitted by a cold object does effect the hotter object”.
It’s not the EM it emits, it’s the temperature of the cooler body. The larger the temperature gradient between bodies of different temperatures the cooler the emitting body gets.
It’s right there in S-B: q = ebA(To^4 – T^4). The larger the temperature difference between To and T the larger the radiation density, hence the higher the rate of heat dissipation. I like to interpret q as heat dissipation rather than radiation density. It makes more sense to me since the To and T refer to the temperatures of the bodies related to how hot they are.
The colder body is not warming the hotter body, it is affecting its heat dissipation. In other words, the max T of the hot body would be the temperature at which it failed to dissipate heat.
That’s why with electrical/electronic/computer equipment, if you raise the operating environment temperature to the point where the equipment cannot dissipate heat, it will likely burn up.
You can get away with that to a degree with low power equipment but it’s vital to adequately ventilate high power equipment. That means lowering environmental temperatures to increase the temperature gradient.
Some computer centres actually use air conditioning.
Gordo makes one of his usual incorrect analogies, throwing out a red herring about cooling computer equipment. The method of cooling said electrical devices is typically convection, usually forced by a fan, though in larger systems, an actual A/C device is required as well.
Of course, his mention of S-B in a 2 body case misses the fact that the cooler body must also “dissipate heat” if the warmer body is supplied with energy from another source. Otherwise, the temperature of the cooler body would increase without limit as it gained energy. In the real world, all that energy is eventually spread out to the surroundings, which exhibit a very large thermal mass, so large that the heating of the surroundings is so small that it can be neglected.
swannie…”The method of cooling said electrical devices is typically convection, usually forced by a fan, though in larger systems….”
Many devices on which I worked were high power and had no cooling fan. When was the last time you saw a cooling fan in a high power home audio amplifier? Only high-end amps like the McIntosh line of amps used cooling.
https://www.mcintoshlabs.com/products/amplifiers
McIntosh put out amps with 300 watts RMS/channel at one time that had a built-in air conditioner.
Most audio power amps use a heat sink, which spreads out the surface area of the power transistors allowing both extended radiation and direct conduction to air. However, the convection is limited to thermals and any breeze that happens by.
It was actually Norman who provided stats on electronic equipment in a much earlier post. His argument even then was that cooler air (than the device) could warm a device presumably through back radiation. I pointed out to him then that the device was not warming from back-radiation but a lowered heat dissipation.
Gordo, as usual, misses the entire point of my comment. It is that “dissipation” involves the end point in any flow of thermal energy, which is, the surrounding heat sink. The thermal energy doesn’t vanish, it just becomes unavailable for any other use and entropy has reached a local maximum.
phi
From your post above: “You are in a problem of thermodynamics and you stubbornly refuse to introduce thermodynamics into your reasoning. We can do nothing against this obstinacy. But just two details.
In the case of conduction, the bodies are in direct contact but one can also model a dual energy flow carried by the molecular shocks. In the case of radiation, the contact is optical without this changing anything to the principle. Two opposing energy flows can be modeled, but they are not more independent than two opposite conductive flows.
Your microscopic model allows to imagine a difference in value for the coefficients of emissivity and absor.ption of a body since the two phenomena are distinguished. In reality, these two phenomena form only one, for if there were any difference between these two modeled phenomena, there might be a decrease in entropy and the laws of the universe would be shaken.”
I have zero clue of how you form you conclusion that two energy flows would cause a difference in the coefficients. That sounds bogus to me, I do not know what logic or rational thought you use to determine this.
Every object emits its own radiant energy away from its surface in all points leading away from it (zero back toward and none sideways).
I have a way for you to understand it. I tried to reason with Kristian but he is not as logical as he thinks himself to be.
Use a room in your house. The room is lighted, it has a source of EMR. The objects you see are reflecting some of this light back into your eyes. Now look in one direction and you see things. You do not see things behind you, the light from those objects is not AT ALL interfering with the energy you are seeing from the objects you view. There are multiple flows of energy in your room. Each distinct and unique and NOT a one will interfere or link in any way to the others. The energy streams from each object are independent from the energy streams of all the other objects.
I do not know why this simple reality (that you can observe) confuses you.
With an IR measuring instrument, like described on this blog, it eliminates the energy flow that you don’t want to measure with casing. The IR from the surface cannot reach the sensor, it is blocked (like your head blocks the light behind you from reaching you rods and cones in your eyes). The only IR reaching the sensor is from the direction you have your instrument pointing. The NET they use is the amount of energy the detecting element is losing via its own emission. This detecting material is not receiving any IR from the surface if pointed upward. You only are measuring the DWIR in this case. Only on IR stream not the other. They are not coupled, they are not linked and they pass right through each other like ghosts.
Norman,
I have zero clue of how you form you conclusion that two energy flows would cause a difference in the coefficients.
But I did not say that! I simply showed you the inadequacy of your microscopic model.
I have a way for you to understand it.
Thank you but I do not see what you want to demonstrate with your lighting.
This detecting material is not receiving any IR from the surface if pointed upward.
This is not the question and we have told you a thousand times. Only a heat flux is detectable. If you point an instrument at the cold atmosphere, your sensor will detect a loss of energy and the instrument will use it to calculate the temperature of the atmosphere taking into account the temperature of the sensor.
These basic discussions would not happen if there was not this:
Ramanathan and Coakley 1978, Climate Modeling Through Radiative-Convective Models. See Convective Adjustment.
http://www-ramanathan.ucsd.edu/files/pr15.pdf
The parameterization of the thermal gradient leaves the system with only one degree of freedom. Any radiative imbalance can be rebalanced by only one means. It follows that in this arbitrary model, there is a perfect similarity between the solar heat flux and backradiations.
phi
Thanks for the thoughtful response. I read a response Nate gave you way up the thread.
I think what you are bringing up is a philosophical question about reality and not a scientific issue.
It seems your question would be that if you cannot detect something it does not exist. If you need a detecting device it will seem that an energy flow is not real. I disagree. Science is a branch of philosophical thought that assumes (maybe incorrectly) a Universe that exists outside the perceptions of people. The IR detectors assume a real energy flux that you want to give a measured value to. It does not matter if you need to use a known quantity to determine an unknown.
Like temperature. If you want to measure an unknown temperature you can use a thermometer that uses the known value of expansion of a fluid depends upon its temperature. You monitor the expansion via a fixed scale that has been calibrated to a standard for temperatures.
In the case of the IR detector you have a fixed known quantity of IR emission (based upon the temperature sensor) and you measure the unknown energy flux from the atmosphere based upon the change it makes in the detecting material.
Since you seem to think that with a particular device that measures a heat flux and eliminates the emission part to determine the unknown energy flux that would mean an energy flux is only modeled or conceptual and not real.
You also claim that the colder object will not affect the hotter one. This is just wrong and can and E. Swanson already demonstrated this as did Roy Spencer.
The energy of the cold object is part of the energy a hotter object receives. It is a separate and unique energy flow. You can and should add DWIR and solar heat flux as the energy absorbed by the surface because that is what is going on in reality.
E. Swanson could demonstrate this with his experiment with the Blue and Green plates. He does not change the input energy source to the blue plate but he does alter the temperature of the green plate. Maybe have an ice container on the back side of the green plate to cool it. Now the temperature of the green plate is less and the temperature of the blue plate goes down at steady state conditions because it is receiving less energy from the green plate than in his non-cooled first test. He could change it to different temperatures and the cold plate will alter and change the steady state temperature of the blue plate. The energy emitted by the green plate is absorbed and alters the energy level the blue plate. It is as simple as that. I am not even sure what point you are making.
Norman,
I think what you are bringing up…
It seems your question would be…
No Norman. What I think is what I wrote. Do not try to rephrase, you do it badly.
You also claim that the colder object will not affect the hotter one.
No Norman. Try to read correctly.
Norman,
Wow, there is a lot there that is troubling. You are stuck in an AGW paradigm which I think prevents you from understanding what phi and Kristian have been trying to explain.
“The IR detectors assume a real energy flux that you want to give a measured value to.”
IR detectors don’t assume. They measure the difference between the radiation they emit and the radiation they receive. The guy holding the detector does the assuming. He assumes the sensors remain as calibrated with known temperatures and that the SB equation applies.
“It does not matter if you need to use a known quantity to determine an unknown.”
Say what? Without adopting standards like the pressure at sea level and ice water as zero C, how would the gas laws ever been discovered?
“In the case of the IR detector you have a fixed known quantity of IR emission (based upon the temperature sensor) and you measure the unknown energy flux from the atmosphere based upon the change it makes in the detecting material.”
The first part seems right, but it is a calculated SB emission. The detector measures what prior calibration determined as a temperature difference. Then another SB calculation gives you the incoming emission. The heat flux is the difference in the calculated values.
“Since you seem to think that with a particular device that measures a heat flux and eliminates the emission part to determine the unknown energy flux that would mean an energy flux is only modeled or conceptual and not real.”
I did not interpret anything phi wrote to be anything like that. The flux from surface to space is calculated by making two measurements of heat flux somewhere in between. One measures heat flux from the surface to the detector and the other measures the flux from the detector to space. The difference is the net heat flux.
The DWIR is just the conceptual half of the actual energy flows between the surface and space. It is meaningless without the simultaneous other half that constitutes one unique energy transfer, not two.
‘The flux from surface to space is calculated by making two measurements of heat flux somewhere in between. One measures heat flux from the surface to the detector and the other measures the flux from the detector to space. The difference is the net heat flux.’
That’s correct. So since net flux is calculated from these two separate measurements, why isn’t net heat flux the conceptual quantity?
Norman’s point is that most measurements (temperature, pressure, etc) are calculated quantities, and the fact that they are calculated, is not determining their existence or reality.
Nate,
“So since net flux is calculated from these two separate measurements, why isnt net heat flux the conceptual quantity?”
That’s a good question. My answer (for the moment) would be that all measured fluxes are conceptual, almost a case of semantics. Like the difference between a drawing of a chair and one you can actually sit on. The main thing is heat doesn’t go from cold to hot. So whatever the radiation coming at you, either it is warming you or you are warming it depending on the temperature difference.
CB
“So whatever the radiation coming at you, either it is warming you or you are warming it depending on the temperature difference.”
Huh? You think radiation can be “warmed”. You think radiation can change its wavelength in mid-air in response to a nearby warm body? The absolute crap you people come up with.
Sorry, in my rush to “watch” the Mann-Curry debate (what a waste of time), I wasn’t clear. The “it” should have been whatever object the heat flux between you and the object is occurring.
So, know I don’t think radiation can be warmed. The crap must be … elsewhere. Radiation goes between objects with a heat flux always from hot to cold.
With a NET heat flux between hot and cold.
Edit: FROM hot to cold.
The net radiation is from hot to cold. There is no heat flux from cold to hot, unless by convention you call it a negative heat flux.
Norman…”Science is a branch of philosophical thought that assumes (maybe incorrectly) a Universe that exists outside the perceptions of people”.
It’s becoming more obvious why you think I am making up science. Science is not about philosophy, it’s about observation based on the rules of the scientific method. And science is not about assuming anything, especially a universe outside of human perception.
Science is about observing that universe with the conditioned portion of the human mind excluded (awareness). In other words, science is not about opinion, philosophy, belief, or consensus, it is about what is there, what is, interpreted as best as our minds are capable of doing that.
The universe you are describing is all about conditioned belief systems. The 2nd law has been well established for a century and a half with no one able to refute it. Yet you have refuted it based on your incorrect beliefs about EM radiation and your interpretation of generalizations in a few textbooks.
You and some of your fellow alarmists have re-interpreted the 2nd law, adding aspects to it that were not there when Clausius defined it. You personally have claimed a two-way heat transfer when Clausius made it abundantly clear that heat can NEVER by its own means be transferred from a cooler body to a hotter body. He further stipulated that applies to radiation as well.
The most egregious obfuscation to the second law by alarmists is the incorrect notion that it is satisfied by a positive net balance of energy (EM). You claim over and over that EM can be transferred both ways between bodies of different temperatures even though that is a flagrant violation of the 2nd law, which deals with HEAT TRANSFER between bodies of different temperatures, not the summation of EM.
Clausius defined the 2nd law as well as entropy. He claimed that the 2nd law must satisfy the integral of dQ/T over a process, which is the entropy, and stipulated that S(entropy) = integral dQ/T must either be zero for a reversible process or positive for an irreversible process. It cannot be negative.
Your insistence that heat can be transferred from a cooler body to a warmer body without compensation is a negative entropy. In physics, it’s illegal, no matter how many fancy definitions you create.
For two bodies of different temperature, with T1 > T2,
delta S = Q(1/T2 – 1/T1) works only if T1 > T2. That means it works only if T1 is hotter than T2 as described.
Note that T1, the hotter body, is marked as -T1 because heat is flowing away from it and T2 is +T2 because heat is flowing to it.
https://www.grc.nasa.gov/www/Wright/airplane/thermo2.html
norman…this statement may be misleading, “Science is about observing that universe with the conditioned portion of the human mind excluded (awareness)”.
I mean that the state of awareness occurs only when the conditioned mind becomes quiet.
Gordon Robertson
Are you trying to drive me insane? You keep making up things.
Find one statement in any of my posts where I make this statement you attribute falsely to me!
YOU: “Your insistence that heat can be transferred from a cooler body to a warmer body without compensation is a negative entropy. In physics, its illegal, no matter how many fancy definitions you create.”
Why do you need to lie about what I say. I say energy is transferred from a colder body to a hotter one. NOT HEAT. So please stop making false claims!
Since I caught you lying terribly.
YOU: “You personally have claimed a two-way heat transfer when Clausius made it abundantly clear that heat can NEVER by its own means be transferred from a cooler body to a hotter body. He further stipulated that applies to radiation as well.”
Find a post of mine where I made this claim!! It is offensive that you intentionally lie about what I post.
My claim is that there is a two-way energy transfer. I did not state a two way heat transfer. I have told you many times I consider heat to be the NET energy exchange. You can’t have two-way Net exchange. It is only a one way NET exchange!
Norman…” I say energy is transferred from a colder body to a hotter one. NOT HEAT. So please stop making false claims!”
Essentially the same statement. If EM is absorbed by a body it MUST warm.
“Clausius made it abundantly clear that heat can NEVER by its own means be transferred from a cooler body to a hotter body. He further stipulated that applies to radiation as well.”
That last sentence is untrue. He says in several places that in regards the ordinary transfer of energies, hot and cold bodies radiate to each other. HEAT is a different quantity to radiation, and the first part of the para Gordon gets right, as everyone agrees.
Gordo again points to the early theoretical work on thermodynamics by Clausius, but leaves out the rrest of the details. Back in the mid-19th century, the scientific understanding was that “heat” was some sort of fluid which flowed from one body to another. It was dubbed “caloric” by the scientific masters. The theory remained part of scientific thinking by Clausius and others into the early 20th century. Of course, if “heat” is a fluid flowing from hot to cold, your deviant version of the Second Law would obtain, but much has been learned since 1854.
swannie…”Back in the mid-19th century, the scientific understanding was that heat was some sort of fluid which flowed from one body to another. It was dubbed caloric by the scientific masters. The theory remained part of scientific thinking by Clausius….”
Why don’t you read what the man had to say in his own words? He disowned the ‘caloric’ theory and claimed heat is the kinetic energy of atoms.
Gordo, Clausius also agreed that heat and mechanical energy are equivalent. And in his 1867 publication, he considered cyclic devices which convert heat to work when asserting his Second Law of Thermo…
Only a heat flux is detectable. If you point an instrument at the cold atmosphere, your sensor will detect a loss of energy and the instrument will use it to calculate the temperature of the atmosphere taking into account the temperature of the sensor.
This is of course bullocks.
For info of ignoramuses, there are two basic kinds of detectors, bolometers and photonics detectors. Neither bolometers nor photonics detectors work like this.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bolometer#/media/File:Bolometer_conceptual_schematic.svg
Bolometer’s active part detects a tiny change in its own temperature that is proportional to the change in incident radiation (whatever its nature, can be particles, such as neutrons) that it absorbs. This change in temperature is by design ( resistive contact to a thermal reservoir as can be seen in schematic concept of a bolometer) practically quite independent of what it radiates itself and so by no means can it measure the net energy or heat it actually exchanges with the radiation source. So it definitely measures just the change in one way incident radiation.
Photonic detectors on the other hand do not even convert the incident radiation into heat and net energy or heat exchange is completely irrelevant in their physics . They convert incident radiation into electron-hole pairs in an appropriate semiconductor junction.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mercury_cadmium_telluride#Infrared_detection
With appropriate electronics circuitry and possibly cooling to reduce thermal noise this yields directly an electric signal again proportional to the incident one way radiation flow that is absorbed and bears here again no relationship with the net energy or heat exchange between the device and the radiation source.
To assert that IR detectors can only measure a heat flux is as idiotic as to claim that the amount of photosynthesis in plants rather than directly reflect the incident energy absorbed from one way incoming sunlight flux actually can only reflect the exchange of heat between the plant and the sun. Hilarious.
typo: bollocks…
IT, I have to respectfully disagree with much of what you said.
First of all, there are other types of detectors that are more common for measuring IR.
Thermopiles are commonly used for pyrgeometers. They are a series of thermocouples that produce a voltage proportional to the difference in temperature between two faces of a thin sheet of material. The temperature of the “inner” face is at the temperature of the body of the detector and is measured with a thermocouple. The ‘outer’ face changes temperature due to the NET IR. If the surroundings are cooler than the detector, the outer face will be cooler than the inner face because of the NET IR from the outer detector face.
Microbolometers are used for IR camera. They also sense the temperature change of an element due to NET IR.
Standard bolometers could be designed to detect specific things like neutrons by choosing a low emissivity material with a large neutron cross-section. But that is not what you want for IR detectors. You want a high emissivity detector that absorbs the incoming thermal radiation and warms (until the outgoing radiation increases enough to balance out). Even small imbalances can be detected.
Photonic detectors require cryogenic temperatures to work effectively, and hence are uncommon. They are, however, the one sort of detector listed here that is NOT responding to net IR.
Tim Folkerts
Would this analogy be an accurate representation of IR detectors?
You have a balance that on one side you have a known mass (this would be the sensor IR emission). Say it is 300 grams. You take an unknown mass on the other side and say it deflects the needle by 30 grams to the right (toward the unknown mass). You now can claim the unknown mass is 330 grams. If the unknown mass were lighter the needle would deflect left.
The question is. Is the energy detected and converted to a numerical value (measured) real? Does a real energy flux composed of zillions of photons move from atmosphere to surface where it is absorbed and added to the surface internal energy?
All valid material I read says that there is a real energy flux. None make a claim it is only a model or conceptual. They all state clearly you have two energy flows at the surface of any object. You have the energy it emits (which is based upon its temperature) and you have energy that is absorbs from the surroundings. This energy source can be very complex and daunting to calculate. You can have multiple energy sources in the surroundings of different sizes and temperatures. You have to calculate each ones contribution to the energy the object will be able to absorb from its surroundings. The simple radiant transfer equation is the simplest form.
Tim Folkerts
My response was triggered by phi’s nonsense, please read it, about IR detectors being allegedly definitively unable to detect incident one way flux and only ever net heat exchange. This absurd ad nauseam rant of a handful of idiots here, that incoming one-way radiation fluxes cannot ever be directly measured and have no physical reality is just wrong
-Now, off course there are a lot of devices that do it indeed just by measuring essentially heat exchange and in particular in common commercial ones in cameras and pyrgeometers. I never claimed the opposite !
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2018/06/uah-global-temperature-update-for-may-2018-0-18-deg-c/#comment-306941
-Yet it is easy to design a genuine bolometer that works as I said and as depicted in the picture I linked to, even in the IR. Please note that in this design the high emissivity absorbing material does not simply warm until its own IR emission balances incoming absorp-tion, as you seem to believe, it actually warms rather until balance is reached via the loss through conduction to a thermal bath. If a serious thermal bath is realized at a fairly lower temperature as the source, any emission (and a fortiori tiny change upon warming in emission) is quite negligible as compared to conductive loss and only the incident flux is strictly measured as I said and as the formula in caption of wiki picture shows. And at any rate even if not quite negligible such an instrument nevertheless still does not measure the actual heat exchange between source and device.
-And yes as you acknowledge, thanks, there are the photonics detectors.
Tim Folkert,
I admire your intellectual honesty even though I regret that you do not always draw the right conclusions from what you understand.
I just have a comment about this:
They are, however, the one sort of detector listed here that is NOT responding to net IR.
Let’s say that it is a control or a calculation of electric potential that replaces partially a control or a calculation of the temperature. This does not change the general principle and of course that does not prevent the photonic sensors from respecting the second principle.
About this esoteric discussion, the initial question is:
Is it relevant to add the backradiations of the atmosphere to the solar flux to obtain the amount of energy heating the surface?
The example of thermal sensors was taken to show that only the heat flux had a detectable thermal effect. There is, therefore, at least no justification for preferring double energy flows rather than simple heat flux.
Then, I strongly insisted on the convective adjustment made in Ramanathan and Coakley 1978. This adjustment constrains the temperature gradient and leaves the climate system with only the translation of the thermal profile to recover from any radiative imbalance. Whether this imbalance comes from an increase in solar flux or an increase in IR opacity, the effect is the same on the profile. It follows exactly that an increase in backradiations (measure of opacity) or an increase in solar flux have an identical effect.
These interminable discussions about backradiations and the second one come from an arbitrary theoretical trick allowing to circumvent thermodynamics and not at all from an ambiguity of the fundamental laws.
phi makes a basis mistake: “Whether this imbalance comes from an increase in solar flux or an increase in IR opacity, the effect is the same on the profile.”
This is an incorrect understanding of the physics phi.
The sun burns a fuel so if absorbed solar flux increases the troposphere temperature v. height profile is translated to the right meaning added energy in the earth atm. system, upper regions warm as do lower regions.
An increase in full atm. depth IR opacity does not burn a fuel so if IR opacity increases the troposphere temperature v. height profile is only rotated about a point such that there is NO added energy in the earth atm. system thus conserving energy, upper regions cool and lower regions warm.
These interminable discussions about backradiations and the second one come from simple physics in accord with atm. thermodynamics conservation of energy and not at all from an ambiguity of the fundamental laws.
Ball4,
Even if you have not grasped the articulation of my comment, thank you for your confirmation of what I am trying to explain.
I obviously do not support the arbitrary theoretical trick.
For the case with increased solar flux, I do not think we can exclude rotation. But that’s not the essential point.
“An increase in full atm. depth IR opacity does not burn a fuel so if IR opacity increases the troposphere temperature v. height profile is only rotated about a point such that there is NO added energy in the earth atm. system thus conserving energy, upper regions cool and lower regions warm.”
You are the one with some fundamental misunderstandings here!
Conservation of energy does NOT require that the total energy in the atmosphere remains constant! When the opacity increases (for example by adding more GHGs), more of the radiation leaving to space comes from higher in the atmosphere. Since the temperatures in these regions are cooler than in lower regions, this means a decrease in energy leaving to space.
Since the same energy is arriving (from the sun to the earth/atmosphere system) but less energy is leaving (from the earth/atmosphere system to space), conservation of energy demands that energy must be collecting within the earth/atmosphere system. This extra energy is manifested as an increase in temperature of the atmosphere as a whole + an increase in temperature of the solid/liquid surface layer.
Other responses of the system (eg changes to cloud cover or weather patterns) complicate the analysis, but there is no reason to think the profile just ‘rotates’ to a higher lapse rate.
“Conservation of energy does NOT require that the total energy in the atmosphere remains constant!”
Manabe 1964, Ramanathan/Coakley 1978 shows this is wrong Tim, same as phi.
If incoming energy net of outgoing energy is zero, 1LOT says the total thermodynamic internal energy U in the atm. remains constant. Simply increasing the IR opacity means incoming energy net of outgoing energy is zero for the system U being unchanged.
This should not be hard to understand, Manabe understood this in 1964! And his prior references. His atm. opacity changes in atm. T profile conserves energy for the system.
If there is an increase solar absorbed, then incoming energy is increased to the system and outgoing energy starts to increase until the system again achieves steady state balance with the troposphere T profile higher T at bottom and higher T at top.
“but less energy is leaving (from the earth/atmosphere system to space).”
Not for a change in opacity Tim, 240 in and 240 out is unchanged, profile rotates about a point to conserve energy. If increase solar say to 241, yes, energy out increases eventually to 241 and steady state T then increases all along the profile.
“For the case with increased solar flux, I do not think we can exclude rotation. But thats not the essential point.”
To the extent there are feedbacks, I do not think so either. Good point phi; same issue arises for pure profile rotation opacity increase.
Tim Folkert,
there is no reason to think the profile just ‘rotates’ to a higher lapse rate
There is really no reason to think that he is not doing it or that he is not doing the opposite.
On the one hand the increase of the resistance to the radiative flow militates for an increase of the gradient whereas on the other the increase of the opacity increases the efficiency of convection and tends to decrease the lapse rate.
That’s the whole problem of quantitative theory. Assume the hypothesis of invariance without demonstrating it.
Is it relevant to add the backradiations of the atmosphere to the solar flux to obtain the amount of energy heating the surface?
Of course it is.
The incoming energy flux absorbed by surface from sun light is actually by itself nothing else than a one way energy flux of exactly the same nature (EMR) except it’s in a different spectral range than back radiation. It’s not more a heat flux than back radiation.
So again just more hilarious idiotic drivel.
Let’s say that it is a control or a calculation of electric potential that replaces partially a control or a calculation of the temperature. This does not change the general principle and of course that does not prevent the photonic sensors from respecting the second principle.
Let’s say this is just a lump of further meaningless blabber and ignorance of basic physical principles.
The fact that these semiconductor devices as genuine bolometers measure directly incoming flux and not heat exchange does by no means prevent the latter from taking place everywhere in complete agreement with the second principle of thermodynamics. Phi throws this nonsense around, about alleged violation of this principle, without the least evidence and reasoning supporting his fancy view and when challenged to do so he appears definitely incapable to do it except spout even more idiotic blabber.
These devices do not more violate any principle of thermodynamics than photosynthesis or living creatures for instance.
In fact phi has no clue what thermodynamic principles mean and what he talks about.
Idiot,
It only took you three little words to make yourself ridiculous: Of course it is
The rest flows from the same barrel.
This may be the moment for you to really cast off.
Ball 4
If opacity changes suddenly, the internal energy of atmosphere cannot be conserved initially in transient regime, it must necessarily temporarily increase of course.
This does not at all contradict Manabe et al. because these authors present the results relevant to and discuss the steady state reached after everything as warmed up as opposed to initial transient regime.
In steady state, yes, energy flow in = energy flow out (on average) and internal energy of atmosphere then stay constant (on average).
This dramatic confusion between steady and transient states is unfortunately the origin of a lot of misunderstandings.
“If incoming energy net of outgoing energy is zero, 1LOT says the total thermodynamic internal energy U in the atm. remains constant.”
Yes, but the point is that net energy is not required to stay constant! If sunlight comes in constantly (averaged over timescales of years), but IR gets reduced even slightly over years, then energy builds up. And the clear, simple, logical impact of more GHGs is reduced outflow of IR from the TOA.
” There is really no reason to think that he [the amtosphere] is not doing it [changing lapse rate] …
Thats the whole problem of quantitative theory. Assume the hypothesis of invariance without demonstrating it.”
Surely you can see that your assumption of “rotation” is merely a different “hypothesis without demonstrating it”. It takes chutzpah to boldly state one unsupported hypotheses is better than another!
“the opacity increases the efficiency of convection and tends to decrease the lapse rate.”
YES! And guess which wins? Neither conduction nor radiation can easily or effectively allow heat flow from one layer of the atmosphere to another. But convection can! Any increase in the lapse rate above that of the adiabatic lapse rate causes immediate convection that very effectively limits the lapse rate. So, yes, there *is* reason to think that the lapse rate remains very close to this adiabatic lapse rate. (There can be variations when water vapor is condensing out, but that is a different issue.)
Finally, have a look at MODTRAN. (http://climatemodels.uchicago.edu/modtran/)
With the default settings, the outward IR at that time and location is ~ 399 W/m^2. If you change nothing but opacity (by increasing the CO2 from 400 ppm to 600 ppm), the outgoing IR is reduced by about 3 W/m^2.
So yes, everything else being equal, increasing the opacity DOES decrease the outward IR, which WOULD increase the temperature.
“And the clear, simple, logical impact of more GHGs is reduced outflow of IR from the TOA.”
Your clear, simple logic is against 1LOT Tim. 1LOT means no energy increase in the total system U, 240 in and still 240 out at steady state equilibrium as GHGs increase the am. opacity; the surface warms and the upper regions equally cool no U change, no 240 energy out change for constant 240 in at steady state equilibrium. Manabe had it right in 1964, followed up by RC78.
Added GHGs cannot increase the 240 out from opacity increases as they burn no fuel. Transiently, a spike can disrupt the balance due internal variability but the system eventually returns to 240 in and out.
Tim,
Where is the data that supports your hypothesis that more IR active gases will have a measurable impact on global temperatures?
You are arguing with troll #1 and troll #2 about model predictions and hypothetical energy balance.
Tim Folkert,
Surely you can see that your assumption of rotation is merely a different hypothesis without demonstrating it.
In any thermal system, there is a priori rotation of the profile, translation is an exception. Personally, I do not have an opinion, I just say that putting a null rotation is arbitrary.
So, yes, there *is* reason to think that the lapse rate remains very close to this adiabatic lapse rate.
Most of the volume of the troposphere is in a subsidence state while its average thermal gradient is far from the dry adiabatic. So, no, the lapse rate is not very close to the adiabatic thermal gradient.
the outgoing IR is reduced by about 3 W/m^2
Well yes, the gradient is given fixed in MODTRAN.
So yes, everything else being equal, increasing the opacity DOES decrease the outward IR, which WOULD increase the temperature.
This is likely but is absolutely not quantifiable.
It takes chutzpah to boldly state one unsupported hypotheses is better than another!
Nope.
What takes chutzpah is just the claim that there are no very good physical reasons to do what is done in the Manabe et al. paper to take into account for convection.
Again this litany by phi that the vertical temperature gradient must be what uniquely determines the various energy fluxes is wrong and a change in fluxes definitely does not merely imply a change in gradient or lapse rate (and conversely). This is only true for ordinary conduction (Fourier’s law) that plays here a negligible role. By no means does such a property of linear near equilibrium thermodynamics apply to the radiative or convective heat transfer in atmosphere. Convection is technically a far from equilibrium thermodynamic phenomenon that works in a highly non linear on-off mode.
Tim Folkerts says, June 13, 2018 at 5:28 AM:
Yes, again, this is the THEORY. We have, however, as of yet been utterly unable to verify through real-world observations this theoretical mechanism in effective operation in the Earth system. Which means, it is still nothing but speculation. It is not in any way empirically established fact, as you seem to think.
Ball4,
The first law is ΔU = Q – W (using a common sign convention for W). Nothing here says U must always be constant!
For earth specifically, the overall Q takes two forms: absorbed sunlight and thermal IR to space. No law of physics says these two must be the same; that Q(in) – Q(out) = 0. Trivially Q(in) < Q(out) at night.
Your imposed condition that Q(in) = Q(out) = 240 W/m^2 is wrong. Neither of these numbers are fixed. You are putting the cart before the horse! Balance is not IMPOSED by the first law. Balance is SOUGHT by allowing temperatures to continuously adjust.
Specifically, Q(out) to space will temporarily get thrown off by more GHGs as they reduce the output to space below 240 W/m^2. Temperatures then rise until a new, warmer steady-state is achieved with an output of 240 W/m^2. Nothing here violates the laws of thermodynamics!
Idiot tracker says, June 13, 2018 at 6:09 AM:
Say what!!?
Laugh or cry, I have no idea. I mean, how did we even get to this point? I weep for humanity. (No, in this case there’s no laughter.) The level of ignorance, how deep does it go? Are regular people today really this misinformed?
I’m sorry to tell you this, Idiot, but the tail you’re chasing is very much you own …
So you want to ADD the “back radiation flux” to the solar flux to get the total HEATING of the surface. Dear me …
Yup, that’s the “Climate Science” version of Thermodynamics right there.
And the worst thing is, he doesn’t see it himself. Completely and fully unable to. It’s the same with all of them …
“Specifically, Q(out) to space will temporarily get thrown off by more GHGs as they reduce the output to space below 240 W/m^2. Temperatures then rise until a new, warmer steady-state is achieved with an output of 240 W/m^2. Nothing here violates the laws of thermodynamics!”
Yes, now you are catching up with Manabe64. As the system gets back to steady state equilibrium 240 in & 240 out, Manabe shows no change in U at that point by calculating the balanced T profile which stabilizes as atm. becomes warmer in the lower regions and cooler in the upper regions by conserving thermodynamic internal (thermal) energy shown by rotating the profile about the point that conserves energy before during & after the perturbation.
Increasing GHGs add atm. opacity but no thermal energy to the total system U as they burn no fuel.
I mean it’s asinine.
The ‘skeptics’ rail against changes to data based on the fact that there ARE changes. No investigation or discussion on why changes are needed.
So I point out that their data set du jour – UAH, compiled by fellow ‘skeptics’ – also has regular changes to the monthly data that are undocumented.
The response?
Anything but on-point. They just repeat the hatred of other data sets – for the same thing that their favourite does – and never deal with the rebuttal.
It’s mindless. Mo intellectual rigour. No demonstration of logical thinking.
I repeat, these critics are idiots.
The difference is UAH does not have an agenda!
Unlike the other sources whose data is biased and useless.
Your response just proves Barry’s point.
Yes, exactly.
Every time they respond.
And, your stock response is simply to deny it, and refer to the suspects’ own statements as proof. If I ever get into real legal trouble, I hope you’re on my jury.
Precisely what people do when they believe the UAH data. For the thermometer record however, the are many sources in agreement.
Agreement is not a valid metric for determining reliability. One can get great agreement when everyone has their thumb on the scale.
This is a variant of an ad populum fallacy.
And, your stock response is simply to deny it, and refer to the suspects own statements as proof.
Wrong. I’ve investigated the matter fairly deeply and my understanding comes from many lines of inquiry.
1) There are different global data sets. The results are similar regardless of which you use.
2) The raw data has a higher long-term trend than adjusted. This would help ‘them’ buttress a higher climate sensitivity. Skeptics notice adjustments that ‘help’ one kind of analysis only – whatever suits the conspiracy theory.
3) A number of data don’t give clear results, and even opposite results in line with a (GHG) warming narrative – eg Antarctic sea ice, or stratospheric cooling in the last couple of decades, or diurnal range over the last 35 years, or the ‘slow down’ in global temps from 1998 to 2013 (still present in the official data), or the similar temp rise in the early 20th century, or the flat period in the mid 20th century, or the tropical hotspot region. Clearly they’re not fudging these in the name of some warming narrative. They’re hot topics, so why haven’t they been tended to?
4) Adjustments have been documented. There are very good, physical reasons why the global temp profile changed from the data they had in 1981 to the data they have now, for example. But this sort of detail just gets smeared out in the wash of idiotic skeptic criticism.
5) And this is perhaps the most convincing for me. Skeptics who have actually done more than regurgitate the pap they hear on blogs – who spent months and years working on a method to estimate the global temperature record from raw data – have come up with the same or higher temp trends than the official records.
Your fellows who have done the hard work came up with results that corroborate the records from the well-known institutes.
But you.
You toss off rhetoric and nudge and wink and smear and condescend, because the inane conspiracy theory, the feckless ‘groupthink’ narrative is easier than doing the work. And you invent a narrative about me, too – that I only read the official announcements and commentary from the ‘warmists’. That I get my knowledge from skepticalscience and the like.
I don’t know if you’re stupid or a shill. Either way, you’re an idiot.
And, you are a rube.
Can you even name one test they do that checks to see if the algorithms they use for adjustments do not introduce a trend bias?
Do you know anything at all about the methods and checks on adjustments?
Gonna take a huge leap – sorry,tiny step – here and say – no, you don’t.
Because you’ve never been enough of a skeptic to look that far.
Skeptic my arse.
For the record I always embrace UAH data even when it shows results I do not want to see.
For the record I see them all as estimates and favour none.
Idiot tracker
Upthread I wrote, “Lets say a senser emits IR at a rate of 300 w/m^2
If it then absorbs IR at a rate of 320 w/m^2, a change of temperature is produced and detected by the device.”
Do you disagree with that? It was based on what I’ve learned about heat transfer but more specifically from Wikipedia/pyrgeometer:
“It measures the resistance/voltage changes in a material that is sensitive to the net energy transfer by radiation that occurs between itself and its surroundings (which can be either in or out). By also measuring its own temperature and making some assumptions about the nature of its surroundings it can infer a temperature of the local atmosphere with which it is exchanging radiation.”
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pyrgeometer
Snape
How is that possible? The absorbing material would both emit and absorb in proportion to its surface area. If the absorber is in view of an object, that object is in view of the radiation emitted by the absorber.
Of course the absorbing material emits radiation and exchanges heat with the object it measures but if it’s involved in a genuine IR detector (not a pyrgeometer), that is, if it’s the active part of a laboratory grade bolometer or a CdTeHg device the response of such device or output electric signal is proportional to incoming radiation absorbed only and not at all to the heat exchange with measured object.
Obviously you do not make the needed effort and understand how the bolometer schematic concept I linked to works indeed by design and how this is a simple result of the conductive thermal contact of absorbing material with a thermal reservoir. Nor do you apparently attempt to understand the semiconductor devices though this is even so much more obvious and unescapable since the incoming energy is not even converted into heat or internal energy at all.
Thus the devices I talk of never ever measure the net exchange of energy or heat.
And think again of ubiquitous plant photosynthesis of sugars that constitutes by itself a natural detector and not only a response just proportional to incident sunlight but even to only that part of its spectrum that is absorbed by chlorophyl pigments. Again absolutely nothing to do with the heat exchanged, the incident energy not even ends up as heat at all similarly to the electron hole pairs in semiconductor IR detectors.
So I say it once more: claiming that “only heat exchanges can be detected” by IR detectors is utterly wrong.
And unfortunately this is just one out of all those innumerable examples of bullshit and laughable blabber spouted ad nauseam here by a bunch of amusing idle physics illiterate morons.
IT
Also, the diagram you linked shows a one way power source into an absorber.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bolometer#/media/File:Bolometer_conceptual_schematic.svg
How is that possible? The absorbing material would both emit and absorb in proportion to its surface area. If the absorber is in view of an object, that object is in view of the radiation emitted by the absorber.
Because Idiot is an idiot.
A bolometer is a thermal detector. When it says that “incoming” or “impinging” radiation changes the temperature of the sensor surface, i.e. HEATS it, that’s your clue right there. A thing is HEATED (or cooled) by a change in the transfer of … HEAT to/from it. The bolometer simply records instantaneous changes in the energy/heat (im)balance naturally always present at the sensor surface. It doesn’t record one hemiflux in a two-way macroscopic transfer directly and just doesn’t notice (or, better, ignores) the opposite one. There is no physical way you can do that.
And Idiot presumably doesn’t understand this basic principle.
So what physically happens when a bolometer records the temperature of an object that is cooler than it?
Big stress on the word PHYSICALLY here. Can you explain without resorting to the dogma of the church of thermodynamics?
PHYSICALLY it detects a change in the NET exchange. A bolometer doesn’t detect photons, barry:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2018/06/uah-global-temperature-update-for-may-2018-0-18-deg-c/#comment-307416
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2018/06/uah-global-temperature-update-for-may-2018-0-18-deg-c/#comment-307581
A thought for all those arguing about heat transfer.
Chic, Kristian and Gordon argue that energy cannot be transferred from a colder to a warmer object.
This is a testable hypothesis.
Set up a photon source and a target. Keep the source at a constant temperature.
Set up detectors to measure the proportion of photons emitted from the source and absorbed or reflected by the target.
Run the experiment with the target cooler than the source. All of us, including C,K G would predict that some of the photons would be absorbed by the target and add to its internal energy U.
Run the experiment again, with the target warmer than the source. We diverge on what the photons would do.
The consensus physicists would expect some of the photons to be absorbed by the target and increase U.
C,K,G would expect no increase in U due to absorbed photons. All the photons reaching the target would be reflected, none absorbed by the target.
That is a clear observable difference between the two hypotheses.
Entropic man says, June 12, 2018 at 4:42 PM:
No, I don’t. Stop it with the straw men and misrepresentations!
Just saw this and am quite confused.
EM:”Chic, Kristian and Gordon argue that energy cannot be transferred from a colder to a warmer object.’
K ‘No, I dont. Stop it with the straw men and misrepresentations!”
Kristian, I don’t understand, you are seemingly contradicting yourself and violating 2nd law??
:
‘You cant EXPLAIN the further rise in U and T of the already warmer object as a direct result of an extra input of energy from a cooler object.
Ok, so in reality, the 2nd law IS violated. Constantly.”
That really is dumb. Any good experimenter will always find the warmer of the two heating the other.
What you think I am arguing is wrong. I think it’s because the simple GHE model poisons your thinking process.
Chic Bowdrie
I am hoping you still post your list of the science you have correct and I have wrong.
If you do so, please add some links to support your ideas.
The other authorities (Gordon Robertson and Kristian) say I am wrong so I ask them to link to some valid science and show their views are right. At this time I have not seen links. I have linked both of these experts to numerous links from actual science textbooks. If I am wrong then throw out the textbooks and listen the the Internet experts (neither does even one experiment but they know everything about heat transfer…yet neither will link to one to support their claims). If you will not support your beliefs, please don’t waste your time with list of your brilliant understanding of physics and my inability to comprehend even simple ideas.
E,
Photon source – block of ice.
Target – water.
Tell me how the water gets hotter by absorbing energy from the ice. Name one consensus physicist who believes this miraculous occurrence.
No hypothesis – established fact. Nobody has managed to to heat water using ice as a source of energy. Maybe CO2 has mystical properties, but I don’t believe so.
No GHE. Not even a disprovable hypothesis. Religious fanaticism based on fantasy and wishful thinking. Not science, that is for sure!
Cheers.
Mike Flynn
The bot master of strawman argument.
I do not know why you think your example of ice warming water has anything to do with the GHE. Are you that daft?
Water will get warmer, if it is heated, if you surround the heated water with ice vs dry ice. You can increase the temperature of heated water if you surround it in a block of ice rather than dry ice.
The Earth has a continuous supply of solar energy. It is a powered surface. It has constant energy added to it from the Sun. If the colder GHG emit IR to the surface to add to the solar input, the surface temperature can go up.
N,
What are you talking about?
You say –
“If the colder GHG emit IR to the surface to add to the solar input, the surface temperature can go up.”
If a miracle occurred, no doubt it could. Except it doesn’t!
You can’t use ice to heat water. You can’t use something colder to heat something hotter. You can’t add 300 W of energy from ice to 300 W from sunlight, and make anything hotter than it is already from the sunlight.
Believe as you like. Maybe you could believe a disprovable GHE hypothesis into existence?
Not only ignorant, but also stupid. You can’t even heat water with ice, can you? Even 0.000001 K!
What a fool!
Cheers.
Mike Flynn
My your are one incredibly stupid bot that has zero knowledge of physics.
You still won’t link to any webpage. Why is that?
You moron. Yes ice will increase the temperature of heated water if the ice is warmer than the surroundings it is shielding. It is returning 300 W/m^2 to the water. Real energy.
If you add zero heat the water will freeze but stay at around 270 K.
That is considerably warmer than 3 K.
The radiant energy from the ice (which would have to be heated to remain emitting 300 W/m^2) will set a ground state for the frozen water. Now if you add external heat to the frozen water surrounded by ice, it will go above the 270 K temperature that was maintained by ice.
Just because you are a blithering idiot does not mean you have to post your stupid nonsense. Your posts are senseless and repeat. You really need to learn some science.
N,
Hang on there just a second, Norman.
You wrote-
“You moron. Yes ice will increase the temperature of heated water if the ice is warmer than the surroundings it is shielding. It is returning 300 W/m^2 to the water. Real energy.”
Really? No amount of ice will make water any hotter. All your waffle and introduction of heat sources with a temperature above that of frozen water won’t change the fact that you cannot raise the temperature of anything by forcing it to absorb energy from a colder object.
Who’s the moron, again?
Cheers.
Mike makes another blunder: “Really? No amount of ice will make water any hotter.”
Yes, really Mike. Testing proves you are wrong since replacing any amount of dry ice around some water with any amount of water ice will make the water hotter by 1LOT.
True, if Mike doesn’t really understand 1LOT physics then no amount of ice will make water any hotter.
Anyway, thanks for comments showing valid, tested hypotheses for Earth atm. GHE in the past Mike, good job, great help.
Ball4,
You are foolish indeed. Replacing frozen CO2 with frozen H2O will not make water any hotter at all.
Your imaginary scenarios are not tests, any more than the computer games of climatologists are experiments.
Pretending that a disprovable GHE hypothesis exists will not make it so. So sad, too bad.
Pray harder – have you tried self flagellation? No pain, no gain.
Cheers.
Troll #1 is at it again.
No surprise that increasing insulation outside will keep inside warmer (who new? /sark). But is there evidence that increasing CO2 above current levels will warm the Earth? Let’s see it if you have it.
“Replacing frozen CO2 with frozen H2O will not make water any hotter at all.”
This from a bungling commenter that hasn’t run the test or any test. See E. Swanson and Dr.Spencer for confirming what I wrote test data Mike. Try to do some experiments in order to stop all your blunders, Mike, as in physics curriculum there are lab courses attached.
“But is there evidence that increasing CO2 above current levels will warm the Earth?”
Yes. Dr.Spencer has run the tests on the atm. and in the lab for you Chic. I suggest better to do them yourself. There are many papers to learn from also. Start with Manabe 1964.
E.Swanson has also done lab testing to try and teach folks how the physics works. For some folks like Gordon, even experiments are confusing. One needs to have accomplished some pre-req.s in the field of study not to commit such blunders as Gordon and Flynn routinely provide around here for great blog entertainment.
“But is there evidence that increasing CO2 above current levels will warm the Earth?
Dr.Spencer has run the tests on the atm. and in the lab for you Chic.”
I wasn’t aware that Dr. Spencer or E. Swanson involved CO2 in their experiments. Please enlighten me.
I assure you Chic, Dr.Spencer did not remove the CO2 from the atm. in his experiment, the actual amount of CO2 ppm was present at the time. As well as in his lab.
E. Swanson on the other hand did so when he nearly evacuated his test chamber. The results were the same. So it is up to Chic to get the pre-req.s accomplished in this field to not be confused by these experiments as Flynn and Gordon demonstrate.
This is death by troll.
Chic,
Nah. Its unintentional hilarity from a person suffering from delusional psychosis. Just like undistinguished mathematicians claiming to be climate scientists, or Mike Mann believing he was actually awarded a Nobel Prize!
They probably believe their delusions. Certainly large amounts of taxpayers money have been wasted creating pointless computer games at the behest of the delusional bumblers.
And the benefit to humanity as a whole? Expensive laughter! You might as well enjoy it – its all they can give.
Cheers.
norman…”My your are one incredibly stupid bot that has zero knowledge of physics”.
Before embroiling yourself in accusing others of misunderstanding physics, you might try taking a course in it yourself.
ball4…”So it is up to Chic to get the pre-req.s accomplished in this field to not be confused by these experiments as Flynn and Gordon demonstrate”.
This from someone who denies the existence of heat.
I will go with Clausius writing heat does not exist more than a measure of KE. Since Gordon claims otherwise, show us your experiment that proves Clausius is wrong.
entropic…”Chic, Kristian and Gordon argue that energy cannot be transferred from a colder to a warmer object”.
I have never claimed that, in fact I have explained how it’s done in a refrig.e.r.ator and an air conditioner. Clausius claimed it can be done as long as the heat extracted from the colder source is simultaneously returned to it.
He stipulated for the 2nd law that heat can NEVER be transferred ‘by it’s own means’ from a colder body to a hotter body. He explained ‘by it’s own means’ as compensation, the process used by a refrig.e.ration and A/C, which requires external power, a compressor, a refrig.e.rant, a condenser, an expansion valve, and an evapourator, items not found in the atmosphere as far as I know.
http://www.climatedepot.com/2018/06/12/analysis-why-the-sun-controls-the-climate-and-co2-is-meaningless/
WELL SAID.
A planet at Earth distance would have lower average temperature if it didn’t have a ocean.
A key aspect of Earth’s average temperature is related to Earth having a tropical ocean, or as is said the tropical ocean is heat engine of Earth.
CO2 does not warm or increase the skin surface of land or water, nor does any other greenhouse gas.
What heats this surface is the energy of sunlight.
The only question regarding greenhouse gases is do greenhouse gases inhibit the energy loss of sun heated surfaces.
And it seems there is no agreement regarding how greenhouse gases might do this, nor any agreement about how and how much this effect is.
Now what is commonly claimed is that greenhouse gases increase and/or the cause of global average temperature.
But not the case.
What maintain global average temperature is the temperature of the surface of ocean waters which cover 70% of Earth’s surface.
The dominating factor of ocean surface temperature can be illustrated by examining effects of the Gulf stream.
The Gulf stream has very large effect upon Europe’s average temperature.
Europe current average temperature could be found, here:
http://berkeleyearth.lbl.gov/city-list/
and
http://berkeleyearth.lbl.gov/regions/europe
and that average temp is about 9 C
And over last 50 years or so, has warmed from about 8 C
France it is about 14 C. And most of France is above
45 latitude north. And most of North Dakota is above 45 latitude north, and has average temperature of about 5.5 C.
A difference of about 8 C though there a number of papers which have claimed the gulf stream warms Europe by about 10 K.
Entropic Man
“Run the experiment again, with the target warmer than the source. We diverge on what the photons would do.
The consensus physicists would expect some of the photons to be absorbed by the target and increase U.”
I have to disagree. The net exchange would favor the cooler source, and the target’s U would necessarily decrease.
Net exchange always favors the cooler source. There really can be no argument with that.
But, that does not mean that GHGs are incapable of impeding radiation from the surface of the Earth to cold space, potentially driving surface temperatures higher than they otherwise would be.
It is only a potential, though, not a mandate.
bart…”But, that does not mean that GHGs are incapable of impeding radiation from the surface of the Earth to cold space”
Why would the temperature of GHGs at a small fraction of the atmospheric composition affect heat dissipation when the temperature of the 99% of the atmosphere that is nitrogen and oxygen can do the job infinitely better?
Because they do not absorb energy significantly in the band of surface radiation.
The GHE paradigm says that GHGs that are active in the most significant outgoing frequency band block radiation in that band. In order to reestablish equilibrium, outgoing radiation must flow around that blockage, not unlike water flowing downstream must flow around or over an obstruction. And, like that obstruction in the flow of water, there must be a resultant elevation of energy pooling behind the obstruction.
The weak point in the argument has to do with other potential paths for the flow to take, not with the fundamental principal.
bart…”The GHE paradigm says that GHGs that are active in the most significant outgoing frequency band block radiation in that band”.
How does that slow down surface radiation? Only the average temperature of the atmosphere can affect that and the average temperature is governed by the 99% of the atmosphere that is nitrogen and oxygen.
Recently we discussed that based on a couple of graphs that show the CO2 absorp-tion band clearly. The y-axis is marked in milliwatts and when integrated over the bandwidth affected by CO2 it comes to about 24 w/m^2. Based on the IR claimed to be emitted from the surface that’s about 5%.
Where does the other 95% go?
Meanwhile, the world moves on:
“Arizona’s largest power user has approved a 20-year power contract with a 30 MW solar project at 2.49¢/kWh, the lowest price for a public solar power contract to date. The deal also involves shutting down a coal plant.”
https://www.pv-magazine.com/2018/06/11/lowest-approved-solar-power-contract-in-the-united-states-2-49%C2%A2-kwh/
It’ll no doubt destroy thousands of acres of natural habitat and deliver just a fraction of its rated capacity, while requiring continuous backup from FF plants. SOP.
From the Article
“Significant contention surrounds shutting down the plant as the Navajo tribe gains significant financial gain from hosting the plant, and the jobs that come from running the site.
Emma Foehringer Merchant, writing for Greentech Media, reported that the solar plant plus other 5-year energy contracts will offset only 14% of the coal facilitys production capability. However, the coal plant is delivering said power at 5/kWh, twice the per-unit cost of the new solar project.”
There must be something missing in this article. Where is the other 86% of production going to come from? And why are we screwing the Navajo’s again?
I applaud the cheap energy and appropriate for Arizona, but this just seems like they are throwing the baby out with the bath water.
bilybob…”There must be something missing in this article. Where is the other 86% of production going to come from? And why are we screwing the Navajos again?”
People the world over who have resorted to so-called green energy have encountered similar problems. They have found the power delivery erratic and very expensive.
In Germany, where the government seem to be uber-alarmists they are building coal-driven power stations. In Australia, where they brayed about global warming/climate change, in areas where they have replaced coal-fired plants with eco-weenie technology, they are experiencing brown-outs.
‘Itll no doubt destroy thousands of acres of natural habitat’
The FF propaganda minister fails to mention the ongoing natural habitat harmed by coal extraction, ash disposal, and toxic emissions.
” and deliver just a fraction of its rated capacity,”
He also fails to mention that the rated cost/kWh has already factored in this fraction of rated capacity.
“…the ongoing natural habitat harmed by coal extraction, ash disposal, and toxic emissions.”
Small in comparison per unit of energy obtained. Solar panel materials also have to be extracted, and produce severely toxic runoff.
“He also fails to mention that the rated cost/kWh has already factored in this fraction of rated capacity.”
Sure it is.
‘Small in comparison per unit of energy obtained.’
Your fallacy is: argument by assertion.
‘Small in comparison per unit of energy obtained.’
Your fallacy as usual is: argument by assertion.
‘ cost/kWh has already factored in’ ‘Sure it is.’
Yeah, what do they know about solar power in Arizona.
Kristian
– Here’s something to consider. A lens can focus the light landing on a surface, say 20 cm^2, onto a much smaller absorbing surface area, say 2 cm^2. The input to the absorbing surface has increased 10 fold, while the output remained unchanged.
– That input could then be electronically amplified to produce a higher temperature change than otherwise.
So what if what would have been a heat flux of 4 w/m^2 gets magnified/amplified into the equivalent of a 4000 w/m^2 heat flux?
In that case, the 4w/m^2 becomes negligible for ballpark measurements, and you are in effect measuring a one way/ incoming power input.
S,
Magical thinking, my boy.
Try focussing 300 W/m2 from a square meter of ice into say one square centimeter. Now you have 300 Watts per centimeter2, or 10,000 x 300 W/m2.
Big number, eh?
Focus away. You still cannot heat water with the vastly amplified energy from ice!
Watts are pointless, without knowing the temperatures involved.
Climatological pseudoscience.
Cheers.
An ice magnifier, could be similar to a solar power tower but instead reflective mirrors reflecting sunlight, you have hundreds of slabs of ice pointed at the tower.
Of course the ice would melt and it would be expensive, so a cheaper alternative could just have panels made from recycled plastic waste which is pointed at the tower.
If it doesn’t work, it be a temple for the believers, who can climb the tower, smoke some dope to feel the warmth.
“The US National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) has estimated that by 2020 electricity could be produced from power towers for 5.47 cents per kWh. Companies such as ESolar (backed by Google.org) are continuing development of cheap, low maintenance, mass producible heliostat components that will reduce costs in the near future.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_power_tower
[[but google decided it wasn’t part of their skill set – so don’t expect it is going to happen within 2 years]]
Guys,
There is a fundamental limit on magnifying systems like concentrated solar. It can never raise the target temp above the source temp.
For solar the limit of 5500K is great, for ice @ 273K is a problem.
MF is actually right on this one.
Nate,
Thank you. Hopefully, you will agree that photons from colder bodies cannot be absorbed by hotter bodies, resulting in increase in temperature?
Otherwise, it would be easy to heat water using the radiation from ice!
Cheers.
‘you will agree that photons from colder bodies cannot be absorbed by hotter bodies’
If true, than the radiative heat transfer equation cannot be true.
See here:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2018/06/uah-global-temperature-update-for-may-2018-0-18-deg-c/#comment-307039
Nate,
Are you agreeing or disagreeing?
Do you believe that your link provides anything relevant, or are you just trying a silly diversionary appeal to authority in some fashion?
Man up! State your position – provide some facts to back it up!
Otherwise, observers might well assume you are stupid and ignorant.
Cheers.
Mike I thought it was self evident. An I did show you evidence, not that you will look at it.
I believe in the radiative heat transfer eqn. The one discssued in the quite relevant link, wherein it discusses the flow of energy from cold to hot and its absor*ption by the hot, thus accounting for the radiative heat transfer equation.
The one describing heat transfer from hot to cold with Qhc proportional to Th^4-Tc^4.
Notice the term -Tc^4. How do you explain this term being in the equation, without photons from the cold body being abso*rbed by hot body??
snape…” That input could then be electronically amplified to produce a higher temperature change than otherwise.
So what if what would have been a heat flux of 4 w/m^2 gets magnified/amplified into the equivalent of a 4000 w/m^2 heat flux?”
**********
You cannot amplify heat. That’s where AGW falls flat on its face, with the supposition that a back-radiation can cause a positive feedback gain in the heat of the surface.
You misunderstand amplification in electronics. With gain, you never get something for nothing. Any amplified current or voltage comes from the power supply. That’s the principle of gain in an electronics amplifier, that a small input signal is ‘transferred’ to a circuit with more available power.
A transistor is a trans-conductance amplifier. Transconductance was a term coined for the older vacuum tube technology wherein a small voltage at the grid input circuit could be transferred to a larger voltage in the plate output circuit.
That still applies to FET transistors but with BJT transistors the measure is a comparison of a smaller input current and a higher output current.
A transistor has no magical abilities that allow it to amplify a signal, it is simply a device that is controlled by a very small input current or voltage while allowing a common output circuit to run a much higher current.
There is no amplification in the transistor, the gain comes from the higher output current drawn from the external power supply.
I don’t see how such gain could amplify heat.
Just idle speculation, though. Likely way off the mark.
Here’s a related idea: I’m not sure, but let’s say the 240 w/m^2 the earth system absorbs from the sun is a one way power input. If the sun, in turn, recieves 0.01 w/m^2 of LWIR from the earth, then the net energy transfer (heat flux) is 239.99 w/m^2.
That rounds to 240 w/m^2, meaning the difference between the one way and net power input has become irrelevant.
Hello, Mike
I always enjoy a good brain teaser:
“Try focussing 300 W/m2 from a square meter of ice into say one square centimeter. Now you have 300 Watts per centimeter2, or 10,000 x 300 W/m2.”
*********
Obviously, a square centimeter that absorbed 3,000,000 w/m^2 would get really hot. Problem is, the 9999 little squares that would have each received 300 w/m^2 from the ice (if the power had not been focused), would then receive nothing….zilch.
It would be as if they had been placed next to an object at absolute zero.
That’s my best guess, anyway.
Mike
Maybe this is an easier way to visualize it:
Take a one meter surface, radiating at 300 w/m^2, and draw a grid with 10,000 square centimeters.
If you could focus the energy, so that one of those little squares was hot enough to radiate at 3,000,000 w/m^2, then the other 9999 little squares would have to be cold enough to radiate at 0 w/m^2
Place the “heat source grid” (equivalent to the one square meter block of ice), in front of an identical absorbing grid. Just one of the little absorbing squares would get all the heat, the rest would get nothing.
S,
Nope. It won’t get really hot at all. Wattage is irrelevant unless relevant temperatures are known.
No free lunches. No forcing hotter objects to get even hotter by absorbing energy from colder ones. If this was so, the colder object would get even colder as it lost energy, wouldn’t it? Apart from being silly, it is also ridiculous – just like people who believe in the GHE!
Maybe it’s time to come up with some more fantasy or evasion?
Still no disprovable GHE hypothesis yet?
Cheers.
Correction: “take a one SQUARE meter surface….”
Another typo
(From upthread)
Should be: “A lens can focus the light landing on ITS surface, say 20 cm^2, onto a much smaller absorbing surface area……”
S,
You wrote –
“A lens can focus the light landing on a surface, say 20 cm^2, onto a much smaller absorbing surface area, say 2 cm^2. The input to the absorbing surface has increased 10 fold, while the output remained unchanged.”
Okey dokey. Focus 300 W/m2 reaching your 20 cm2 onto . . .
The light is from ice. How much hotter will the water on which you focus this light get? Maybe your clever idea only works in the imaginary realm of climatology? Or maybe it does not work for water?
Carry on. Still no GHE – just more imaginary nonsense.
Cheers.
Mike makes yet another blunder: “Focus 300 W/m2 reaching your 20 cm2 onto . . . “
Uncollimated 300 W/m^2 can not be focused Mike. Proven by test. Note the sun’s rays are collimated so the sun’s rays can be focused.
And thanks for writing out the disprovable GHE hypotheses in past comments Mike, shows you can understand a little bit about atm. physics anyway.
Ball4,
Lens makers would disagree. Photographs of things such as inert lumps of matter like yourself depend on focussing light, which, in the case of light emanating from you, is most definitely uncollimated. Incoherent as well, technically.
Your attempt to ascribe the creation of the impossible (a disprovable GHE hypothesis) to me is flattery indeed. Unwarranted, stupid, and ignorant, not to say pointless, but no more than I would expect.
Carry on trying to heat water with ice. You might be better trying to walk on water.
Cheers.
“Photographs of things such as inert lumps of matter like yourself depend on focusing light…”
Flynn compounds his blunders. Lens makers depend on focusing collimated light Mike, you know like light from the sun. Or indoor movie stages a Klieg light, et. al.
Or like phi, I challenge you to show us a photograph of an ice cube illuminated only by your 300 W/m^2 where “the light is from ice.” Or even use only the diffuse DW light illumination from the atm. on your ice cube Mike. Seems like that would be a pretty picture to look at.
And, sorry, but to walk on water you need to know where the stones are. Your past descriptions of the GHE are sufficiently accurate to provide a testable GHE hypothesis Mike, look them up since you forget or simply cue DA.
Uncollimated 300 W/m^2 can not be focused
Assuming that the 300 W / m2 are backradiations from the atmosphere, you can focus 20 cm2 of this power on a target of 2 cm2. Simply, from the point of view of the target, it will not change anything since the solid angle occupied by this image at 300 W / m2 will simply replace a direct image at 300 W / m2.
This is just another way of showing that backradiations have nothing to do with a thermodynamic problem.
With the sun, it is obviously different since one can make him occupy all the horizon of the target and therefore concentrate his energy (but obviously without increasing its power per steradian).
“you can focus 20 cm2 of this power on a target of 2 cm2.”
Not if it is diffuse radiation phi, you need collimated light to bring light to a focus. Or show us an experiment confirming your assertion.
Ball4,
The 300 W / m2 represent the irradiance and therefore the component perpendicular to the plane. You can focus these 300 W / m2 exactly as you can focus the sunlight.
That this leads absolutely to nothing, just shows that there is no point in modeling backradiations.
“You can focus these 300 W / m2 exactly as you can focus the sunlight.”
I can not. Maybe phi can & if so show your experiment. I hold out my magnifying glass at night, the ants are safe unlike in the daytime.
phi
For a bit there you had me thinking you had some actual knowledge and understanding of physics. Now I am certain you do not. You are probably just another one of the Joe Postma true believers with a mission to attack any science that disagrees with his distorted crackpot view of physics.
YOU: “The 300 W / m2 represent the irradiance and therefore the component perpendicular to the plane. You can focus these 300 W / m2 exactly as you can focus the sunlight.”
Ball4 is correct, maybe you should listen to him.
The DWIR is diffuse, a fog. You have irradiance in a fog but you can’t focus this energy with a lens. If you think you can show us.
I think after reading this post from you I know where to consider future posts by you as you declare you really don’t have real physics knowledge.
Norman,
Oh, you do not know what a component perpendicular to a plane is ? what is a vertical component of a vector for example?
If you think you can show us.
Easy, if you’re not blind, just open your eyes. If it’s not black, you have your demonstration.
phi, the zenith illumination would be per steridian an exceedingly small amount of irradiance, my guess not even make it through the glass, all absorbed.
As Norman asks, show us your competent experiment focusing diffuse irradation since you assert it can be done.
Norman says, June 13, 2018 at 12:22 PM:
Oh, really!? So a fog, now? Not a gas, nor a cloud, but a fog. I see. But, I thought it was a downward-directed flux …
You people really need to make up your mind.
norman…” You are probably just another one of the Joe Postma true believers…”
Joe makes some astute observations. He claims we build greenhouses to do what the atmosphere cannot do.
Kristian
There is a downward component to the DWIR that reaches the surface. It would be around 340 W/m^2.
Just like in a real fog condition solar panels still produce energy. You still have a macroscopic energy reaching the panels.
Norman says, June 13, 2018 at 8:51 PM:
That’s not my point. You say that the DWLWIR is like a “fog”. Then you say that there a “downward component” of this fog. What does this mean? How is there a “downward component” of a fog? Is it partly moving downwards, partly moving upwards, partly moving sideways? And from where is this “downward component” coming from? How far down towards the surface does the fog extend? And how high up?
You need to explain this further. Because your “fog” sounds a lot like a photon gas or cloud, which is what I’ve been talking about all along, and that you have summarily dismissed as ‘made-up physics’; no, no, no, the atmosphere clearly sends a distinct flux of photons down to the surface, from ‘somewhere’. As if the atmosphere were itself a surface.
The downward component is only found to be ~345 W/m^2 because pyrgeometers CALCULATE it from the detected heat flux at the sensor surface and the sensor temperature:
E_net (directly detected by the sensor, producing a calibrated voltage output signal)
E_out (calculated by the instrument using the measured temperature of the sensor and the S-B equation)
E_in (calculated as the simple arithmetic difference between E_out and E_net)
E_net = E_in – E_out,
E_in = E_out – E_net
Yes, from the Sun. Not from the atmosphere. The surface COOLS to the atmosphere.
I’ve tried this one before. You basically need like one and a half brain cell to understand the logic. A school child would get it. You either don’t, or you’re unwilling to.
How to tell the difference between the Sun and the atmosphere when it comes to the energy budget of the surface:
# During the day, when the Sun is up, and the atmosphere is present on top of the surface, the surface warms. Its U and T rise.
# During the night, when the Sun is gone, but the atmosphere is still there, the surface cools. Its U and T decrease.
There is only one way to interpret this in terms of a MACROSCOPIC (that is, a thermodynamic) explanation:
The Sun ADDS energy to the surface (its U goes up) to make it warmer (its T goes up). The Sun is an energy SOURCE to the surface.
The atmosphere SUBTRACTS energy from the surface (its U goes down) to make it cooler (its T goes down). The atmosphere is an energy SINK to the surface.
Norman, you EXPLAIN nothing in terms of thermodynamic/thermal effects by clinging to your quasi-quantum perspective of the observable (macroscopic) world. The quantum premise that photons exist outside the thermodynamic limit and therefore are not governed by the Laws of Thermodynamics is irrelevant to this whole issue, which is first and last a THERMAL issue. Yes, photons fly in all possible directions. And as you have now agreed, the atmospheric LW radiation is like a fog (gas, cloud), and so its IR photons move in ALL POSSIBLE directions throughout the entire atmosphere, not just up or down from/to distinct levels. So it makes no difference. The AVERAGE, the NET, is all there is. In the MACROscopic realm.
I am sure you will now once again reflexively ignore all I’ve said in the above, and instead just repeat your regurgitated talking points and provide me with yet another link to some textbook stating that radiative heat transfer involves two opposite fluxes.
Yes, I know about the two-way model, Norman. THAT’S NOT MY POINT.
Think the ‘fog’ thing through, Norman. What does it imply? What does it entail?
Kristian
YOU: “The Sun ADDS energy to the surface (its U goes up) to make it warmer (its T goes up). The Sun is an energy SOURCE to the surface.
The atmosphere SUBTRACTS energy from the surface (its U goes down) to make it cooler (its T goes down). The atmosphere is an energy SINK to the surface.”
This would be your view and I strongly believe the 2nd part it wrong in wording and conceptually.
I do agree with point 1).
If you are talking radiatively “The atmosphere SUBTRACTS energy from the surface” you are wrong. Radiation does not have sinks it is emitted and leaves. The atmosphere is not subtracting energy from the surface, it is doing the opposite. It is adding energy to the surface. The surface itself, based upon its temperature, is what is subtracting energy. You think backwards and think I do.
Without a radiating atmosphere much more energy would be lost by the surface. The atmosphere is not removing any energy from the surface via radiant thermal transfer.
You make it much easier to see that you do not know what you are talking about. I will read you posts but they are not as good or sound as you think they are. I will stick to established physics. It is the right way to go.
And your nonsense of the fog emission.
The DWIR is a measured value. A measurement means giving a numerical value to something. That you need to measure a net heat flow to measure the DWIR does not make it an unreal value. Not sure how your brain is able to do that one.
I posted that you can look at it like a balance. You have a known mass on the left pan (say 300 grams). This is the known emission by the sensor. On the other side you add an unknown mass that you want to determine. The balance deflects 40 units to the right. You have the known 300 grams and add 40 to get a measured value of the unknown mass of 340 grams. Does that mean the unknown mass is not a real mass because you needed to compare the value to a known mass? I think your physics is messed up and I really am doubting you know what you are talking about. Mostly just made up stuff and cobbled together ideas. Sorry to disappoint you, I will stick with real science until you can come up with a valid experiment to prove it wrong. E. Swanson did an experiment proving it correct, so did Roy Spencer. Roy Spencer also calculated (something you have not done), how cold the surface would get at night without GHG so you have a really hard time explaining your view that the atmosphere is subtracting energy from the surface. No it is adding energy.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2015/04/why-summer-nighttime-temperatures-dont-fall-below-freezing/
A POWERFUL DUST STORM HAS DARKENED THE SKIES OVER OPPORTUNITY ON MARS
“…
By Wednesday, June 6th, Opportunity’s power levels had dropped significantly and the rover was required to shift to minimal operations. But beyond merely limiting the rover’s operations, a prolonged dust storm also means that the rover might not be able to keep its energy-intensive survival heaters running – which protect its batteries from the extreme cold of Mars’ atmosphere.
…
A saving grace about these storms is that they limit the extreme temperature swings, and the dust they kick up can also absorb solar radiation, thus raising ambient temperatures around Opportunity. In the coming weeks, engineers at the JPL will continue to monitor the rover’s power levels and ensure that it maintains the proper balance to keep its batteries in working order.
…”
https://www.universetoday.com/139452/a-powerful-dust-storm-has-darkened-the-skies-over-opportunity-on-mars/
“Climate alarmists point to the warming of the oceans as evidence that CO2 is the cause. The problem with that theory is that they cant explain how LWIR between 13 and 18 warms the oceans. LWIR between 13 and 18 doesnt penetrate the oceans and actually causes cooling through surface evaporation. Additionally, LWIR between 13 and 18 is very very low energy EM Radiation when compared to EM wavelengths that do actually penetrate and warm the oceans, wavelengths mostly at the blue end of the spectrum. CO2, in reality, is a very weak Greenhouse Gas in terms of warming the atmosphere and the oceans.”
https://images.tinypic.pl/i/00966/9m811fyytb1w.gif
LWIR between 13 and 18 microns.
Product shows the Outgoing Longwave Radiation (OLR) from the Advanced Very High Resolution Radiometer (AVHRR).
Monthly Mean Night AVHRR
http://www.ospo.noaa.gov/data/atmosphere/radbud/gn19_prd.gif
Here you can see the role of the oceans in the Earth heating.
They are in denial Ren. Soon reality will be kicking in because the global temperature up swing is now ending.
Ren
Science of Doom explains this in a three part series.
Part 1 is here.
https://scienceofdoom.com/2010/10/06/does-back-radiation-heat-the-ocean-part-one/
“solar radiation penetrates tens of meters into the ocean
atmospheric radiation much longer wavelengths penetrates only 1μm into the ocean
Therefore, solar radiation heats the ocean, but atmospheric radiation only heats the top few molecules.”
I would say, could only rather than does warm the top few molecules.
Now let imagine a fantasy that sunlight only warmed the top few molecules of water. In such a fantasy world, what would occur if sunlight was absorbed by only the top few molecules of water?
Sunlight is not absorbed by any material in the top few molecules, all material is transparent to sunlight if it is only few molecules thick, thin material is millions of molecules thick.
“3.5 x 10^15 molecules in a small grain of SiO_2 sand”
https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/3gdx5u/how_many_molecules_are_in_a_grain_of_sand/
So in terms of volume, small grain has 3500 trillion molecules or very slightly dirty window has a coating millions of molecules thick.
So in real world sunlight is not being absorbed by anything which is only few molecules thick, but what would it look like in fantasy world in which is did?
all energy of sunlight would go into evaporating the water.
It would not be like misting a frying pan- as that is too many molecules of water, it more like breathing a warm frying pan.
So basically all backradiation could do to water is evaporate it, and one have theory that all evaporation [of anything] is caused by backradiation, though there no evidence of it, though it possible that everyone has missed noticing it.
entropic…”Science of Doom explains this in a three part series”.
Read SoD at your own peril. I have seen some serious pseudo-science put out by them.
Mike
I was trying to go with the spirit of your first question and keep things simple.
Do you understood that focusing energy on one spot deprives a larger area of the energy it would have received? If you focused the radiance of an ice cube onto a tiny spot within a bowl of water, conduction and convection would disperse the energy. It would be as if you were just holding an ice cube above the bowl.
Snape, cris, Kristian, Gordon
CKG It is hard to know what you think. That is why I am propsing a specific experiment.
Snape, the net flow would be from the warmer target to the source as black body radiation.
However I am specifically interested in the behaviour of the flow of photons from cooler source to warmer target.
More detail. I set up a 445 nanometre blue laser on an optical bench. The light from this source hits the target, a block of carbon with one face polished flat.
The polished face is at a 45 degree angle to the source and reflects the beam through a blue filter onto a photocell.
The carbon block is fitted with a temperature sensor and can be heated or cooled.
The intention is to measure the amount of 445 nanometre blue light reflecting off the carbon block, as distinct from all the other photons.
This is done across a range of temperatures starting with the carbon cooler than the laser and finishing with the carbon warmer than the laser.
The results can then be plotted as a graph of reflected light intensity against carbon block temperature.
The question to each of you:-
What shape is the graph?
I do not have sufficient knowledge of the equipment to answer at this time. But I’m sure no thermodynamic laws will be violated, no heat flowing from a cold to a warmer object.
Chic Bowdrie
That is what I’m testing.
When the carbon block is colder than the laser we would both expect some of the 445 nanometre photons to be absorbed by the block and some reflected to the photocell.
I would expect this to continue when the carbon is warmer than the laser.
Would you regard a photon emitted from a cool laser and absorbed by a warmer carbon block as as a 2nd law violation?
If so, would you expect the carbon block to stop absorbing 445 nanometre photons when it becomes warmer than the laser, with more reflected photons hitting the photocell as a result?
Asked and answered.
I’m not interested in cryptic answers.
I just asked two questions and do not know your answer to either of them.
entropic…”Would you regard a photon emitted from a cool laser and absorbed by a warmer carbon block as as a 2nd law violation?”
Have no expertise on either but the thing that stands out is the temperature of the carbon block. How could the carbon block have a warmer equivalent temperature? If it did, it would be emitting 445 nm photons which is equivalent to blue light.
A carbon block could not even emit low frequency visible light, unless you cooked it in a blast furnace.
The laser itself gets it high frequency EM from the manipulation of electrons in a material. Normally, electrons stimulated so they jump from the ground state to an excited state generate incoherent light. The trick is to get them to act so they generate coherent light.
It seems to me the laser/carbon block example is not good because the frequency of the laser is obtained by electron manipulation. The EM generated is not the EM you’d find as IR in normal heat sources and it’s light is absorbed by the carbon block due to it affecting ground state, 1st orbit electrons.
This seems to be a case in which the frequency and energy generated by the laser would appear to come from a much hotter source than the carbon block target.
Gordon Robertson
I used a monchromatic source to provide photons identifiable by their wavelength.
If I put a mirror as a target almost all the 445nm photons would be reflected and reach the photocell.
Putting a polished carbon block in place of the mirror would reduce the amount of reflection by absorbing some of the 445nm photons. Those not absorbed are reflected on to the photocell. The carbon block is NOT emitting 445 nm photons.
“It seems to me the laser/carbon block example is not good because the frequency of the laser is obtained by electron manipulation.”
You are probably correct.
I am uncertain how to describe the temperature of the laser. Is it the temperature of the substrate or the temperature of the quantum pits? Plot emission against substrate temperature and it stabilises above 200K, which suggests that it is temperature independant.
I could use a sodium lamp, but that has an emission temperature of 2700K, way too high for a heated carbon block to match.
To make the experiment work properly I need a monochromatic source radiating near room temperature. Peak black body radiation at room temperature is about 10 micrometres, but it is not monochromatic. Any ideas?
entropic…”I am uncertain how to describe the temperature of the laser. Is it the temperature of the substrate or the temperature of the quantum pits? Plot emission against substrate temperature and it stabilises above 200K, which suggests that it is temperature independant”.
*********
It seems to me it would be a colour temperature based on the colour of its beam. That would not indicate an actual temperature but an apparent temperature.
Your laser would have blue light, so the colour temperature is the equivalent of something like an iron rod heated till it glows blue. You might also think of the blue light given off by an acetylene torch. The flame is hottest near the tip of the inner blue flame, and I think that’s around 3000C.
So blue is hot, despite the fact we equate hot with red.
As far as burning power is concerned that strikes me as being a different issue. Coherent EM waves emitted by electrons are added by getting them in phase. In one example I read, a cylinder is used with two mirrors mounted precisely on either end of the cylinder so they are a multiple of the light wavelength apart.
The coherent EM generated by the electrons bounce back and forth inside the cylinder, reflected from mirror to mirror, and as they reflect they form a standing wave, just like in a microwave oven. As they do so, their amplitudes add. A tiny hole is drilled in one mirror that allows the beam to escape as a relatively high powered, concentrated, coherent beam at a specific frequency/wavelength.
That beam itself contains no heat but the moment it strikes a mass, it is converted to heat. It’s just like solar energy being converted to a spot that can burn wood by a lens with the exception that solar energy is not coherent EM.
I read something fascinating with regard to how they use a blue laser to re-attach a retina in the human eye. The eye does not respond well to that frequency except at the retina therefore no damage is done to the eye in general while the heat focused on the retina can weld it back into position.
So, it’s a matter of manipulating the electrons by various means to jump between ground state and an excited state, and back to ground state, so they will emit EM coherently.
As I said, I have no expertise in lasers but I do have a decent understanding of how electrons behave and emit EM, based on decades in electronics. It always fascinates me how those lighter blighters get involved in everything.
We are literally held together by them, along with the rest of the universe. Mind you, without protons it would be all for nought. Without electrons I would not have had a career, either in the electrical, electronic, or computer fields.
entropic….”…the net flow would be from the warmer target to the source as black body radiation”.
I think you are getting yourself befuddled by blackbody theory. Kircheoff introduced the notion of BBs by defining them on the basis they absorbed all energy. Naturally, based on that theory, one may be lead to think two BBs radiating at each other would have to absorb the energy of each.
Kircheoff did all of his work at thermal equilibrium and I have never seen an application of BB theory to a situation where BBs of different temperatures are radiating at each other.
Naturally, at thermal equilibrium there should be a two way emission/absorp-tion, but that is not the case with real bodies at different temperatures, especially where heat transfer is involved.
The 2nd law states specifically that heat can only be transferred one way, hot to cold, and people are trying to get around that talking about a net heat transfer and a net radiation absorp-tion/emission. The latter can only happen at thermal equilibrium and the definition of BBs completely confuses the real situation.
There is no requirement for real bodies to absorb any old emission they intercept and that is apparent with visible light, some of which is absorbed by objects and some of which is not.
Gordon Robertson
I’m quite happy to call it “thermal radiation”.
A black body is an ideal absorber. The emission from a BB is calculated by Planck’s Law.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck%27s_law
For a real world emitter the spectrum is calculated according to Wien’s displacement law
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wien%27s_displacement_law
and the intensities from the Stefan-Boltzmann law.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/StefanBoltzmann_law
In practice the difference between the idealised BB radiation and thermal radiation from grey bodies is quite small, so if you are not pedantic either of the two terms can be used.
Two black bodies of different temperatures radiating at each other may never happen, but two thermal radiators of different temperatures radiating at each other happens all the time.
In the real world two objects of the same temperature exchange equal amounts of thermal radiation.
Imagine two black cannonballs, each at 20C.
Ball A radiates 100 Joules towards ball B, which B absorbs.
Ball B radiates 100 Joules towards ball A, which A absorbs.
They exchange equal amounts of thermal radiation and remain at the same temperature.
Nowrepeat the experiment with ball A at 21C. From the SB law this increases A’s thermal radition by 1% to 101 Joules.
Now ball A radiates 101 Joules towards B, which B absorbs.
Ball B is still at 20C. B continues to radiate 100 Joules towards A, which A absorbs.
The net result is a transfer of 1 Joule from the warmer ball A to the cooler ball B.
The key word is “net”.
There is nothing in the laws of thermodynamics to ban thermal radiation and absorbtion in either direction between ball A and ball B, whatever their temperatures. What the laws require is that when the system is not at equilibrium, the overall heat transfer Q is from the warmer object to the cooler object.
Norman,
Here is a list of the physics I think we disagree on. There may be more.
1. EMR from an object is only heat transfer when it goes to a cooler object or comes from a warmer one. No heat is transferred from objects at the same temperature exchanging EMR. You say EMR is heat transfer.
2. Cold doesn’t add energy to warmer objects. You say it does.
3. Emission from a surface depends on that surface’s energy inputs and outputs. Emission from a surface is not independent of the inputs and outputs that determine the surface’s temperature.
You wrote and refused to admit that you contradict yourself: “The Surface will radiate at the rate set by it temperature regardless of the surroundings. Only if the surroundings alter the temperature will the IR rate change. The IR emission from the surface is an independent variable. It does not change based upon how much energy the atmosphere is sending back.”
4. I think that a planet with no IR active gases will be colder on average than one with IR active gases. However, there is no experimental evidence that an increase in CO2 above current levels will increase global temperature. Do you agree?
I found and highlighted “your trend” for you Einsteins here
https://tinyurl.com/y9z9s9gq
IT
“So I say it once more: claiming that “only heat exchanges can be detected” by IR detectors is utterly wrong.”
And unfortunately this is just one out of all those innumerable examples of bullshit and laughable blabber spouted ad nauseam here by a bunch of amusing idle physics illiterate morons.”
********
Please understand that when I question or disagree with one of your posts, I do not necessarily think I’m right. Most likely it will turn out I’m wrong.
Like you say, I am mostly physics illiterate. Still, I have a lot of fun trying to figure things out on my own FIRST, then reading about it or getting feedback from someone like you AFTERWARDS. Sort of like working a crossword puzzle…….do you want to study or be told the answers ahead of time?
That would not be the way to go for a physics student, needing to gather knowledge as fast as possible. Fine, though, for someone retired early and with plenty of time on their hands.
There is nothing wrong of course being a physics illiterate.
What’s wrong and ridiculous is just when a bunch of them, like MF, GR, CB, phi and occasionally a few others make relentless bold statements and arrogant claims about science and professional scientists being wrong, corrupt, etc etc.
This is idiotic insult to science and generation of scientists.
Well IT, it’s only a blog. You can tell which commentators have the pre-req.s in the field to properly criticize someone else.
Experimenters like Dr.Spencer and E. Swanson really do aid in that assessment. The rest are for entertainment.
The rest are for entertainment.
Well, admittedly yes, and certainly neither for making any valid, useful and honest criticism nor for learning something about science and climate.
Among them some seem to have at least some sense of humor like Flynn, yet this is not even the case of others and particularly K, perhaps the most deadly serious and thus hilarious one among them in this respect.
Idiot tracker says, June 14, 2018 at 12:18 AM:
Says our very own belligerent grouch superior!
A mirror, anyone?
idiot…”Whats wrong and ridiculous is just when a bunch of them, like MF, GR, CB, phi and occasionally a few others make relentless bold statements and arrogant claims about science….”
You may have noticed that I, and others, provide sources. You are claiming that eminent scientists like Clausius, Bohr, Schrodinger, Boltzmann, Planck et al are raving idiots because they do not agree with your distorted and myopic view of science.
Entropic man
I’m still thinking about your experiment, but so far I think it’s brilliant.
Idiot tracker
Thanks for not including me in your list of blithering idiots. I still have some hope for Chic, or at least he is not at the level of the other three.
Norman, Ball4, mike, phi
Upthread there was some argument about how to focus the IR light emitted from an ice cube or atmosphere. My idea was that you would point an IR camera or measuring device at the ice cube. Energy would strike the camera lens in accordance with the lenses surface area and shape. The lens could then focus that energy on a smaller target within:
“IR Lenses are used to collect, focus, or collimate light in the near-infrared, short-wave infrared, mid-wave infrared, or long-wave infrared spectra.”
https://www.edmundoptics.com/optics/optical-lenses/ir-lenses/
That site doesn’t show an illustration for optics of a converging lens illuminated by collimated light that I could find. Find one of those then think though what happens when the illumination on the lens is instead diffuse like terrestrial DWIR or UWIR or entirely from that emitted by ice i.e.: “The light is from ice.”
Ball4,
You are not terribly bright, are you?
How do you think an IR camera creates a sharp image of an object? By magic? No.
By focussing the light from it onto a suitable receptor, using a lens, that’s how! Parabolic reflectors focus light of various wavelengths – radar, microwave communications, infrared, visible . . . The dish at Arecibo focusses wavelengths between 1 m and 3 cm quite nicely. All light, whether you like it or not.
Back to reality. You cannot heat water with ice, no matter how many photons are emitted by the ice. No warming. As for the mythical GHE – no matter how many photons are emitted by CO2 heated by radiation from the ground, you can’t heat the ground with those photons.
Complete madness. This is why it is impossible to devise a disprovable GHE hypothesis.
Keep fantasising if it makes you happier.
Cheers.
Snape,
Yes of course.
It becomes depressing with Ball4 not mastering the basics of optics and with l’idiot du village full of his ridiculous arrogance but not even able to understand basic thermodynamics.
Snape
Here is a good video on lens and focusing energy.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=2&v=EL9J3Km6wxI
Ball4 is correct in his understanding of optics. I do not think he will convince phi, however. I know you will be able to comprehend the concept.
A lens can only focus parallel light rays. The solar rays are all parallel when they travel the 93 million miles. So you can focus these into a small area and greatly increase the temperature.
With the ice emitting 300 W/m^2 this IR is going in all directions away from the surface. Only a fraction of all this energy is parallel with the lens so only a small fraction can be focused. It is my opinion that the fraction of energy that is parallel with the lens and hence able to bend to a focus would be equal or less than the energy needed to raise a target to the temperature of the emitting source. Most of the 300 W/m^2 would not focus to a point.
Hope that helps.
When Mike Flynn brought up the idea of focusing the energy from a square meter block of ice, I imagined a giant IR camera. The lens would have a one square meter surface area, and would be placed directly in front of the identical sized ice surface. As noted above, light from the ice block would strike the lens, and could then be focused on a much smaller target within.
There is only the light from the ice in Flynn’s comment. You are imagining illumination from an external source is present. There is no other illumination than “The light is from ice.” First of all your eyes would perceive this scene as completely dark except for “The light is from ice.” That light would be diffuse coming from a hemisphere of directions, no focus is possible & way below intensity required for perception by your eyes.
snape…”When Mike Flynn brought up the idea of focusing the energy from a square meter block of ice, I imagined a giant IR camera”.
Clausius devoted an entire chapter to that subject in the 1979 edition of his book, The Mechanical Theory of Heat.
One more thing……if the block of ice is emitting at 300 w/m^2, then when viewed from a distance, some amount less than 300 w/m^2 would actually strike the camera lens. That was the reasoning behind a giant lens having to be placed right in front of the ice.
Ball4
“That light would be diffuse coming from a hemisphere of directions, no focus is possible…….”
What? Those devises are designed to detect a particular range of IR light emitted only, or at least mostly, from a specific field of view. They would be useless otherwise. And in IR cameras, at least, that light most definitely IS focused onto a smaller absorbing surface.
“You are imagining illumination from an external source is present.”
Don’t be ridiculous. Obviously we could not see the LWIR emanating from a block of ice with the naked eye.
Snape,
You are still avoiding the fact that you cannot heat water at all, by any amount, utilising the heat energy contained in ice of any amount, even if the ice is radiating energy at 300 W/m2.
Cannot be done.
You cannot somehow force water to absorb photons emitted by ice, and heat up as a consequence. Complete delusion of the climatological sort. Nor can you force a warmer body to absorb energy emitted by colder CO2 or anything else!
If thousands of scientists believe such nonsense, it just shows how silly it is to uncritically believe scientists. Believing undistinguished mathematicians pretending to be scientists is even sillier, wouldnt you agree?
Keep wriggling. It wont change anything. Still no disprovable GHE hypothesis. Just ever more desperate and strident claims of imminent doom from the usual pack of bumbling idiots.
Cheers.
Mike…wondered where you had gotten to, good to see you back.
Mike, lets avoid semantics for a bit and just consider a few “homework problems”. If you disagree with my answers, show your work.
1) A sphere of H20 is floating in the vacuum of deep space, far from any star or planet or nebula. It has a surface area of 1 m^2. Assume the emissivity is 0.95. What temperature will the surface become if we let it sit for a long time?
[Answer: 2.7 K]
2) The sphere of H20 is floating in deep space, far from any star or planet or nebula. A 400 W electric heater is embedded inside. What temperature will the surface become if we let it sit for a long time?
[Answer: 294 K]
3) surround the electrically heated sphere with a shell of ice @ 270 K and a vacuum between the sphere and the shell. What temperature will the surface of the sphere become if we let it sit for a long time?
[quick anwer: well above 294 K]
[more complete answer: about 335 K]
Tim,
Just stupid. My 400 W electric heater happens to be a tungsten filament, with a temperature around 2500 C. Would you like to recalculate your answer, and show your work?
Or would you like to rephrase your pointless question?
Or maybe even propose a disprovable GHE hypothesis?
How about showing how you intend to use the heat energy in a tonne of ice radiating 300 W/m2 to raise the temperature of a teaspoon of water? You cannot heat an object by forcing it to accept energy from a colder one – that’s delusional climatological thinking.
Still no GHE. Not a bit.
Cheers.
“My 400 W electric heater happens to be a tungsten filament, with a temperature around 2500 C. Would you like to recalculate your answer, and show your work?”
Nope — no recalculation needed. 400 W inside the sphere is still 400 watts inside the sphere — whether from a small 2500 K filament or a much larger 400 K nichrome wire. The surface of the sphere will still need to emit 400 W and will still need to reach the same temperature.
The fact that you even ask this shows you have no clue. Conservation of energy is not somehow invalidated if the temperatures of the heaters are different!
What temperature would YOU predict for the surface temperature with your small-but-hot 400 W filiment? Warmer than the larger-but-only-sort-of-warm 400 W wires?
“How about showing how you intend to use the heat energy in a tonne of ice radiating 300 W/m2 to raise the temperature of a teaspoon of water?”
Again — hopeless misunderstanding. That’s not what I was showing (and indeed it is impossible). I showed how a shell of ice raises the temperature of the heated sphere. The heater by itself –> ~ 300 K surface temperature. The heater + “backradiation” from cooler ice –> ~ 335 K. The backradiation allwed the heater to warm the sphere more effectily.
Tim,
You must be using special climatological H2O – made of unobtainium perhaps?
How do you manage to stop your special H2O from vapourising due to being heated to 2500 C?
It stays spherical, does it? Obviously perfectly conductive, special, Tim Folkerts imaginary H2O!
Stupid. You still cannot increase the temperature of a hotter object by forcing it to absorb energy from a cooler one. You cannot arbitrarily add wattages in any useful sense.
Now you are going to try to tell me that CO2 which is cooler than the surface of an object, can make that object hotter! Due to the miracle of back-radiation, no doubt. Time for a silly analogy involving an object having its temperature raised by absorbing energy from a hotter object, while pretending it is due to a colder body!
Stupid, Tim, just stupid! Radiation from a cooler body, (CO2 warmed by the surface, so it cannot be hotter than the surface), cannot add to radiation from a hotter body (the Sun, for example), any more than you can add the radiation from ice!
Throwing in heaters is just a pointless diversion. It is well known to normal scientists that hotter bodies warm colder ones. What is totally impossible is for CO2 or anything else colder than a surface, to raise the temperature of that surface! Of course, you have to introduce a heat source, eg the Sun, and pretend that by a miracle of CO2 back radiation, temperatures rise!
You cannot actually describe the GHE, much less propose a disprovable GHE hypothesis, so all you can do is play semantic games and attempt imaginary gotchas. No luck here.
Practise your pseudo science all you wish – CO2 heats nothing, and doesn’t even stop things cooling. Wait for the Sun to set, and you should be convinced. Earth surface temperatures due to unconcentrated sunlight vary from about +90C to about -90 C. The extremes on the Moon are considerably higher, due to the lack of atmosphere!
Back to more pointless and irrelevant gotchas disguised as irrelevant and meaningless analogies? Good luck – you’ll need it.
Cheers.
Snape 3:36pm: The instruments you mention are of course not useless, they detect IR spectra & focus collimated IR just fine.
I do notice you still haven’t shown an experiment where one focuses diffuse IR light though. Still looking?
3) surround the electrically heated sphere with a shell of ice @ 270 K and a vacuum between the sphere and the shell. What temperature will the surface of the sphere become if we let it sit for a long time?
[quick anwer: well above 294 K]
[more complete answer: about 335 K]
in space Ice will evaporate @ 270 K and cool from evaporation to about 170 K.
And next question is, why does it not cool further from radiating heat.
If replaced with say a copper shell, it doesn’t evaporatively cool and it starts at 270 K
It seems you wanted ice because thought it would maintain a 270 C temperature, and because maintained less than 294 K, you imagined heat would built up in inner sphere, but to maintain such a temperature, it loses heat via evaporation- which means heat is simply lost from evaporation rather than radiated.
Which is actually an analogy of Earth. Except with Earth the heat lost of evaporation is not lost to space but remains in Earth’s atmosphere
Anyhow does shell cause sphere to remain warmer?
Well this is steel greenhouse:
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/17/the-steel-greenhouse/
gbaikie,
Tim cannot even explain what the GHE is, or how it is supposed to work. If he coukd, he might be able to dream up a disprovable GHE hypothesis, but all he can do instead, is to dream.
Convinced that increasing the amount of CO2 between the Sun and a thermometer makes the thermometer hotter, and simultaneously realising the silliness of his conviction, he has to create a diversionary smokescreen. Unfortunately for Tim, behind his smokescreen there is always a hidden heater, and a plethora of climatological redefinitions, obfuscations, and bizarre assertions presented as fact.
Oh well, a delusional psychotic may truly believe that they are Napoleon, Washington, or that they are Nobel Prize recipients. Belief does not create fact. So sad, too bad.
Cheers.
Some excellent information on pyrgeometers.
http://claesjohnson.blogspot.com/2011/08/how-to-fool-yourself-with-pyrgeometer.html
This will drive Norman nuts, it’s by his favourite author.
According to the author, the formula upon which pyrgeometers work was pulled out of the air by a designer who misunderstood basic radiation theory. The author claims it is wrong.
I agree. I have expertise in electronics and I know there is no device that will work like the detector used in a pyrgeometer.
Claiming that the detector emits IR and receives IR from a target, then sums them to reach an equivalent heat is sheer nonsense.
Pyrgeometers measure what the author thought they should measure based on bad science. Turns out what they measure is not clear.
Gordon, that article only compounds misunderstanding. The author shows a fundamental misunderstanding with:
“This [~ 500 W/m^2 of sunlight + ‘backradiation’] should make it possible to boil eggs on the bare ground, but since this does not work out, we ask: What is the evidence that there is massive DLR? ”
Anyone who understands the basic physics would never postulate such a strawman. 500 W/m^2 even of pure sunlight will not warm a blackbody surface above ~ 35 C. Hitting 373K (possible to boil eggs) takes about 1100 W/m^2. For a non-blackbody you could get by with a bit less, but you would have to really fiddle with surface properties in unusual ways to hit 100 C with 500 W/m^2 — whether from sunlight, sunlight+IR, or even electricity.
Basically, he plays with equations to somehow “prove” that IR photons are not flying down to the surface from the atmosphere.
Tim,
So what temperature could you achieve with 300 W/m2?
From ice, of course.
What about using 300 W/m2 from a 5500 K heat source? Same wattage, is it not? Are you sure you could not concentrate the sunlight to heat even a tiny quantity of water?
Do you really think you can add the 300 W/m2 from the ice to the 300 W/m2 from sunlight in any sensible fashion? If you do, you are suffering from severe climatological delusional disorder!
Maybe you need to propose another pointless and irrelevant imaginary pseudoscientific ananolgy to divert attention away from the obvious fact that you have no clue about basic physics.
Cheers.
Gordon Robertson
No, it won’t drive me nuts. Claes Johnson is a crackpot lunatic with delusions of godhood. He is the classic crackpot that thinks he is far smarter than he really is. Read the comments by real scientists about how goofy he is. He is able to con you easily because you don’t know any physics but your own made up versions. Also you are not very logical in your thought process.
Nope Claes is a goofball. You are a goofball to think he has even the slightest plausible idea of what he is talking about.
You have been conned and will keep being conned because you believe every lunatic crackpot on the Internet and think real empirical and tested science is bogus. You think authors of textbooks don’t know what they are talking about but this goofball on the Internet knows it all and then some.
Claes is not as bizarre as your other hero. He is a twisted and angry idiot beyond description. I read how he attacks people who try and educate him on his messed up physics. He goes insane with a childish emotional rant.
https://climateofsophistry.wordpress.com/
This guy has mental problems and deep issues. If you follow these goofballs I feel most sorry for you.
Gordon Robetson
I will see if I get the right link to Postma rant this time.
Something seriously wrong with that one.
https://climateofsophistry.com/2017/10/19/the-steel-greenhouse-in-an-ambient-temperature-environment/#comment-33623
Norman…”I will see if I get the right link to Postma rant this time”.
Are you referring to Joe berating Joel Shore with foul language? If so, I would not use such language on Joel but I understand the feelings he brings out due to his inane support of AGW theory.
Gordon Robertson
Your foul mouthed lunatic Joseph Postma has not only ranted his insane stupidity on Joel Shore (who I consider a fairly intelligent poster) but also Roy Spencer, Tim Folkerts, someone posting as “nasty”.
He is an foul mouthed freak in my book. He has nothing of value to add to the debate except to get some unscientific followers to enjoy his demented rants.
You get all your information from a crackpot (Claes Johnson) and a freak lunatic (Joseph Postma). You hate science books and reject them but you except the ramblings of two loons. You are a weird and unreachable person. Sad that you are so far gone you look up to these two but reject 100 years of tested and validated heat transfer physics that is used daily in industry and WORKS!
Norman…”You hate science books and reject them but you except the ramblings of two loons”.
Right now I am reading a reply from a major loon.
I did not know that Joe had mouthed off Roy, in fact, I know nothing about him. I am familiar with Shore and I regard him as a major peddler of alarmist propaganda.
Gordon Robertson
Here is Joseph Postma rant against Roy Spencer.
https://climateofsophistry.com/2016/08/11/roy-spencer-ae-language-warning/
Norman…”Claes Johnson is a crackpot lunatic with delusions of godhood”.
I have yet to see you critique his math or disprove his claim that the 2nd law applies to the atmosphere.
Gordon Robertson
Look at the comments section by actual scientists. They will show you how much of a crackpot your hero is.
Mike, phi, Gordon, etc.
Imagine a room where the ambient air temperature is 20 C., and with an object on the table that has settled to the temperature of its surroundings, therefore also ~ 20 C
Next, light a candle and place it right next to the object. The object would likely warm a few degrees, maybe to 24 C. (Four degrees of warming)
Ok so far?
******
Let’s try it a different way. Start with a room at 18 C. ambient temperature and the object 18 C. as well.
Again place a candle next to the object and, with four degrees warming, the object comes to 22 C.
Ok so far?
*******
Now, using vents, blow in air at 20 C until it has replaced the cooler, 18 C air.
The object should also warm by two degrees, right? (Same scenario as before: 20 C ambient air, a candle next to the object)
To summarize: 20 C air (blown in through vents) warmed a 22 C object to 24 C
S,
More imaginary nonsense. You cannot heat water with ice. You cannot heat anything at all with something colder.
You insert a candle flame with a temperature in excess of 800 C, as a heat source, but pretend that it doesn’t heat anything on a continuing basis?
Ok so far?
Your misdirection routine might fool GHE believers. Jumping from 18 C to 20 C, or randomly inserting 22 C, 24 C, along with “four degrees warming”, and you may well confuse the more gullible into believing that an object at 22 C can be heated to 24 C using the energy in 20 C air!
No you can’t. Just like you cannot heat water even 0.0000001 C using ice radiating 300 W/m2!
Learn some physics. If you can’t heat water using ice, the laws of Thermodynamics seem to be in good order. No climatological exceptions. No GHE. None. Not even the teensiest bit. You can’t even suggest a disprovable GHE hypothesis, can you? Boo hoo. So sad – too bad!
Cheers.
One could say cooler air cools more than warmer air or warmer air allows something to warmed more [because the air cools it less}.
Or in summer if some weather is causing cooler air temperature, then it can take a day or two of warmer days in order to get back to warmest summer days.
Let’s see my weather forecast:
Thu
Cloudy
95°67°
Fri
Cloudy
91°63°
Sat
Cloudy
80°53°
Sun
Cloudy
77°53°
Mon
Cloudy
85°59°
In this case it was pretty warm today, 100 F or more, but the cloudy weather is going to start cooling trend, after that it should warm up again [but apparently it going to get pretty cool for high desert in southern California in summer]
Anyhow to get sidewalks close to temperature to fry eggs on a sidewalk {about 70 C or 158 F] in addition to needing the sun near zenith, air temperature must also be warm – 40 to 50 C [105 to 122 F] or having colder air will have too much convectional heat loss which will prevent the sidewalk from getting hot.
And wind will also cause more convectional heat loss of warmed sidewalk
snape…”To summarize: 20 C air (blown in through vents) warmed a 22 C object to 24 C….”
But…but…but….you claimed it was the candle warming the object.
Bart,
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2018/06/uah-global-temperature-update-for-may-2018-0-18-deg-c/#comment-307065
Here I answer you on the global temp records, adding some substance to the discussion. I wonder if you’ll rise to the challenge.
AGW or what ever you want to call it comes to an end this year and it is not coming back.
I can say it with confidence because AGW theory is a sham while my theory is based on what really controls the climate which is the sun, moderated by the geo magnetic field.
Those are now pointing to colder temperatures for the first time since the Dalton Solar Minimum Ended.
What has to be monitored is overall sea surface temperatures and albedo. This is what governs the climate and what governs them is the sun.
They can manipulate all they want which is all that has been done with AGW theory. Not one of the basic premise this theory was originally based on materializing.
This is why it is so easy to forecast the end of AGW along with the theory.
So much wasted time on theory. It has set climate science way back but maybe it all changes as reality sets in over the coming years which will be the absence of any global warming.
Mike
“You insert a candle flame with a temperature in excess of 800 C, as a heat source, but pretend that it doesnt heat anything on a continuing basis?”
Of course it does! Something cold can never, all by itself, make a warmer object warmer. That would be nuts. That would defy a basic law of physics. No GHE possible.
The colder object requires a HEAT SOURCE to already be present.
(Except for heat pumps, added pressure..etc.)
********
A candle, ambient air temperature at 20 C. You think the order presented changes the object’s final temperature???
I’m not trying to trick you. I’m just trying to explain in every manner possible this ridiculously simple concept.
S,
Im glad you finally agree that you cannot raise the temperature of a body by exposing it to any amount of radiation from a colder one.
You might even reluctantly agree that adding the radiation from a colder body to that of a hotter one has no heating affect – say adding the considerable radiation from a block of ice to the the small amount from a candle (in absolute terms).
Now all you have to do is include these obvious facts in your disprovable GHE hypothesis, and you will hopefully come to understand why such an hypothesis is conspicuous by its absence.
Off you go, and add up the radiation from CO2 cooler than the surface, to the radiation from the Sun (a 5800 K body surface), and tell me again how the CO2 makes the surface hotter. Heating through the miracle of cooling, do you think?
How hard can it be? Does the result support your non-existent hypothesis, or is it all too difficult?
Cheers.
Chic Bowdrie
I posted you list from above down here. Thank you for the reply.
Here is a list of the physics I think we disagree on. There may be more.
1. EMR from an object is only heat transfer when it goes to a cooler object or comes from a warmer one. No heat is transferred from objects at the same temperature exchanging EMR. You say EMR is heat transfer.
This is not correct as I do not say EMR is heat transfer. I state clearly that Heat flow is the NET EMR at a surface. It is the amount of energy the surface emits minus the energy it absorbs. Because of this heat flow is automatically from the hot body to the colder one as the hot body emits more energy than it absorbs from the colder one.
2. Cold doesnt add energy to warmer objects. You say it does.
A cold object does add energy to a warmer object via radiant energy.
HERE: “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.”
From:
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/thermo/seclaw.html
3. Emission from a surface depends on that surfaces energy inputs and outputs. Emission from a surface is not independent of the inputs and outputs that determine the surfaces temperature.
You wrote and refused to admit that you contradict yourself: The Surface will radiate at the rate set by it temperature regardless of the surroundings. Only if the surroundings alter the temperature will the IR rate change. The IR emission from the surface is an independent variable. It does not change based upon how much energy the atmosphere is sending back.
You are correct to point out my error. I understand a concept but choose words poorly to describe it. The emission rate is indirectly dependent upon the energy the surface absorbs. It is not independent. That was a poor word choice. My point was to show that changing the energy a surface absorbs does not directly change the emission rate. The emission rate is directly dependent upon the surface temperature. The emission rate exactly follows the temperature. The emission rate does not exactly follow the energy absorbed. Does that clear it up? If not I can try again. I do want to communicate clearly with you.
4. I think that a planet with no IR active gases will be colder on average than one with IR active gases. However, there is no experimental evidence that an increase in CO2 above current levels will increase global temperature. Do you agree?
No I could not agree with your 4th point. David Appell, on several occasions, has provided links of experimental data collected showing that the additional CO2 has increased the DWIR. By your own statements, increasing the energy absorbed will increase the temperature. How much is the mystery question.
N,
And precisely how do you get a pot of hot water to absorb the considerable heat energy radiated from a tonne of ice? By magic, perhaps?
The ice is certainly emitting photons, is it not?
You might object that the water is too hot. OK then, use water 0.0000001 C above freezing point. How much hotter will the water get, after exposure to 300 W/m2 from ice?
Or does CO2 have magical forcing properties? Forcing hotter objects to accept energy from a colder body, that is! Does the CO2 get colder by losing energy as it forces the hotter body to increase in temperature? How does it know when to stop cooling?
Nope. Complete nonsense – a pseudoscientific fairy tale, willingly believed by the stupid, ignorant and gullible.
Carry on. Provide more pointless links. Ask DA what happens to the photons emitted by ice towards water. Prepare to laugh. Do you think he might say that you can heat water using ice?
Cheers.
Mike Flynn
Since I am thinking you are a bot and not a human it becomes impossible to logically reason with you.
You do not have the ability to reason enough to explain even simple concepts and go off on your programmed tangent.
YOU: “And precisely how do you get a pot of hot water to absorb the considerable heat energy radiated from a tonne of ice? By magic, perhaps?”
You don’t have to get it to do it, the water will absorb any incoming energy it is able based upon its surface properties. If highly polished it will absorb very little energy. If black it can absorb a lot of incoming energy.
You have failed to demonstrate what property prevents a hot object from absorbing energy from a colder one. Gordon Robertson has some fantasy to try and explain it, which is very far outside physics and reality but he thinks it is correct and valid and refuses to realize it is nonsense.
So unless you comply with requests why pretend you are this intelligent human?
N,
You wrote –
“You dont have to get it to do it, the water will absorb any incoming energy it is able based upon its surface properties.”
Only in your dreams. Ice can emit 300 W/m2. How hot can you make water – using as much ice as you like?
You are intent on setting new standards for stupidity and ignorance – and succeeding brilliantly!
Onwards and upwards, Norman! Keep going!
Cheers.
Mike Flynn
You are still clueless. You have no logical thought process.
You have zero reading comprehension and are basically irrational yet you wish to communicate. Not possible with a poster who has no ability to think or reason.
Provide a link to any webpage. I want you to prove you are a human and not a bot.
N,
I do not care what you want me to prove to you. My care factor remains precisely zero.
Here is some free advice – wish in one hand, and pee in the other. See which fills up first.
Off you go now.
Cheers.
Mike Flynn
And your status as a bot remains high. Bots can write the same crap you do.
Norman,
Re 1.: “This is not correct as I do not say EMR is heat transfer.”
However, you did write it and apparently have now corrected yourself.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2018/06/uah-global-temperature-update-for-may-2018-0-18-deg-c/#comment-306870
2. If I work for you and you pay me a regular amount which is my pay minus the payroll tax, my tax does not add to your bank balance. I am gaining money and you are losing money. If your bank balance is increasing, it is not because I am adding to it. Your extra income is coming from somewhere else, not from me. At best this reduces to a semantic argument.
Here, your reference to “DWIR and solar heat flux” is an example of what you have written several times about adding energy flows:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2018/06/uah-global-temperature-update-for-may-2018-0-18-deg-c/#comment-306885
Solar flux is a completely different cash flow than DWIR. DWIR is the tax you collected from me in direct proportion to the UWIR paycheck you paid me. Those IR flows are inseparable and distinct from the solar flux. That last sentence is more than a semantic disagreement. If you can’t see that, there is no point in continuing to discuss this issue.
3. Good. We agree.
4. If you read David Appell’s links without your GHE filter, you should find that there is no direct evidence that calculated forcings or increased DWIR from radiation measurements actually warmed anything. Models are used to predict what would happen if the individual spectra samples taken earlier and later accurately reflect what happens 24/7. The spectra can’t take into account all of the effects of evaporation and convection from all points on the planet at the same time for a sufficient length of time. It’s not the science that’s bad. What is bad is the assumption that a limited amount of data is accurate enough to be considered conclusive.
Chic Bowdrie
YOU: “Solar flux is a completely different cash flow than DWIR. DWIR is the tax you collected from me in direct proportion to the UWIR paycheck you paid me. Those IR flows are inseparable and distinct from the solar flux. That last sentence is more than a semantic disagreement. If you cant see that, there is no point in continuing to discuss this issue.”
I agree only with your first sentence. What is your evidence that the IR flows, UPIR and DWIR are inseparable? I know some feel they are, this statement goes against accepted science of radiant heat transfer. They are two separate distinct energy flows that pass through each other with no effect. How do you claim they are inseparable? I await some support. You are doing the same as other skeptics. You make a statement and think people should just accept as is. What is your proof of this belief. What supporting evidence do you provide other than an opinion of how you think it works?
EMR is a heat transfer when you take the NET EMR. You are responding to a post I made to Gordon Robertson out of context. He does not think any EMR is heat transfer and that Heat transfer requires matter to achieve. I have been debating with Gordon Robertson a long time and you are taking a limited snap shot of this long term debate.
On 4) If you add more energy to the surface than a previous state it must warm some. The other effects (evaporation and convection) will respond to an increased temperature they will not just increase on their own to remove added energy. The both respond to temperature changes (and other factors). I do think that if you can measure and actual increase in DWIR over a period of time, that increased energy will force a warming. How much I do not know and that would be a valid debate. To say increasing energy input will not increase temperature would require better explanation on your part. Thanks.
Norman,
“this statement [UPIR and DWIR are inseparable] goes against accepted science of radiant heat transfer.”
It goes against your CONCEPTION of accepted science of radiant heat transfer. What I read and what you have linked to many times is Q = e*(sigma)(T1^4 – T2^4). EMR = e*(sigma)(T1^4) tells you nothing about heat transfer going or coming or the magnitude of the calculated measurement, because you don’t know the temperature of the object it goes to or comes from.
I think discussing with you is worthwhile for me to better understand the underlying physics behind my hunch that there may be no further effect from CO2 emissions. My advice to you is concentrate on that and not argue with trolls, et alia, who only want to disrupt or get attention through posting.
“on 4) If you add more energy to the surface than a previous state it must warm some.”
That’s back to 2. where you can’t add energy when simultaneously you are losing more. But again, it’s not just semantics, because the flows are line of site and instantaneous. They are inseparable. The path of radiation between a point on one surface has another point corresponding to it on the other surface. The heat transfer is only determined by which surface is warmer. Mind you, I am only sure about surfaces. I don’t know what is going on between a surface and air.
“I do think that if you can measure and actual increase in DWIR over a period of time, that increased energy will force a warming. How much I do not know and that would be a valid debate.”
Exactly. And when you provide the evidence that DWIR increase produces a warming, the debate will be over and you will get the Nobel Prize. The debate is what brings me here.
“To say increasing energy input will not increase temperature would require better explanation on your part.”
I’m saying there is insufficient evidence of any increasing energy increasing the global average. If I could prove it, I would get the Nobel Prize. Understanding my explanation will require some work on your part as well.
Mike
Please don’t represent me, and pretend I agree with your idiotic opinions.
“Im glad you finally agree that you cannot raise the temperature of a body by exposing it to any amount of radiation from a colder one.”
********
As expected, you blabbered the usual rather than trying to answer my question, “do you think it matters what order the candle and 20 C ambient air were presented?” Why would the object reach different temperatures, given identical surroundings?
That was my best shot. Done with you.
S,
It seems you wrote –
“Something cold can never, all by itself, make a warmer object warmer. That would be nuts. That would defy a basic law of physics. No GHE possible
Are you saying you do not agree with what you wrote?
I am not surprised. You have to introduce a hotter heat source to make something hotter. And of course, CO2 warmed by an object cannot result in any temperature increase in that object. This is why you cannot find any trace of a disprovable GHE hypothesis. You would probably have to claim that increasing the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere between the Sun and the surface would make the surface hotter! Ridiculous, eh?
Your best shot was pretty hopeless, wasn’t it? Maybe you would be better served by learning physics and the scientific method. Your shooting skills are quite hopeless. At the very least, you need serviceable ammunition, and you have none.
Cheers.
Norman, Ball4
I’ll admit to not thinking through the issue of scattered light striking the lens. I tried reading through some of the ways the issue can be addressed (a lot of amazing technology out there), but honestly, found it quite overwhelming.
https://www.newport.com/t/light-collection-and-systems-throughput
Snape,
The solution is not so complicated.
It’s like a solar thermal plant. The best you can do from a theoretical point of view is to occupy the entire optical field of the target by the image of the sun. The target can thus at best reach the temperature of the sun.
If you manage to install an optical device that occupies the entire visible field of your target by the image of your ice cube, your target will at best reach the temperature of your ice cube.
This is in fact the demonstration of the perfect uselessness of the concept of backradiations, that is to say of the notion of double energy flows.
phi
YOU: “This is in fact the demonstration of the perfect uselessness of the concept of backradiations, that is to say of the notion of double energy flows.”
That is not a logical conclusion. The energy of DWIR (which most is absorbed by the surface) will add to the energy but it will not warm the surface because the surface is losing energy faster than the DWIR can supply.
The surface radiant budget is the solar flux reaching it plus the DWIR. Both are in joules/sec-m^2, they both add energy. Combined together you will reach a higher steady state temperature that matches how much energy the surface loses by radiation, evaporation and convection.
E. Swanson’s test does show exactly this condition. The blue plate temperature (in a vacuum) goes up with the combination of input lamp plus the added backradiation from the green plate.
https://app.box.com/s/5wxidf87li5bo588q2xhcfxhtfy52oba
Eli Rabbet proposed a thought experiment. E. Swanson performed an actual experiment. The thought experiment is verified.
Norman,
This is a logical conclusion since it shows by the optics that you can not disjoin the two opposing energy flows. In particular, one can not raise the temperature of a target beyond the temperature of the source. The two flows are indistinct and form a single entity, a heat flux. All this is trivial but it seems that everyone has not understood it here and in particular an idiot who track I do not know what.
And Swanson’s experience is described much more effectively with real notions of physics and thermodynamics (heat flux and irradiance) than with baroque concepts such as backradiations.
phi
Then please explain E. Swanson’s experiment without radiant energy from the green plate.
As usual, “that’s not even not right but it is not even wrong.”
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Not_even_wrong#Origin
http://notrickszone.com/2018/06/13/swedish-researchers-confirm-20th-century-warming-does-not-stand-out-over-past-2500-years/
Which is not new news but good to see regardless.
Salvatore Del Prete says:
June 8, 2018 at 4:22 PM
Dave we do not care about what happened in the past it is the future that we are trying to forecast.
Exactly.
I am not using it to prove what is going to happen in the future unlike AGW enthusiast who do that sort of thing. They think a trend is etched in stone it can’t change. Wrong.
I posted the article to point out this period of time in the climate is not unique. Not even close.
This year will be the beginning of the end for AGW theory. That is my prediction.
Gordon Robertson
I can’t let this one go. Way up above…
YOU: “Norman I say energy is transferred from a colder body to a hotter one. NOT HEAT. So please stop making false claims!
Essentially the same statement. If EM is absorbed by a body it MUST warm.”
That shows you lack logic or reason to make such a false and misleading conclusion.
If you actually studied real physics instead of getting it of blogs by lunatic crackpots, you would have easy answers and see how really really bad your thought process is.
EMR can be absorbed by a hot body and NOT warm it. It depends upon how much energy the hot body is emitting.
It is really 1st grade math. Basic simple Math.
If you have 5 apples and you add two more but remove 4 how many apples remain? Most would say 3. I guess you think the correct answer is 7 since you are adding apples. You just ignore the removal for no obvious reason.
With EMR. If you have ice radiating 300 Watt/m^2 to a water source and the water is emitting 400 W/m^2 the energy from the ice is still absorbed but it won’t warm the water as it is losing a NET of 100 W/m^2. You could even have a heater that added 90 Watts/m^2 and the water would still cool with both these additions. If you added 150 W/m^2 in this case the water would heat up until it emitted 450 W/m^2.
It is really 1st grade math skills. Don’t be so dumb about simple math. You embarrass me when you show such ignorance. I hope better of you.
Here is a slightly improved version of my earlier post:
Imagine a room where the ambient air temperature is 18 C., and with an object on the table that has settled to the temperature of its surroundings, therefore also ~ 18 C
Now, using vents, blow in air with a higher ambient temperature, 20 C., until it has replaced the colder air. We have just increased the U to the system, and the object will settle to the higher temperature (20 C).
Next, light a candle and place it right next to the object. The object would likely warm a few degrees, maybe to 24 C. (Four degrees of warming)
Ok so far?
******
Lets try it a different way, but still starting with a room at 18 C. ambient temperature and the object 18 C. as well.
This time, though, we will introduce the candle first, the warmer air second…….so the candle is now placed next to the object and, with four degrees warming, the object comes to 22 C.
Ok so far?
*******
Again, using vents, blow in air with an ambient temperature of 20 C until it has replaced the cooler, 18 C air. The internal energy (U) of the system has again increased.
The object should still warm by those two degrees, right? (Same scenario as before: 20 C ambient air, a candle next to the object)
To summarize: 20 C air (blown in through vents) warmed a 22 C object to 24 C
All we did was change the order that the candle and warmer air were introduced.
Kristian
Your argument then, would be as follows:
You can add the warmth of the candle to the increase in ambient air temperature, but not the other way around…..as in, you cannot add the increase in ambient air temperature to the warmth of the candle.
In other words, your logic is: 3 can be added to 2, but 2 cannot be added to 3
For all those who think the GHE violates the 2LOT, here’s something you should have learned in grade school:
“Addition has several important properties. It is COMMUTATIVE meaning that order does not matter..”.
Radiative fluxes, emitted from different temperatures, do not add arithmetically.
JDHuffman
And why is that? What prevents the addition of energy? Are you one of those who believe the energy will not be absorbed?
They add arithmetically if you consider view factor.
Once you determine the amount of energy that can reach an object from another object (considering the view factor) then the two fluxes will add. They are both energy both are in joules/sec-m^2. You can get a number for the joules/sec each energy flow will add to the surface. Energy does not disappear. I do no know how you confidently state radiative fluxes, at different temperatures, do not add arithmetically.
I hope you do more than voice an opinion and provide some supporting evidence from valid science sources.
Then perhaps you can explain why you can’t warm a liter of water with a wall of ice.
If the wall were 10 m^2, that would be 3000 Watts!
As Mike Flynn indicated, you could use all the ice you wanted. So all 4 walls would be 12000 Watts.
If, as you believe, fluxes add and all energy is absorbed, shouldn’t you be able to boil that liter of water with 12000 Watts?
“Then perhaps you can explain why you can’t warm a liter of water with a wall of ice.”
You can, it’s been explained by E. Swanson with an actual test – see the first comment experiment way above.
JDHuffman
Perhaps study this material and you will have your answer.
First why do you think that a liter of water could absorb all the energy from a wall of ice? It can only absorb the amount of energy that can hit its surface. Most of the energy will not make it to the liter of water.
http://mafija.fmf.uni-lj.si/seminar/files/2015_2016/Thermal_radiation_heat_transfer_between_surfaces_Luka_Klobucar.pdf
This seminar covers a lot of the math to determine view factors. You should read the material and learn why your point is not very good.
There appears to be a lot of avoidance going on.
Just to help, I’ll repeat:
If, as you believe, fluxes add and all energy is absorbed, shouldn’t you be able to boil that liter of water with 12000 Watts?
“shouldn’t you be able to boil that liter of water with 12000 Watts?”
You can. There seems to be a lot of avoidance of the experimental data by E. Swanson in the first comment explaining how to do so.
JD, Norman just gave you the answer. IF you don’t understand view factors and radiative energy transfer, then you have a LOT of catching up to do before you are ready to understand.
Ball4, if you want to believe ice can boil water, be my guest.
But, we could admire your zealotry more, if you used your real name.
How do we know you’re not just being a clown?
Tim Folkerts, as Mike indicated, you can have all the ice you want. I’ll even throw in perfect view factors. You still can’t boil water with ice.
Now, think up your next trick.
There still appears to be a lot of avoidance of the experiment in the 1st comment going on. Like JDH writes: “You are really desperate now.”
norman…”This seminar covers a lot of the math to determine view factors”.
A lot of bs math from the POV of a theoretician who could not apply the math if he tried. Most of the math is about view angles which are essentially what a body can see. That has nothing to do with heat being transferred both ways by radiation.
The entire premise of the article, that heat can be transferred both ways between bodies of different temperatures, is sci-fi.
As I have pointed out, these rocket-scientists are trying to apply Kircheoff’s theories of absorp-tion/emission to blackbodies AT THERMAL EQUILIBRIUM to non-BB bodies at different temperatures.
It should stand out to you that the author does not try to qualify his claims at the atomic level. He has obviously been immersed in BB theory based on the THEORETICAL assumption that blackbodies MUST absorb all energy incident upon them.
That contradicts basic quantum theory which addresses heat transfer at the atomic level.
JDHuffman
Here is another article on view factor. If you take the time to look through this you can scroll down to the view factor of a sphere in a hollow shell.
https://tinyurl.com/y8thsgcp
Concentric spheres
If you look at the graph you will see why, that even if you make a large sphere of ice surrounding a liter of water you can’t get the energy to pile up.
Here I can help you understand with some math. The view factor for concentric spheres for how much energy the inner sphere will receive from the outer sphere (R1/R2)^2 R1 is the smaller inner sphere radius while R2 is the radius of the larger sphere.
Take a water sphere with a 1 m^2 area. Say it is emitting at 400 W/m^2 or a total of 400 Watts. All this energy will reach the larger outer sphere (view factor of one for how much energy the larger sphere will receive from the inner sphere, all of it).
Now have the larger sphere have a radius of 10 meters.
The inner sphere has a radius of 0.282 meter (one square meter surface area). The outer sphere has an area of 1256 m^2. You have the ice sphere as emitting 300 W/m^2 so its total emission would be 376,991 Watts.
The big question is how much of this 376,991 watts will be received by the inner sphere?
Use the equation for view factor. (0.282 meters/10 meters)^2
Your view factor of how much energy the inner sphere can receive from the outer sphere is 0.000795. Now multiply this by the total number of watts emitted by the larger sphere.
376,911 Watts times 0.000795 = 299.73 Watts. So it can only receive 300 watts from the sphere no matter how big you make it.
Gordon Robertson
I would estimate the author, Luka Klobučar, probably about 50 IQ points above you. He is much more intelligent than you could ever hope to be.
You are actually quite a simpleton and cannot even understand intelligence when you see it. You are not capable of even comprehending even simple ideas like the Inverse Square Law. You are absolutely clueless on this and too dumb to learn it correctly. I have tried and all you know is if you move your hand away from a burner you think you have it all figured out.
I think you are a troll and a stupid one.
Also you can’t do 1st grade math. You can look at the linked article and will not be able to follow any of it so all you can do is pretend you have this intelligence (which you don’t) and attack a brilliant man. Your heroes are twisted demented humans like Joe Postma or crackpots like Claes Johnson.
Again 1st grade math. If you have 5 apples. A friend of yours gives you two while your enemy swipes 4 apples. How many apples do you have? You are not smart enough to answer this question correctly. Sorry no one can help you. It is not a matter of a fanatic personality and highly biased view. It is worse, you are just not very bright. You have a very low learning ability.
JDHuffman
If you could concentrate the energy from ice (which you can’t) you could boil water.
Here are some examples. Just 30 watts is boiling water. This is what you can do when you do not have a view factor and concentrate energy.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m74ylCraCVE
30 watts is enough to boil water
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Ia4Z1WuuTw
45 watt laser burning a piece of paper and cinder block.
So you can see if you can concentrate energy you can raise the temperature considerably. These lasers are far less than the 300 Watts of a meter block of ice.
Norman, you seemed confused that energy would be conserved between the spheres. Then, you took time to insult Gordon Robertson, before linking to two videos on lasers!
All in a effort to run from this:
“If, as you believe, fluxes add and all energy is absorbed, shouldn’t you be able to boil that liter of water with 12000 Watts?”
You’re probably really happy you’re not using your real name, huh?
JD says: “If, as you believe, fluxes add and all energy is absorbed, shouldn’t you be able to boil that liter of water with 12000 Watts?”
Your problem is that you apparently have no idea how to add fluxes, so you imagine a problem when there is none. You are somehow imagining that all flux from all parts of the ice aims at your pot of water, with none going in any other directions!
Yes, fluxes add. But fluxes get weaker as the source gets farther away. It turns out (not at all surprisingly) that the total flux that actually ARRIVES at your pot of water is the same for a small igloo of ice close to the pot or a huge cavern of ice around the pot. Do the calculus; add all the fluxes.
Tim Folkerts, your new trick won’t work. I’ve already allowed you “perfect” view factors. Maybe you don’t understand view factors. I am allowing ALL flux from the ice to arrive the water.
The point you are avoiding is that ice cannot warm water. You cannot add walls of ice to arrive at 12000 Watts. Study some physics.
Now, for your next trick.
JDHuffman
YOU: If, as you believe, fluxes add and all energy is absorbed, shouldnt you be able to boil that liter of water with 12000 Watts?
Youre probably really happy youre not using your real name, huh?”
I am using my first name, it is my real name. Most people, who know me call me Norm or Norman they do not need to add the middle or last name.
If you found a means to concentrate this energy you would boil water. The point you are totally unable to understand is that having a 10 m^2 wall of ice will not send all this energy to the water, only a small fraction of the total energy will reach the liter of water. Your point proves nothing about energy fluxes adding. It is a mindless sideline from someone who needs to learn some real physics so that effective communication of ideas can take place.
The reason I linked to the lasers is they do concentrate energy to a very small point and it indeed does raise the water temperature to boiling or paper to burn. The total watts (joules/second) of the laser beams is small but it is totally concentrated so it shows 30 joules/second energy in a tiny spot can burn paper. 30 joules/second in isotropic conditions will have almost no impact on a surface even a little distance as only very small amounts of energy reach the surface.
I really hope you get motivated an crack open a physics book and start reading. It would make communication with you more enlightening. As it stands you won’t be able to properly understand the points being made and will make up some ridiculous idea that has no bearing on real science.
You use a silly idea to try and prove fluxes can’t add. When told why it is silly you can’t understand it and persist in thinking it is somehow valid. I showed you above actual math to show why your point is a very poor one but you were not able to understand it but continue to post your ridiculous narrative.
Norman,
What is the surface area of your 30 Watt laser boiling say 1 cm2 of water? At most 1 cm2? That would be 300,000 W/m2. Enough to boil that whole cup in time I would imagine.
How does this relate to backradiation or any other physics erroneously used to conclude adding IR active gases to the atmosphere warms the planet?
Norman, you do not use your last name. You hide your identity, but yet viciously attack people that use their last names. Doesn’t that seem a little less than honorable?
Just asking.
And you keep ignoring the fact that you can use ALL of the infrared flux from ice. You do not have to account for any losses. Bring in more ice. You attempt to use “view factors” and lasers to avoid the fact that you can’t boil water with the infrared. All you can offer are insults and side issues. Doesn’t that seem a little like cult-behavior?
Just asking.
Fluxes don’t add, to create more energy.
“Maybe you don’t understand view factors. I am allowing ALL flux from the ice to arrive the water. “
Clearly you are the one who does not understand view factors.
“In radiative heat transfer, a view factor, F(A → B) is the proportion of the radiation which leaves surface A that strikes surface B.”
For your argument to be right, you would have to “allow” ALL the radiation leaving ALL the ice heading out in ALL directions to somehow ALL get redirected to strike your little pot of water! Radiation does not work that way, as even a cursory understanding radiation would reveal.
JD Huffman,
You are creating a strawman, like MF does constantly.
Your example shows that the only thing lenses and mirrors can do, effectively, is bring an object closer.
Bring the ice as close as you like, it will not emit enough flux to boil water.
But that proves nothing about whether fluxes add. Of course they do add.
If I shine 5 100W spotlights on you, you will get hot, because that is 500 W hitting you.
That should be “F(A–>B)”. Ideally with an arrow and subscripts for “A–>B”, but some formatting got lost in the copy/paste.
************************************
Maybe this will help. Suppose you have a 1m^2 sheet of ice (“surface A) emitting 300 W/m^2, or 300 W total. 10 meters away you have a 1m^2 surface (ε ~ 1) (“surface B”; one side of your “pot of water”), with the two surfaces facing each other. Clearly not all the 300 W from A will hit B; most will fly off in other directions. In fact, just over 0.3% of the radiation from A will hit B, or just under 1 W.
If you added a 2nd square meter of ice adjacent to the first, you would get about 2 W delivered. It would take just over 600 such square meters (2*pi*10^2) to cover an entire dome 10 m from t your pot. You don’t get 600 W to your pot, however, since the view factor for later square meters of ice gets even worse.
In face, you get exactly 300 W delivered to surface B when you add up the contribution from all directions. You definitely do NOT get 300W/m^2 * 628 m^2 = ~ 190000 W to surface B (your pot). No matter how far away the ice is or what shape it takes, if the ice covers every possible viewing angle from the “pot”, the pot receives 300 W/m^2.
Tim Folkerts, it’s amazing the hoops you will jump through to promote the idea that you can create energy by adding fluxes.
You might ask yourself how far you are willing to go to support your failed beliefs. Do you have any limits?
Nate, a 100-Watt spotlight has a filament temperature of over 2500 K.
I guess you didn’t realize that, or you wouldn’t have foolishly compared it to ice.
Nate & Tim,
Someone needs to clarify. If 5 x 100 W spots gives 500 W, then why doesn’t 2 m2 x 300 W/m2 give 600 W?
“Yes, fluxes add.”
So ice warms more than spot lights?
JD,
‘Nate, a 100-Watt spotlight has a filament temperature of over 2500 K.’
But you admit that the fluxes add in this case?
And how does the temperature change that principle?
Nate, fluxes don’t add. It doesn’t matter what the source is, fluxes don’t add.
You can not heat an object above the temperature of the ice, no matter how much ice you have.
You can not heat an object above the temperature of the 100 Watt filament, no matter how many light bulbs you have.
Fluxes don’t add.
‘Someone needs to clarify. If 5 x 100 W spots gives 500 W, then why doesnt 2 m2 x 300 W/m2 give 600 W?”
The spot lights originate from a small filament, say 1 cm^2. It spreads out onto a ~ 1 m spot when ~ 3 m away.
Suppose you stood right up close to the filament, you could get 100 W/cm^2 or 1 MW/m^2, but only on a 1cm^2 spot on your body. It would burn.
Imagine a 100 x 100 array of filaments over 1m^2 sheet. If you stood close to it you could get ~ 1 MW/m^2, but spread over your whole body, and cook.
The ice is spread out like the array. The best you could do is get up close to it and receive the full 300 W/m^2, over your body. A second sheet of ice would not be able to ‘shine’ at the same part of your body.
Either with filaments or ice, as you move away you get less intensity.
So you could surround yourself with a dozen sheets, but they would have to be further away. Their diffuse emissions cannot be focussed.
JD,
“Nate, fluxes dont add. It doesnt matter what the source is, fluxes dont add.”
Oh I see, you have asserted it, so therefore it is true.
So, if I shine more lights on you, you won’t be more lit? Hmmm. Why do they have so many lights at football games?
If I shine the 5 100 W lights on you, you won’t have 500 W hitting you?
Some of the Watts just vanish?
Nate,
If you calibrate a 100 Watt spot to deliver 100 W to a 1 m2 surface, how are three of those 100 W spots going to supply more heat than a 1 m2 block of ice?
If 100 W of energy are heating the spot’s filament to a higher temperature than ice, then I think we’re dealing with apples and oranges. I’m still confused.
Nate, I don’t know if you’re just confused, or trying to confuse.
You have veered away from the infrared emitted by ice, to visible light from a 2500K+ filament.
Since, like Norman, Ball4, and snape, you hide your identity, then you must only be interested in being a clown, not in understanding physics.
JD,
Now you are trying diversionary tactics ‘You have veered away from the infrared emitted by ice, to visible light from a 2500K+ filament.’
AFAIK both of those are fluxes, which according to you dont add, no matter the source. Right?
“Nate, fluxes dont add. It doesnt matter what the source is, fluxes dont add.”
Do you no longer stand by this statement? Or are you just being trollish?
As I discussed for spotlights, and lights at football games, which you may have experience with, the fluxes obviously DO add. Yes or No?
Chic
“If you calibrate a 100 Watt spot to deliver 100 W to a 1 m2 surface, how are three of those 100 W spots going to supply more heat than a 1 m2 block of ice?”
You are leaving out some elements of the problem. If you are in space, looking at 3K, placing a 1 m2 block of ice in front of you will cause you to warm. The ice is emitting ~ 300 W/m^2 while space is emitting close to 0 W/m^2.
If you are in a room at normal temp, than a 1 m^2 block of ice will not warm you, it is blocking out the much warmer walls emitting more than 300 W/m^2.
If you are in a normal room, with 3 100 W lights shining on you than those Watts are added to whatevr the walls are already shining on you. So you feel warmer.
“Fluxes don’t add.”
If you mean ” two different fluxes from two different solid objects in the same direction don’t add”, then of course that is true. Stacking one sheet of ice behind another will not double the flux.
If you mean ” two different fluxes from two different solid objects in different direction don’t add”, then of course that is false. Putting two sheets of ice side-by-side will create more fux at a surface. Just like putting many light bulbs on the ceiling provides better illumination than a single bulb.
I can never tell which of these you mean. Some of your statements follow the first, while others follow the second.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2018/06/uah-global-temperature-update-for-may-2018-0-18-deg-c/#comment-307356
Repeating an ambiguous answer does not make it any clearer! Fluxes from different directions add. Multiple light bulbs are brighter than one light bulb. If you use a mirror to reflect sunlight onto a spot already lit directly by the sun, you (approximately) double the flux. This is not at all difficult to understand or in any way controversial.
Tim Folkerts, then why can’t you understand?
Like Nate, you have lost the ice argument and are now trying to change the game to visible light. (How many tricks does this now total?)
Not a problem, fluxes don’t add for either range of wavelengths.
You believe the flux from multiple light bulbs adds. So, if you had 10 light bulbs, all with filament temperatures of 3000K, and all filaments had emissivity of 1.0, and you could use all the mirrors you wanted, could you ever heat a surface above 3000K?
(The correct answer is, of course, “No”. So I await your futile effort to evade reality.)
Gentlemen, I would like to take this discussion to a new thread. This is new and important to me and it seems some perspective is required. Please join in and leave the ad hominems at the door.
JD,
“Not a problem, fluxes dont add for either range of wavelengths.”
OK so its clear that you think even visible light fluxes, like those from the lights at sporting events, don’t add.
“So, if you had 10 light bulbs, all with filament temperatures of 3000K, and all filaments had emissivity of 1.0, and you could use all the mirrors you wanted, could you ever heat a surface above 3000K?”
No you could not heat a surface above the temp of a filament that way. But so what? That has nothing whatsoever to do with fluxes adding or not. They do add.
Its like your saying ‘you think fluxes add’ well than how come ducks quack?
You are being quite silly.
Nate,
It seems you know how to add fluxes, but you are not making it clear how. Why not continue on the new thread I started. Try to express your view as a principle that can be extrapolated.
JD
Did you see my example?
I increased the ambient air temperature from 18 C. to 20 C. You don’t think an additional increase to the systems internal energy, in the form of a candle, can be added to the original increase? Why not?
(Placing a candle next to a 20 C. object would create some warming, how would that be possible without an increase to the system’s U?)
As Mike Flynn commented, the 800 C candle flame is doing the heating of the object to 24 C. The air, at 20C, can only heat the object to 20C.
Snape,
Back to climatology.
Your candle is nothing, you have forgotten backradiations of walls, table, the portrait of your uncle, the bergere of your grandmother, floor and ceiling, carpet, library, the tea service from your mother-in-law and other appealing sources of backenergy. Then you will resume your inventory for backconduction and add a pinch of backconvection.
When you have added all these beautiful sources of energy, you will not even find your candle to enlighten you.
Lol!
JD: “the 800 C candle flame is doing the heating….”
Phi: “Your candle is nothing……”
Obviously phi’s sarcasm was missed by snape.
LOL.
JD
The warmth from the candle was clearly quantified. It increased the object’s temperature 4 C. in both situations. First, from 20 C. to 24 C.
Then from 18 C. to 22 C.
The change in room temperature was clearly quantified as well. 2 C. warming in BOTH situations. 18 C. to 20 C. in the first situation, and again, 18 C. to 20 C. in the second.
The only difference was the order in which these temperature increases took place.
The order doesn’t matter. In both situations,
1) The 800 C candle flame is doing the heating of the object, and
2) Radiative fluxes, emitted from different temperatures, do not add arithmetically.
S,
You are demented. It is already well known that heat from a hotter object (an imaginary 800 C or so from your imaginary candle) can raise the temperature of a colder one.
Is this your definition of the GHE? Are you really that stupid and ignorant, or only pretending?
You can’t explain what you actually trying to say, can you? Are you trying to say that increasing the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere increases surface temperatures by reducing the amount of the Sun’s energy available to the surface?
That sounds ridiculous, but if you can demonstrate this effect, and come up with some disprovable hypothesis, scientists can at least examine your strange claim.
If making mad, imaginary, irrelevant, and pointless analogies is somehow related to a GHE which you cannot even describe, you must be suffering from the same form of delusional psychosis as other purveyors of climatological pseudoscientific nonsense.
Carry on, young Snape. I rather enjoy the mad caperings of the bumbling buffoons you seek to emulate.
Cheers.
phi
Here’s your mental homework:
Situation One/
Add to the mix all the beautiful energy sources in the room, then imagine an object comes to a steady temperature of 20 C. Then place a candle close enough to the object so that it creates a 4 C. temperature increase.
Situation Two/
Add to the mix all the beautiful energy sources in the room, then imagine an object comes to a steady temperature of 18 C. Then place a candle close enough to the object so that it creates a 4 C. temperature increase.
Earth is not presently very warm, nor has Earth ever been very warm, and it will not become very warm.
The average surface temperature of the ocean of Earth is about 17 C.
The average surface temperature of the lands of Earth is about 10 C.
Room temperature, wiki:
“Colloquially, room temperature is the range of air temperatures that people prefer for indoor settings, which feel comfortable when wearing typical indoor clothing. As a medical definition, the range generally considered to be suitable for human occupancy is between 15 degrees Celsius (59 degrees Fahrenheit) and 25 C (77 F), though human comfort can extend somewhat beyond this range depending on factors such as humidity and air circulation. In certain fields, like science and engineering, and within a particular context, “room temperature” can have varying agreed upon values for temperature.”
I would add that modern humans wear clothes and sleep in beds, which are technologies which makes the human animal, warmer {and which are comfortable and protective tools with various social advantages in addition to simply adding insulative properties}.
Wiki continues:
“The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language identifies room temperature as around 20 to 22 C (68 to 72 F), and the Oxford English Dictionary claims that it is “conventionally taken as about 20 C (68 F)”.”
So Earth ocean and land average temperature have average temperature below room temperature. And room temperature other than being safe and comfortable to humans is also safe and comfortable to plants and animals.
That humans pick 20 C, is due to humans being a tropical creature, and tropics are abundant in life and variety of life. And non desert regions of tropics have a fairly uniform day and night temperature of around 20 C.
The higher temperature of ocean results in increasing the average temperatures of land areas which have average of 10 C because they are warmed by ocean which is 70% of global surface.
Or if ocean average surface was 10 C, average land temperature would be much colder than their present average temperature of 10 C.
One could say that average surface temperature of the ocean is due or at least related to gravity. Gravity causes less dense water to rise to the surface and warmer water is less dense.
Gravity makes having a warmer ocean depths and cooler surface, not possible. And likewise gravity prevents denser air from being in upper atmosphere as compared to the surface.
So you have warmer and less dense water at surface and denser and warmer air at the surface. Or both are gravity induced heat gradients which warmest at earth surfaces of sky and water.
If you compared ocean and sky in terms of heat/energy, the ocean is less mixed than the sky. And one could say the ocean does a lot to keep the sky have more uniform temperature [temperature, being the temperature of atmosphere of gases being the average velocity of gas molecules].
And ocean surface is mixed by atmospheric winds [though should mentioned that the presence of gravity allows winds to occur] and ocean is mixed by gravity due to cooler polar water falling and being replaced warmer surface waters.
So broadly one could say global climate is gravity machine- something that uses gravity to work {does *not* create gravity] or hydrodams also use gravity and powered by gravity of the height of water- which is caused by rain or Earth’s weather.
But Earth’s average temperature is a bit misleading, because really the only place on Earth which could be called warm is the tropical zone of Earth is about 40% of the planet.
Or to make simpler about 1/2 of Earth is warm and 1/2 is quite cold. The 1/2 of world which is warm is region at or near tropics.
And because atmosphere is mixed and ocean somewhat mixed, the warm half warms the cold half. The other factor is that a 1/4 of the year, one has summer season warming the colder halves. And this seasonal aspect is also a part of adding to mixing of ocean.
Or without seasons the ocean would be less mixed or have less uniform temperature.
But as said compared to atmosphere, the ocean is less mixed in terms of it’s temperature.
So ocean is mixed due to gravity and also less mixed or stratified or caused to have heat gradient due to gravity.
And ocean is warm due to mixing and due to having heat gradient, though one argue the complete opposite.
The reason you argue the complete opposite is the land cools the ocean. And mixing ocean temperature and or stratification causes more warming of land which in turn loses more energy to space.
It is quite complicated. If you simplify, and assume ocean is mixed [rather partially mixed or constantly mixing and in a manner of different ways] you get an average or uniform ocean temperature of 3.5 C, and if surface of ocean is 3.5 C rather than 17 C, land temperature crash from it’s present average temperature of 10 C.
Or average global temperature goes from 15 C to about 3 C.
Which might not seem to bad, but the warm half is much warming than the colder half planet in terms of air temperature. Or tropics might not be freezing at night if near sea level, but land outside tropics gets very cold, winter is brutal, but summer is not very warm during day and quite cold at night.
Now it seems Earth has never got this cold. And it seems if human wanted to do this, it would expensive, but probably less costs of doing it than cost of alternative energy and cost of all government oppressive related to “solving global warming”. Or if trillions of dollars to spend and if spend sanely, it could done.
One could say it this way, one would need to fight gravity- and that requires energy, but gravity is a fairly weak force in this universe.
And in long term, mixing the ocean does not cool Earth, or “losing energy in ocean” is a long term warming effect.
gbaikie…”So Earth ocean and land average temperature have average temperature below room temperature”.
I can testify to that as someone stupid enough to try surfing in the Pacific Ocean, in summer, without a wet suit, at the latitude of Vancouver Island, Canada. I found the temperature caused an initial chilling while immersed to ankle level that went straight to the brain, much like standing in a glacier-fed stream.
On the other hand, I have swum in Hawaii and in the sub-Tropical waters near the north of New Zealand, in the same Pacific Ocean, and felt quite comfortable, except for the thought of sharks or stepping on a Manta Ray.
It’s actually very straightforward.
An increase in the internal energy (U) of the area in thermal contact with the object will make it warmer. A similar decrease will make it colder.
The nitwits think the increase has to be presented in a special order.
Since you must resort to insults, you obviously know you are wrong.
Your concession is accepted.
JD
It was out of exasperation, I apologize.
Do you think 2 + 3 must not equal 3 + 2……because I resorted to insults?
Apology accepted.
But, now you’re trying to misrepresent my words. Another indication you know you’re wrong.
As Mike would say, “Carry on”.
Also, I’m not sure if my “internal energy” claim is correct. Maybe “kinetic energy” is what I was looking for?
If we add ice cubes to hot coffee, the coffee’s kinetic energy will quickly decrease, correct? Would its internal energy also decrease?
S,
You really haven’t the faintest idea, have you? What efforts have you made to find out?
Here’s something that might help – boiling water in a polished silver container with an emissivity of 0.02 or so can emit energy at less than 30 W/m2.
Ice can emit 300 W/m2. Once you have worked out why ice cannot be used to boil water, in spite of producing 10 times as much radiation, your belief in the GHE might diminish.
You can try adding 300 and 30, but it won’t help. Multiplication, subtraction, and division – do you think changing the order makes a difference? Off you go then. I hope you find what you were looking for.
Cheers.
snape…”Also, Im not sure if my internal energy claim is correct. Maybe kinetic energy is what I was looking for?”
Same thing, they are both generic terms referring to the heat in a body and the work done by atoms vibrating in their lattices.
Kinetic energy is a good term it is defined as energy in motion. However, it doesn’t specify which energy is in motion. Same with internal energy.
Clausius was very specific when he claimed heat is the kinetic energy of atoms. I don’t see how anyone can dispute that definition. Some have tried by claiming heat is an energy transfer through a surface but what energy is being transferred through the surface?
The latter is not as trivial as it may sound. At a surface with straight atoms not bound together into molecules, the electrons in the atoms are busy converting heat to electromagnetic energy. It seems to me that heat cannot be transferred through a surface for radiation since it is EM being radiated.
With two solid of different temperatures it’s another matter. Heat can be transferred directly from atom to atom at the point of contact. But then we know which energy is flowing through the surface and which direction it is flowing. It is heat flowing and it makes no sense to define heat as a transfer of heat through a surface.
A bit redundant, eh wot?
JD
Here were some of Mike Flynn’s (whose viewpoint you agreed with) comments to me, after my original post:
“More imaginary nonsense.”
“Learn some physics.”
“Boo hoo. So sad too bad!”
Not to mention the countless times he has called me stupid or a “foolish
warmest”
*********
Your reply, then, was a bit disingenuous, was it not?
“Since you must resort to insults, you obviously know you are wrong.
Your concession is accepted.”
I think you were just looking for a way out.
You are really desperate now.
S,
Maybe you could quote where I have ever called you a “foolish warmest?
I may have referred to you as a foolish Warmist, but if you cannot help getting a straightforward two word description wrong, you won’t get a lot of respect as an accurate reporter.
As to the other quotes you have ascribed to me, which do you disagree with, and what facts can you present to support your disagreement?
Feel free to take as much offence as you wish – it wont help to produce a useful description of the GHE, nor a disprovable GHE hypothesis, will it?
Back to heating objects with an 800C heat source, and expressing amazement when it occurs, eh? Maybe you believe that the CO2 from the candle makes objects hotter – there is certainly 100% correlation, so a stupid and ignorant bumbling buffoon might leap to the conclusion that CO2 had heating properties!
Check it out. Bigger fires produce more CO2, and emit more heat. Draw some graphs. Plot CO2 quantity against temperature. Is this your GHE? More CO2 makes thermometers hotter?
Have fun.
Cheers.
JD
“The order doesnt matter. In both situations,
1) The 800 C candle flame is doing the heating of the object, and
2) Radiative fluxes, emitted from different temperatures, do not add arithmetically.”
So you agree the object’s temperature would end up the same in both situations? That’s been my point all along.
S,
I’m still not clear. Was your point to get someone to agree with you that something was quite irrelevant and pointless, or was your point that if you have an 800C heat source, you can use it to raise the temperature of a colder object?
Are you disagreeing with JD’s statements? If not, what is the point of repeating them?
All a bit pointless if you can’t even describe the GHE, isn’t it?
Keep it up.
Cheers.
No snape, you attempted to make the point that cold could warm hot.
But, you got burned.
I’ve heard ice is good for minor burns.
Some might argue that warming the air first, and introducing the candle second, would result in a different temperature (to the object) than the other way around.
S,
And some might not.
If your comment is pointless and irrelevant, what is the point of posting it?
A useful description of the GHE would be relevant, but you can’t produce one of those, can you?
Back to imaginary candles for you. More your area of expertise, I would imagine.
Cheers.
entropic…”Nowrepeat the experiment with ball A at 21C. From the SB law this increases As thermal radition by 1% to 101 Joules”.
I have issues with your analysis. The basis of blackbody theory is that a BB MUST absorb all energy it receives. That contradicts quantum theory as proposed by Bohr and Schrodinger. According to quantum theory, the electrons in atoms that convert heat to EM and back again must obey stringent rules, especially as regards absorp-tion.
As I pointed out, Kircheoff applied his BB theory at thermal equilibrium. As you move away from thermal equilibrium, the 1C you have suggested is a measure of the AVERAGE kinetic energy of all particles. The question arises as to how sharply that affects the emission/absorp-tion of the bodies.
I agree that the bodies will continue to emit at a similar rate but will they continue to absorb at a similar rate? According to Bohr, later verified by Schrodinger’s wave equations, the energy potential between electron energy levels is E2 – E1, in electron volts.
When an electron converts heat as kinetic energy to EM it does so based on E2 – E1 = hf while giving up the difference as heat. It’s the same when the electron absorbs EM and converts it back to heat. Either way, the electron jumps between energy levels, dropping as it emits and rising as it absorbs.
The f in the equation is the electron’s frequency, derived from its angular velocity and the frequency changes to suit the energy level. In a cooler body, the electrons in its atoms are at a lower energy level all around and their f (frequency) is lower.
In order for a quanta of EM to be absorbed by an electron, the frequency of the EM must match the frequency of the electron exactly. Norman posted a video in which that was explained but he seems to have ignored the info in his own post.
They used a mass-spring system to depict the electron in its orbit with the mass-spring having a specific resonant frequency. They claimed that a frequency of input energy that matched the mass-spring system would be absorbed whereas frequencies that did not match would be rejected.
I have no idea how precise this matching of frequency must be or how it comes into effect as bodies move away from equilibrium. I know with electronic bandpass filters and transformers that you can shape and tune the bandpass to have a very sharp rejection of frequencies that do not match the resonance of the filter/transformer.
I do know that the 2nd law imposes restriction on heat transfer. Some are arguing that it imposes a net heat transfer but there is no mention of that in the definitions of Clausius. He used the word NEVER in the definition of the 2nd law and that’s strong wording.
An absolute heat transfer from hot to cold makes far more sense to me given the requirements of quantum theory.
Tim, Norman, Ball4…..
If you call a cup of hot coffee a system, and drop in some ice cubes, will the system’s kinetic and internal energy both decrease?
Snape, the short answer is “yes”.
But the long-winded answer can easily get lost in definitions and semantics. For example, by dropping in ice cubes, you are causing waves (mechanical motion), which is kinetic energy. So, just the act of adding ice cubes increases the energy in the cup of coffee.
On the other hand, if you neglect the disturbance of adding the cubes, and consider only the remaining energy, then both kinetic and internal will decrease. Energy will decrease, and entropy increases.
(Now that I’ve answered, will nameless clowns jump in to play word games?)
I think I can answer my own question, but am still hoping for some input.
A gallon jar, containing air at 40 C., would have greater kinetic energy than if it were filled with water at 35 C.
But since internal energy includes all forms of energy, the water, with much more latent heat, would actually have a higher internal energy (U).
“A gallon jar, containing air at 40 C., would have greater kinetic energy than if it were filled with water at 35 C. “
Individual molecules of of air would have a higher (average) KE than individual molecules of water. But overall, there is much more random KE in the water because of the much greater mass. This is in addition to the difference due latent heat that you mention.
A better comparison to make your point might be a gallon jar with 5.0 g of air vs a gallon jar with 5.0 g of H20 (liquid + vapor).
https://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/water-vapor-d_979.html
at 300 K water vapor is about 1.86 kJ/(kg K)
And air is suppose to be about 1 kJ/(kg K)
Or per C of temperature water vapor has 86% more energy than
air of equal mass. Or takes more energy to heat water vapor by 1 K
as compared to air.
Oops. Sorry RW. I started a comment, came back to it a while later, and forgot my original question.
Anyway, you could be right about the ice cubes. The thing is, the coffee would get colder, but the ice cubes might add latent heat to the “system”.
S,
Seriously, you have added energy to the system. The way in which the total energy becomes distributed throughout the system will be subject to many factors.
What is certain, on the macro scale, is that the coffee will not get hotter by absorbing energy from the ice cubes.
Surrounding the coffee with cooler CO2 added to the system will not make the coffee hotter.
Surrounding the Earth with more CO2 will not make it hotter.
Still no GHE.
Cheers.
I see you get a mention, Roy, and rightly so because your “lukewarm” beliefs are incorrect. Back radiation does NOT help the solar radiation to explain Earth’s surface temperature – never has, never will.
https://principia-scientific.org/controlled-opposition-keeps-greenhouse-gas-theory-on-life-support/#comment-19423
Thanks to Do-ug Cot-ton for this really helpful comment!
Mike
“What is certain, on the macro scale, is that the coffee will not get hotter by absorbing energy from the ice cubes.”
That’s a reasonable answer Mike, and that’s what I’m interested in. If something gets colder, has the internal energy necessarily decreased? The Wikipedia description gets confusing.
S,
It would depend on how you define internal energy. In general, however, if energy is emitted by a body, and not replaced, then the body gets colder – because it is now less capable of emitting radiation of the same intensity as before.
Another way of appreciating this might be to consider a body at 0 K. This body emits no photons at all, theoretically. It must be heated to be capable of emitting photons, which means that its internal energy content has increased, by the energy contained in the photons absorbed by the object.
And vice versa, of course.
Let me know if I have been unclear, or if you disagree with something I have presented as fact. Please quote me, and provide facts to support your disagreement.
Cheers.
The only internal energy related to temperature is the mean internal kinetic energy per molecule or particle in a gas. If mean molecular gravitational potential energy rises as kinetic energy falls the gas will be cooling but the total internal energy could decline far less than the kinetic energy. That’s what happens in convection that is driven by a warm surface below and thus has upward direction. The opposite happens if the warmer spot is above. That’s the process climatologists don’t know about but which was explained in 2013 here: https://ssrn.com/author=2627605. That’s what causes the heat transfer downwards that back radiation could never achieve.
S…. If something gets colder, has the internal energy necessarily decreased? The Wikipedia description gets confusing”.
You should never trust Wikipedia as a reliable source. For one, the contributions can be made by anyone and for another, the editors tend to be uber-alarmists.
According to Clausius, who defined U for the 1st law, internal energy is heat as kinetic energy and the affect it has as work on atomic vibrations. Since temperature is a measure of heat, then the internal energy must be reduced with a reduction in temperature.
JD
“No snape, you attempted to make the point that cold could warm hot.”
It’s interesting that you think, “heating up the air” equals “cold warming hot”.
Because in both situations, the air got hotter. All I ever did was add heat to the system.
Snape, you may want to argue with yourself:
“To summarize: 20 C air (blown in through vents) warmed a 22 C object to 24 C.”
S,
Do you really think that heating an object to 24 C using an 800 C heat source is somehow remarkable?
Is this the basis for the supposed, yet strangely inexplicable, GHE?
It is obvious that climatological pseudoscience is based on hot air, but I presume you had another point to make. What was it?
Cheers.
https://principia-scientific.org/controlled-opposition-keeps-greenhouse-gas-theory-on-life-support/
reads, referring to “Lukewarmers” Spencer, Curry, Singer and Watts …
“As ever-more peer-reviewed studies prove carbon dioxide is not our climates control knob a stubborn clique of lukewarmers persist in defending the discredited greenhouse gas theory. Why?
Let us consider the real possibility, that on a matter so critical to government policy that we are dealing with a controlled opposition. But what is controlled opposition? As the Urban Dictionary advises:
A controlled opposition is a protest movement that is actually being led by government agents. Nearly all governments in history have employed this technique to trick and subdue their adversaries. Notably Vladimir Lenin who said The best way to control the opposition is to lead it ourselves.
To sustain the Big Climate Lie for 30 years needed a lot of hard work and scheming.
Any such controlled opposition would work to ensure that the CO2-driven radiative greenhouse gas theory was maintained and unquestioned as the settled science; without that lynchpin no one could persuasively argue that human emissions were dangerously altering earths climate.”
Come on, we know who this is.
The article reads like a political rant rather than a scientific rebuttal of the GHE. Gerlich & Tscheuschner did a far superior job without pointing fingers at scientists who are on our side.
It serves no purpose to attack fellow skeptics by calling them luke-warmers then deriding them as turncoats. In fact, on many an occasion I have seen Roy go after the very injustices suggested in the rant. Judith Curry does it as well as Anthony Watts and Fred Singer.
I don’t agree with the position of some skeptical scientists on the 2nd law but I am not interested in allowing such a disagreement to water down the skeptical position.
Gordon, have you even tried to read any of the responses to Gerlich & Tscheuschner?
I’m sure you haven’t, but am happy to be corrected.
JD
“Snape, you may want to argue with yourself:
“To summarize: 20 C air (blown in through vents) warmed a 22 C object to 24 C.””
Good point. Sorry for the confusing semantics. Let me restate the summary in a more straightforward, logical way:
“In each case, a two degree increase in air temperature warmed the object by two degrees.”
S,
Your summary seems to have omitted the 800 C heat source. Or are you really trying to say that you can heat an object with a hotter object – namely, hotter air?
This is well known – hair dryers generally use heated air.
Cheers.
Mike
“Do you really think that heating an object to 24 C using an 800 C heat source is somehow remarkable?”
You are misrepresenting my example.
I made it clear that in both situations the object started at 18 C., same as the ambient air. I also made it clear that the candle would be placed at a distance that produced only 4 C. warming.
Your math is not so good, Mike.
S,
Here’s what you wrote –
“To summarize: 20 C air (blown in through vents) warmed a 22 C object to 24 C.”
No mention of the 800 C heat source which provided the warming. No mention of the heat source which heated an unknown quantity of air from 18 C to 20 C.
No mention that nothing you wrote cannot be explained by use of conventional physics.
No mention of any relevance to any supposed GHE.
Why is my math not so good?
Cheers.
Mike
“Or are you really trying to say that you can heat an object with a hotter object namely, hotter air?”
******
Yes, that’s what I’m trying to say!!
So when someone tells you,
“To summarize: 20 C air (blown in through vents) warmed a 22 C object to 24 C.”
tell them that’s a misleading way of looking at it, and explain what really happened…….hotter air made the object warmer.
S,
You wrote –
. . . hotter air made the object warmer.
That is well known. Why are you repeating what is already well known? What does it have to do with the insane notion that putting more CO2 between the Sun and a thermometer makes the thermometer hotter?
Have you any clue about what your are saying, or are you just stringing random words together hoping to sound intelligent?
The world wonders.
Cheers.
Equally misleading:
Bring the room temperature to 40 C., but place some ice next to the object so it stays cooler, say 30 C.
Next, lower the room temperature to 35 C. The object would get a little cooler, right? Let’s examine an accurate, but confusing way of looking at the situation:
“35 C air made a 30 C object even colder”
or, “hot cooled cold”
What really happened, of course, was that a measure of heat was removed from the room.
S,
There are no such things as cold rays. Try cooling something by putting some ice near it. Maybe you could magnify the non-existent cold rays somehow to feel them from across the room?
Let me know how you get on. You are talking nonsense. Learn some physics. Your fantasies are not reality.
Still no GHE. You cannot even describe the GHE, let alone figure out a way of using all the energy in the world contained in ice to heat even a teaspoon full of water!
You keep making statements which you admit are misleading – for no good reason as far as I can see.
No heating things by cooling them – no cooling them by heating. That is just climatological delusion.
Try another misleading statement.
Cheers.
Mike
“No mention of the 800 C heat source which provided the warming. No mention of the heat source which heated an unknown quantity of air from 18 C to 20 C.”
All that was covered in the example, but you’re right, it was not mentioned in the brief, misleading summary.
Based on your complaints, though, it sounds like the summary was all you read.
norman…”This seminar covers a lot of the math to determine view factors”.
This is a comment on a link you posted earlier from a Polish site where they offered rubbish theories on radiative heat transfer.
************
A lot of bs math from the POV of a theoretician who could not apply the math if he tried. Most of the math is about view angles which are essentially what a body can see. That has nothing to do with heat being transferred both ways by radiation.
The entire premise of the article, that heat can be transferred both ways between bodies of different temperatures, is sci-fi.
As I have pointed out, these rocket-scientists are trying to apply Kircheoff’s theories of absorp-tion/emission to blackbodies AT THERMAL EQUILIBRIUM to non-BB bodies at different temperatures.
It should stand out to you that the author does not try to qualify his claims at the atomic level. He has obviously been immersed in BB theory based on the THEORETICAL assump-tion that blackbodies MUST absorb all energy incident upon them.
That contradicts basic quantum theory which addresses heat transfer at the atomic level.
Gordon Robertson says:
The entire premise of the article, that heat can be transferred both ways between bodies of different temperatures, is sci-fi.
The Earth emits radiation in all directions, right?
Some of the radiation reaches the Sun, right?
What happens when it gets there?
DA…The Earth emits radiation in all directions, right?
Some of the radiation reaches the Sun, right?
What happens when it gets there?”
**********
Nothing.
Nothing????
Where does that radiation go???
Mike
“There are no such things as cold rays.”
You’re right, and that’s why I said, “what really happened, of course, was that a measure of heat was removed from the room.”
S,
Your love of misleading statements is evident. Another “. . .what really happened . . . ” moment. Presumably as an apology for what you initially pronounced with such assurance?
More explanation is needed – what was the measure of heat, and what removed it?
Cheers.
Climatology is a subject of permanent astonishment. The behavior of the human soul is very mysterious.
We are almost at 1500 comments, most of which concern the merits of the use of backradiations in a problem of thermodynamics.
This pattern is repeated every month for years on this blog and we find it abundantly elsewhere. There is little or no progress on the issue.
I am not aware of the use of backradiations in a thermal problem elsewhere than in climatology. I guess it is, but it’s not common because it’s basically useless and easily confusing.
Some people try to explain the greenhouse effect by showing that to the heating of the surface by the sun must be added the famous backradiations.
To use the formula reported by the idiot above on this thread: that’s not even not right but it is not even wrong.
By diverting a little this formula, we could say:
1. It’s not even not right because actually, you can introduce backradiations into an energy balance and fall back on your feet.
2. This is not even wrong because backradiations are indeed a source of heat in the narrow framework of the quantitative theory of the greenhouse effect.
Point 1 works but backradiations are a consequence and not a cause.
Point 2 is justified by a trick that allows to circumvent an impossible calculation of convection. Thermodynamics is bypassed by imposing a unique means for the return to equilibrium of the climate system following any radiative imbalance.
If we knew, as is the case in a number of other thermal systems, calculate the different heat fluxes, it would become obvious to everyone that increasing the heating or increasing the opacity (or resistance to a radiative heat flux) does not produce the same effect on the system and no one would think of equating backradiations with heating.
Surprise goes, of course, far beyond this blog. Almost all specialists (including among skeptics) use the ludicrous concept of radiative forcing uncritically. This concept is in itself a negation of thermodynamics since, based on the theoretical trick, it equates insulation with heating.
The question that plagues me is not whether the quantitative theory will collapse but when it will collapse.
I look forward to the answer.
This time many things you say are even wrong.
Be happy, this rating is much better and less contemptous, in Pauli or physicist’s mind.
It’s only as soon as, when repeatedly urged to do so, you dare to explain and support your fancy views in terms of logical reasoning and real physics that your amusing drivel is usually not only not right but not even wrong, that is, it is merely meaningless and unfalsifiable.
Phi,
“This pattern is repeated every month for years on this blog and we find it abundantly elsewhere. There is little or no progress on the issue.”
Why? Well looking around the internet, the only people that are harping and wringing their hands over this over this issue are climate skeptics/deniers. You guys are like the grammar police, constantly telling everyone to stop ending their sentences in prepositions. And similarly, the concern is over a thing that is inconsequential.
“I am not aware of the use of backradiations in a thermal problem elsewhere than in climatology.”
False. As I showed you, but you ignored, the idea of two-way energy flows is regularly taught in thermo courses.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2018/06/uah-global-temperature-update-for-may-2018-0-18-deg-c/#comment-307039
Furthermore, meteorologists have described and measured the downwelling and upwelling radiation, and used it in weather prediction models, since the dawn of time. They find it convenient to do so.
“Almost all specialists (including among skeptics) use the ludicrous concept of radiative forcing”
Again, it is useful in both meteorology and climate science to use this because it is convenient and measurable.
You act as if simply describing the heat flows that are actually occurring in the atmosphere in a different way is consequential. It is not.
Foolish Warmists,
If you could describe the GHE in scientific terms, you could no doubt propose a disprovable GHE hypothesis.
But you can’t, can you?
Keep the irrelevant and pointless blather going. At least it keeps you happy, and there is nothing wrong with that, is there?
Don’t mind the laughter. Nothing wrong with that either.
Cheers.
phi says:
June 15, 2018 at 2:24 AM
This concept is in itself a negation of thermodynamics since, based on the theoretical trick, it equates insulation with heating.
I’m not so very interested in wether or not the concept of backradiation is correct. For me, the simple fact that trace gases can intercept Earth’s LW radiation and thus reduce the efficiency of its escape to space is sufficient to explain a lot of things.
*
But… could you give us real proofs of what you simply pretend here, behaving as if you were right by definition?
I mean papers or books written by anyone, people a la Claes Johnson of course excepted. Enough of that!
*
By the way, let me tell you that in 2008, after having read Gerlich and Tscheuchner, the highly skeptical German Professor Horst-Joachim Lüdecke rejected their paper because it negated the existence and effect of… the atmospheric backradiation on Earth's surface.
Lüdecke is since over a decade press officer at EIKE, Germany's hardest climate-skeptic web site.
He wrote in 2011 an excellent paper about
Long-Term Instrumental and Reconstructed Temperature Records Contradict Anthropogenic Global Warming
https://arxiv.org/abs/1110.1841v1
binny…”By the way, let me tell you that in 2008, after having read Gerlich and Tscheuchner, the highly skeptical German Professor Horst-Joachim Ldecke rejected their paper because it negated the existence and effect of the atmospheric backradiation on Earth’s surface”.
**********
That makes Ludeccke an idiot. Like one of his contemporaries, Stefan Rahmstorf, he believes that radiation from a cooler source of GHGs can heat the surface, which allegedly supplied it the radiation, beyond the temperature it is warmed by solar radiation.
Rahmstorf has added the idea that the back-radiation can be added to solar energy, even though the solar energy created it in the first place, and the back-radiation spectrum is off the lower end of the solar spectrum. How do you add frequencies that do not coincide?
G&T have expertise in thermodynamics. They have argued from the POV that the 2nd law applies to heat transfer and not EM flow. People like Ludecke and Ramstorf think EM is heat and as such does not have to obey the 2nd law. It was Ramstorf who I first saw declare a net balance of EM energy as satisfying the 2nd law.
Ludecke and Rahmstorf are talking about a system of perpetual motion and positive feedback that does not exist in our atmosphere.
With regard to your argument that GHGs affect the rate of heat dissipation from the surface, how do you explain that? A recent diagram posted by Dan Pangburn and another from GISS posted incessantly by David Appell, shows the EM trapping of mid-band terrestrial IR in milliwatts. When integrated over a range either side of mid-band, the power CALCULATED in 24 watts, out of a claimed surface radiation in 100s of watts.
I calculated the IR absorbed by CO2 at about 5%, providing the diagram is correct, which I doubt. If that is a factor, then why has it not affected the atmosphere in the past, before anthropogenic emissions, when steady-state CO2 levels were at least 3%?
Besides, if the atmospheric temperature is going to affect surface emission rate then it would be the 99% nitrogen and oxygen setting that temperature, not the 0.04% of CO2.
Gordon Robertson says:
When integrated over a range either side of mid-band, the power CALCULATED in 24 watts, out of a claimed surface radiation in 100s of watts
1) what calculation shows this?
2) Since when is 24 W out of a few hundred considered insignificant?????
Gordon Robertson says:
I calculated the IR absorbed by CO2 at about 5%, providing the diagram is correct, which I doubt. If that is a factor, then why has it not affected the atmosphere in the past, before anthropogenic emissions, when steady-state CO2 levels were at least 3%?
Gordon does a calculation!
But he doesn’t explain it. Hence it’s irrelevant.
But, funny that he thinks 5% doesn’t matter.
Gordon, when was atmo CO2 3%, viz. 30,000 ppm? I’d love to know! Please enlighten us….
Gordon Robertson says:
“I calculated the IR ab.sorb.ed by CO2 at about 5%….”
And all this time, Gordon has assured us that CO2 is a inconsequential trace gas, at 0.04% concentration.
Now it turns out that it has a whopping 5% effect on IR ab.sorp.tion.
Gordon has finally seen the light!
PS: Pun not intended, but accepted.
David, please stop trolling.
La P,
If you could actually say what you believe the GHE to be, then maybe someone could devise a disprovable GHE hypothesis.
But of course, Climatological Pseudoscience has no need of the scientific method.
Just claiming CO2 is evil is good enough.
Or you are deluded enough to believe that increasing the amount of CO2 between the Sun and a thermometer makes the thermometer hotter?
Maybe madness is infectious – what do you think?
Cheers.
Oh noooo! The pseudoskeptic blogbot is back again.
We had here about two splendid Flynn-free weeks…
phi says:
I am not aware of the use of backradiations in a thermal problem elsewhere than in climatology.
All objects and substances radiate, right?
The atmosphere is an object. So it too radiates.
“Backradiation” is simply the downward radiation from the atmosphere.
Not mysterious at all.
DA…”“Backradiation” is simply the downward radiation from the atmosphere”.
If the gases radiating the energy are close to the surface and in thermal equilibrium with it then no heat is transferred either way. Since temperature decreases with altitude, the 2nd law claims heat cannot be transferred from cooler gases to a warmer surface.
Simple. No heat transfer from cooler gases or from gases in equilibrium to the surface.
I think that’s what Phi is claiming, although he has not stated it in terms of the 2nd law.
Gordon is still lying about the 2nd law.
What is it going to take for Gordon to understand basic physics?
Leave your answer here.
phi…”This pattern is repeated every month for years on this blog and we find it abundantly elsewhere. There is little or no progress on the issue”.
I get your point and it is sad that the same old pseudo-scientific arguments are presented over and over.
For me, as a skeptic of catastrophic global warming (CAWG)/climate change, I feel it’s important to go on rebutting this nonsense over and over because if I don’t, the alarmist will take over and anyone who is misinformed reading Roy’s blog will think that is state of the art climate science.
I am not motivated by being right, I am motivated by the people who will suffer if these eco-nutjobs get their way. I liken many of them to the poor souls who drank the poisoned Kool-Aid served to them in the Jonestown massacre. I don’t think the alarmists on this blog are as extreme as that but some alarmists out there definitely are in that category.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drinking_the_Kool-Aid
900 people died and most of them voluntarily committed suicide over a belief system. Many of the rest were murdered by being force fed the mix.
I liken what happened at Jonestown with regard to strong beliefs to what is happening with climate alarm. There are climatologists out there who are blatant liars. Whether they are aware of that or not is not clear, but one of them, the late Stephen Schneider, once questioned in an article whether lying was acceptable given the need for alarmists to get their message across. Greenpeace has admitted that lying is part of the message.
Most of the alarmist responses on this blog are based on belief, and even when I have presented fact from the likes of NOAA, and from eminent scientists, rather than rebut based on the presented data, they rebut to defend the belief system.
NOAA declared on their website that they slash over 75% of their real data and replace it with synthesized data calculated statistically in a climate model. I call that scientific misconduct, but the alarmists here defend it while calling me a liar and/or conspiracy theorist.
The IPCC announced in 2013 that no significant warming had occurred over the 15 year period from 1998 – 2012. They called it a warming hiatus. The UAH record extended that so-called hiatus to 18 years. After that announcement, NOAA went back and fudged the SST to show a warming trend.
More scientific misconduct. I feel a need to counter that pseudo-science even if it comes from the likes of NOAA. I am accused of lying and making it up but it’s right there in black and white for any intelligent mind to take in.
Gordon Robertson says:
NOAA declared on their website that they slash over 75% of their real data and replace it with synthesized data calculated statistically in a climate model.
link?
Oceans are warmer than land surfaces- but why?
Or actually, ocean average temperature is warmer than average temperature of land surface- why?
Or land surface average temperature is cooler than ocean surfaces- why?
One aspect is that land surface can be heated to higher temperature and at a higher temperature they radiate or lose more energy to space.
With ideal thermally conductive blackbody model “the land” doesn’t heat to higher temperature. Or in vacuum at Earth distance the surface at equator and sun at zenith would be about 5 C. Or heat is uniformly transferred so every where on sphere it’s radiating 340 watts per square meter [and blackbody radiating at 340 watts is about 5 C}.
So would ocean warm to higher average temperature as compared to Ideal thermally conductive blackbody model or is it merely similar and/or even not equal to it?
Other than ocean surface not heating to as high temperature as land, what other factors can explain why ocean has higher average temperature as compared to land.
I would venture the idea that ocean absorbs or is heated by indirect sunlight and land is not.
So if land could conduct heat so as to be temperature of 5 C, then indirect sunlight do not add energy [is absorbed] by the land.
So clear skies when sun at zenith has 1050 watts of direct sunlight and 1120 watts per square meter of direct and indirect sunlight. And as sunlight moves further from zenith one gets higher percent of indirect sunlight compared to amount of direct sunlight. Of course if in vacuum it is all direct sunlight- so applies to atmospheres. And also when cloudy one gets higher percentage of indirect sunlight.
What else?
Well model divides sunlight by 4 because spherical shape, is that actually valid? Or does 4 suns providing 340 watts heat as much as one sun at 1360 watts? [in terms of average temperature- obviously does not make a surface as hot}. Anyways, anyone else got some ideas?
Another part of this is the effect of an atmosphere.
If have ideal thermal conductive blackbody in vacuum and at Earth distance from the sun, it has uniform blackbody surface radiating 340 watts and blackbody radiating 340 watts in vacuum it is about 5 C.
Now if add an atmosphere to the vacuum, does it increase the temperature?
Any atmosphere will reflect sunlight, more atmosphere means more sunlight is reflected. And more sunlight reflected, means less sunlight is absorbed by the ideal thermal conductive blackbody, which means less IR is emitted uniformly across entire sphere.
Now a problem is that an ideal thermal conductive blackbody is a magical thing or no one knows how it works [it does not exist in nature and no one knows how to actually make an ideal thermal conductive blackbody.
So to deal with this, lets say the ideal thermal conductive blackbody “surface” is encased in transparent glass like material and has near zero reflectivity of sunlight or IR. And we will say this glass is 5 C and will heat atmosphere gas to 5 C.
Now, need a gravity to have gas [atmosphere} on the planet- or only other way is having a pressure vessel. And gravity will be enough to make a gas have lapse rate of 9.8 K per 1000 meter elevation of atmosphere.
So at zero elevation air is 5 C and 1000 meter higher elevation it is 5 – 9.8 K = -4.8 C. And at -1000 meter elevation air is 5 + 9.8 K = 14.8 C.
So if what want to call sea level is 1000 meter below ‘the ideal thermal conductive blackbody “surface” is encased in transparent glass like material’ then one average air temperature of 14.8 C at “sea level”.
Now if atmosphere was thick enough so reflected enough sunlight so that instead of 5 C the ‘the ideal thermal conductive blackbody “surface” is encased in transparent glass like material’ was reduced to 0 C, then air would be 9.8 C 1000 meter below it, and -9.8 C 1000 meter elevation above it.
As talk goes on about CO2 which is interesting ,but all in vain because it is not the climate driver ,it is the climate follower.
In the meantime all the globe continues to cool thus far for year 2018.
As I have said this theory will be rendered obsolete by 2020 except by the most fanatical supporters.
They will be in the minority.
Salvatore, you’ve been wrong every time. You have no credibility left. None. So it’s time for you to be quiet and read and listen and learn about why the world keeps warming.
And, yes, CO2 is a big part of that.
David, please stop trolling.
I also have pointed out slow gradual climate change is old school. The climate when it changes to another regime does it abruptly in decades at most if not years.
The climate only changes gradually when it is in the same climate regime which it has been since the Dalton Solar Minimum ended, and can fluctuate plus /minus 1c under this scenario.
A climate regime change is another ball game and I think we are transitioning to this if my theory is correct on what governs the climate.
The sun modified by the geo magnetic field.
Most of the transitions in the past happen near the top of the previous climatic regime which is opposite to what the new regime will be, when one looks back at climatic history.
“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
David, please stop trolling.
Norman, it’s always refreshing to read your posts. You are an example of those few commentators who honestly make the effort to understand and explain the real physics involved and what you say is usually correct, sensible and pertinent.
Now from upthread in a reply to K when you say this:
If you are talking radiatively The atmosphere SUBTRACTS energy from the surface you are wrong. Radiation does not have sinks it is emitted and leaves. The atmosphere is not subtracting energy from the surface, it is doing the opposite. It is adding energy to the surface. The surface itself, based upon its temperature, is what is subtracting energy. You think backwards and think I do.
it’s quite ambiguous and misleading.
K is right when he says that the atmosphere subtracts energy from surface in the sense that the net flow of energy (or heat flow) is indeed from surface to atmosphere. As it is from Sun to Earth of course.
What you had in mind and what you may say instead is that “the mere presence of an atmosphere is not subtracting energy from surface with respect to the situation without any atmosphere in the sense that it actually increases its internal energy and BTW its temperature”. That’s the GHE.
Of course this ambiguity doesn’t lend anymore pertinence to K’s usual idiotic drivel.
Any heat flux is by essence systematically the net sum of two counter flowing energy fluxes as amply shown by statistical mechanics and experiment.
Heat flow from Sun to Earth is in fact Q = Fin – Fout where Fin is the SWR flux of absorbed sunlight and Fout is the IR flux emitted by Earth that finds his way to and is absorbed by the Sun. Fout is quite small for sure and Q practically equal to Fin , but Fin (as back radiatio is not a heat flow by itself.
Similarly heat flow from Earth surface to atmosphere because of radiative energy exchange is Q’ = Fup- Fdown where Fup is upwelling IR from surface emission and Fdown is downwelling IR emission from atmosphere absorbed by surface, the infamous back radiation.
In steady state (if one ignores -to simplify for a while- latent heat and convection) the first law of thermodynamics or conservation of energy flow implies Q = Q’ or Fin – Fout = Fup -Fdown.
This can of course be rearranged into: Fin +Fdown = Fup +Fout which readily shows how and why incoming solar flux Fin and back radiation simply add up as total EMR energy absorbed by surface.
The DWIR is a measured value. A measurement means giving a numerical value to something. That you need to measure a net heat flow to measure the DWIR does not make it an unreal value.
Iindeee, but once more you do not need to measure the net heat flow between source to measure DWIR as in common commercial devices. A genuine lab grade bolometer or a simple CdTeHg device directly measure DWIR.
Idiot Tracker
Thank you for the corrections. I am far too sloppy with my posts. I really need to slow down. Type a post and reread it for content.
My point was an Earth with no atmosphere at all would lose energy at a much greater rate. The addition of a GHG atmosphere adds energy to the surface. I think it is a semantic thing and I should attempt to me more clear.
Chic Bowdrie has also corrected some of my poor word choices.
I do want to learn the correct and valid science. I have Chemistry background and had little study of heat transfer. They touch on it but it is not the major emphasis.
After following this issue and getting sucked down the rabbit hole of bad science from blogs I determined to learn the real science and not get caught up in bogus arguments or incorrect interpretations of the 2nd Law of thermodynamics.
Or stupid debates about why can’t a wall of ice cook a turkey since it emits a total of 12,000 watts.
That these stupid points keep circulating is amazing. Even when corrected the people will not accept that they have major holes in their knowledge of physics.
Norman,
“My point was an Earth with no atmosphere at all would lose energy at a much greater rate. The addition of a GHG atmosphere adds energy to the surface. I think it is a semantic thing and I should attempt to me more clear.”
It is not just a semantic thing. You only hypothesize that Earth is losing energy at a slower rate. The Earth emits what it receives. Sometimes more sometimes less. There is no actual data that the atmosphere adds any more or less energy due to increasing the CO2 concentration.
Apparently I was in the same position as you. Chemistry background, bad science, etc. But my bad science started with simple GHE models. I only became a skeptic when I studied CO2 physics.
I am posting some questions regarding the Green/Blue Plate Swanson experiment. Have a look below.
Chic Bowdrie
I am not sure of the location of the David Appell links. They were of a 10 year study that did show the Earth surface received 0.2 W/m^2 more energy over the decade. This will produce the surface to reach a higher temperature until this energy is balanced with an equal loss.
I will try to look for them myself or look on other threads for David Appell’s links to actual data concerning the increase in energy reaching the surface from CO2. The articles contain lots of detail to explain why they conclude the increase was from CO2.
I have read through them but it has been a couple years and I am not remembering the details.
Norman,
The details contain no temperature measurements related to changes in CO2. There is evidence that CO2 increases show up as differences in spectra taken decades apart. There are model calculations that predict these spectral differences should result in warmer global temperatures. There are no temperature measurements that close the loop.
Here’s the paper:
“Observational determination of surface radiative forcing by CO2 from 2000 to 2010,” D. R. Feldman et al, Nature 519, 339343 (19 March 2015).
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v519/n7543/full/nature14240.html
Press release:
“First Direct Observation of Carbon Dioxides Increasing Greenhouse Effect at the Earths Surface,” Berkeley Lab, 2/25/15.
http://newscenter.lbl.gov/2015/02/25/co2-greenhouse-effect-increase/
PS: This energy transfer comes to just over 1 kilowatt over a football field in 10 years.
David,
Please stop with the references that do not show a temperature effect by additional CO2. Applying spectra calculations to a model that predicts a temperature increase is not good enough.
Chic Bowdrie says:
There is no actual data that the atmosphere adds any more or less energy due to increasing the CO2 concentration.
There is, and I’ve given you this evidence before. Why do you ignore it?
“Increases in greenhouse forcing inferred from the outgoing longwave radiation spectra of the Earth in 1970 and 1997,” J.E. Harries et al, Nature 410, 355-357 (15 March 2001).
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v410/n6826/abs/410355a0.html
“Radiative forcing measured at Earths surface corroborate the increasing greenhouse effect,” R. Philipona et al, Geo Res Letters, v31 L03202 (2004).
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2003GL018765/abstract
“Observational determination of surface radiative forcing by CO2 from 2000 to 2010,” D. R. Feldman et al, Nature 519, 339343 (19 March 2015).
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v519/n7543/full/nature14240.html
David,
Please stop with the references that do not show a temperature effect by additional CO2. Applying spectra calculations to a model that predicts a temperature increase is not good enough.
Chic wrote:
Applying spectra calculations to a model that predicts a temperature increase is not good enough.
Why not?
How else are you going to identify the influence of a GHG like CO2 except by its spectra?
I’m honestly interested to the answer to this question….
David, please stop trolling.
“Im honestly interested to the answer to this question.”
To show that a global temperature increase is directly due to CO2 requires all other temperature inputs and outputs being controlled. This will never be possible to do on a worldly scale without monitoring every square inch of the planet 24/7 for long enough to get a significant change in CO2.
So a laboratory scale experiment is required. Density, temperature, and pressure gradient conditions would have to be simulated like the real atmosphere. Cycling the heat source and monitoring the temperature profiles while increasing CO2 would be then general approach.
“So a laboratory scale experiment is required. Density, temperature, and pressure gradient conditions would have to be simulated like the real atmosphere.”
Chic’s required lab experiment has already been conducted by Prof. Tyndall in 100s of repetitions of different densities, temperatures and pressures of atm. air and various different gases around 1860 and reported to the Royal Society in 1861.
Chic Bowdrie says:
To show that a global temperature increase is directly due to CO2 requires all other temperature inputs and outputs being controlled. This will never be possible to do on a worldly scale without monitoring every square inch of the planet 24/7 for long enough to get a significant change in CO2.
Right. And this is a common issue in all the observational sciences — astronomy, geology, medicine, and more.
Yet still we know that tectonic plates exist? How? By an overwhelming amount of data that accords with them.
Same for the existence of other planets. No experiment can prove that Mars exists, yet it clearly does by an overwhelming amount of evidence.
Same with the issue of smoking causing lung cancer. No experiment can prove this — the necessary controls do not and cannot exist — yet scientists have concluded that based on an overwhelming amount of evidence.
It’s the same with CO2 and global warming — and overwhelming amount of evidence suggests it.
Idiot,
You have been conclusively shown to be wrong on this topic, but rather than crawling off somewhere in embarrassment from being so thoroughly busted, you’re still here peddling your ignorant nonsense to fumbling know-nothings like Norm. It’s sad to behold (but also a bit funny at times, in a bizarro world kind of way).
A bolometer is a device that detects radiation THERMALLY. Which means it detects minute variations in the NET exchange (the radiative HEAT flux) at the surface of its detector element. Period. End of discussion. Case closed.
Yes, you can cool a bolometer down towards absolute zero and make that net exchange positive even when aiming it at really cold targets – the incoming photons would amass into something essentially equal to a ‘pure’ incoming radiative heat flux:
http://www.infraredlaboratories.com/About_Bolometers.html
http://planck.caltech.edu/hfi.html
This doesn’t mean, however, that the fundamental operating principle of such a specialised bolometer isn’t the same as with all bolometers:
https://spie.org/samples/PM236.pdf
“Common to to all these mechanisms is the underlying principle that the absorbed heat [Φ] increases the temperature of the device (hence the name thermal), which is observed in the change of some observable property of the device.”
“A conceptual model of a thermal detector is shown in Figure 5.2. The detector-element thermal balance is affected by three heat-flow paths: (a) the incident flux from the object (target), (b) thermally radiated flux from the detector element, and (c) heat conducted from the detector element to the device’s substrate. Thermal detector performance optimization entails the careful optimization of the heat balance equation.”
https://okulaer.files.wordpress.com/2018/06/thermal-detectors.png
“The radiative flux exchange between the object and the detector element is indicated by Φ_os. The radiative flux exchange between the detector element and the environment is indicated by Φ_es. […] Under thermal equilibrium the net inflow of power on the detector element is zero, Φ_os + Φ_es + P_es = 0, where inflowing power is positive:”
– – –
Photon (or quantum) detectors aren’t built to detect macroscopic fluxes, so they aren’t really part of this discussion to begin with. They are specifically designed to detect … photons, typically at frequencies within distinctly specified narrow spectral bandwidths. They will thus be able to provide high-quality spectral resolution, unlike broadband thermal detectors, but NOT able to quantify the intensity/power density (in W/m^2) of the full “DWLWIR flux” like thermal detectors can and do on a regular basis.
Gordon Robertson
Kirchoeff and Clausius were Victorian scientists working before quantum theory.
Rudolf Clausius has been described as laying the foundation of thermodynamics but later workers have built a considerable edifice onto that foundation. Beware of taking every word Clausius wrote literally.
“I do know that the 2nd law imposes restriction on heat transfer. Some are arguing that it imposes a net heat transfer but there is no mention of that in the definitions of Clausius. He used the word NEVER in the definition of the 2nd law and thats strong wording.”
One of the later ideas is the system. At first glance an oven as an island of heat violates the 2nd law because heat cannot move from colder to hotter.
When you consider it as part of the larger electricity generation and distribution system you can see that the local heating of the oven is balanced by increased heat dissipation at the power station. The larger system obeys the 2nd law.
In the larger system Clausius is correct. You can NEVER run the whole system backwards from colder to hotter. In modern terms, you can never reduce the entropy of the larger system.
Within the system you can temporarily and locally reverse the flow by doing work. Hence hot ovens, cold fridges and exchange of thermal radiation between objects at different temperatures.
______________________________________________________________
The heat transfer equation Clausius put forward is
Change in internal energy = heat transfer + work done
∆U = Q +W
Clausius probably though of thermal radiation as light waves with Q as a continuous flow like a fire hose. Since quantum theory thermal radiation is percieved more as packets of energy ie photons. You dont get one big Q but lots of little Qs which add up to the total heat transfer.
Thinking in continuous flow it is natural to think of the flow going in one direction. Thinking in photons it is easier to think of flow in both directions with Q as the dirrerence between the two flows.
______________________________________________________________
I like your tuned bandpass filter analogy.
Kirchoeff thought of absorbtion and emission by electrons moving between energy levels. This is very tightly tuned. Monatomic sodium vapour absorbs and emits at 589nm as electrons move between the 3s and 3p orbitals. The energy of the transition matches the energy of the photons and the width of the emission band is less than 1nm.
Internal energy U in a solid or a fluid is stored in kinetic energy as atoms move around and in the distortion of the bonds between them. This is much more broadly tuned. You can release quanta and hence photons across a broad range of energies.
Hence thermal radiation is not at discrete wavelengths, but across a spectrum of wavelengths, a broad band like a broadly tuned filter.
Look at a rainbow. You are seeing the continuous spectrum of thermal radiation from the Sun, not a series of discrete emission lines.
______________________________________________________________
Em,
I presume you have a point relating to the non-existent GHE, and the invisible disprovable GHE hypothesis.
What is it?
Cheers.
entropic…”Kirchoeff and Clausius were Victorian scientists working before quantum theory.
Rudolf Clausius has been described as laying the foundation of thermodynamics but later workers have built a considerable edifice onto that foundation”.
********
After reading Clausius in-depth I think he is right and the modernists who have changed his views are wrong. Newton came a couple of hundred years before Clausius and we still use his laws of motion for macro level pursuits like launching space craft.
Einstein questioned some of the principles of Newton regarding relativity and modernists have jumped on that bandwagon. However, others have questioned Einstein and I am seeing chinks in his relativity theory. I won’t go into that here.
My point is that paradigms come and paradigms go and sometimes we are caught in-between. I regard Clausius as having been a genius based on the way he was able to systematically take systems apart at the atomic level, based on macro level pressure, temperature, and volume changes, even before atomic theory was clearly understood.
It takes a certain kind of brilliance to do that when many around you are still talking dumb theories like ‘caloric’ as a fluid flow of something we now regard as heat. Clausius knew that heat was related to the kinetic energy of atoms as far back as 1850. How did he know that when it was not fully known till Bohr formed his model, based on Planck’s quanta theory, which began quantum theory?
I agree that he lacked the insight required to understand the conversion of heat to EM and that he regarded heat as something that could flow through space, using some kind of aether. However, Kircheoff, Boltzmann, Stefan, and Planck believed the same thing.
Nonetheless, Clausius claimed radiative heat transfer had to obey the 2nd law BASED ON EXPERIMENT. He claimed that with radiative transfer, the colder body always warmed at the expense of the hotter body. I think that’s a clear declaration that the colder body warms and the hotter body cools, in exactly the same way it happens today.
The radiation theory I read in modern textbooks or on the Net all suffer from one failure. None can offer concrete examples of how radiation is transferred between two bodies of different temperature. All they are doing is offering totally theoretical applications of the Stefan-Boltzmnn equation which offers no provisions for a two way radiative transfer.
entropic…” One of the later ideas is the system. At first glance an oven as an island of heat violates the 2nd law because heat cannot move from colder to hotter.
When you consider it as part of the larger electricity generation and distribution system you can see that the local heating of the oven is balanced by increased heat dissipation at the power station”.
*****
I don’t see the relationship heat-wise between a power station and an electric oven. I get what you mean, if a power station builds up heat delivering 400 megawatts of power, and you dissipate 3000 watts as a load, it appears as if the power station will cool.
Actually, the opposite would happen. Each time consumers turn on a load, like an oven, or even a light bulb, the load on the station increases. That means it has to supply more current/power therefore the station generator should get warmer.
The 2nd law applies obviously to a local phenomenon. The oven dissipates heat to the air in a room and the heat transfer must be from the hot oven to the cooler room.
Suppose you could run that oven in a furnace with the temperature at 1000C while the oven was operating at 400C. The oven would then absorb heat rather than emit it.
entropic…” The heat transfer equation Clausius put forward is
Change in internal energy = heat transfer + work done
∆U = Q +W”
That’s the first law which is about the conservation of heat and work.
The equation Clausius attached to heat transfer regarding the 2nd law is S = integral dQ/T, where S is the entropy.
There’s a lot of confusion with modernists about the meaning of entropy but Clausius stated it as simple the sum (integral) of infinitesimal changes of heat at the temperature T at which the changes occur.
If you can keep T constant by using a heat bath from which Q can be drawn then you can pull it outside the integral sign and say S = T(integral dQ). That infers that entropy is the sum of all instantaneous heat flows over a process.
However, he made stipulations. Entropy can only ever be zero or positive. It’s zero for a reversible process and +ve for an irreversible process. That’s the same as saying that heat can only be transferred from a hotter body to a cooler body.
I posted an equation for that between bodies of different temperatures. If the hotter body is T1 and the cooler body is T2, T1 > T2 then the entropy relation between them must be positive. So the quantity dQ/T1 must be negative since heat is flowing out of it, or being dissipated in it via radiation.
Therefore S = dQ/T2 – dQ/T1 in order to keep it positive. If the reverse process tried to occur as in
S = dQ/T1 – dQ/T2 the process would be illegal since T2 < T1 and S would be negative.
Gordon: dQ does not appear in the 2nd law, because Q is not a state variable. (Look it up.) The correct nomenclature here is delta(Q).
And, in fact, here is Clausius’s statement of the 2LOT:
“Heat can never pass from a colder to a warmer body without some other change, connected therewith, occurring at the same time.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rudolf_Clausius#Work
You, and most deniers here, routinely ignore what comes after “warmer body.”
entropic…” The heat transfer equation Clausius put forward is
Change in internal energy = heat transfer + work done
∆U = Q +W…”
************
That’s the first law which is about the conservation of heat and work.
The equation Clausius attached to heat transfer regarding the 2nd law is S = integral dQ/T, where S is the entropy.
There’s a lot of confusion with modernists about the meaning of entropy but Clausius stated it as simply the sum (integral) of infinitesimal changes of heat at the temperature T at which the changes occur.
entropic…”Internal energy U in a solid or a fluid is stored in kinetic energy as atoms move around and in the distortion of the bonds between them. This is much more broadly tuned. You can release quanta and hence photons across a broad range of energies.
Hence thermal radiation is not at discrete wavelengths, but across a spectrum of wavelengths, a broad band like a broadly tuned filter”.
*******
How can atoms move around in a solid other than the tiny lengths they move in vibrations?
BTW…those bonds are electrons. Electrons bind atoms together and all EM is absorbed by electrons and emitted by them.
The spectrum of Em wavelengths is tied to the energy levels and frequencies of electrons. If those parameters are very tight in a locale then the spectrum has to be tight.
In a solid, a temperature gradient can form and the energy levels of the electrons in the gradient would vary with the temperature at each point of the gradient. In that case, you could claim a wide variance in spectra.
In fact, you could see it if you super-heated the end of an iron bar till it was white hot. There would be a gradual change in colour down the gradient.
We’re not talking about that with radiation in the atmosphere. AGW theory is claiming that heat flows from the cold end of that heated iron bar and makes the heated end warmer.
“Electrons bind atoms together and all EM is absorbed by electrons and emitted by them.”
No Gordon, maybe molecules but not atoms. And the whole atomic or molecular structure absorbs a photon of specific energy level not the electron. You get this wrong a lot.
Ball is right.
In climate science, it’s the vibrational and rotational states of GHG molecules that matter, not their electronic states.
I suspect Gordon knows so little quantum mechanics he doesn’t even understand what this means.
I agree David. Gordon doesn’t understand the electronic state molecular excitation takes about 100x the collisional energy availble at STP Earth troposphere so only rotational (~1x) and vibrational (~10x) excitation levels in constituent molecules are predominately populated by collisional energy.
IT,
You wrote –
“What you had in mind and what you may say instead is that the mere presence of an atmosphere is not subtracting energy from surface with respect to the situation without any atmosphere in the sense that it actually increases its internal energy and BTW its temperature. Thats the GHE.”
Really?
According to NASA –
“About 29 percent of the solar energy that arrives at the top of the atmosphere is reflected back to space by clouds, atmospheric particles, or bright ground surfaces like sea ice and snow. This energy plays no role in Earths climate system. About 23 percent of incoming solar energy is absorbed in the atmosphere by water vapor, dust, and ozone, and 48 percent passes through the atmosphere and is absorbed by the surface. Thus, about 71 percent of the total incoming solar energy is absorbed by the Earth system.”
Either you are stupid, ignorant and gullible, or NASA is. What’s your choice?
Cheers,
I guess that both NASA and me are stupid, ignorant and gullible.
That’s why the NASA people as myself read carefully whatever you post. We do not want to die as idiots.
It,
Excellent. We agree. What do you think of Mann, Trenberth and Jones?
You may additonally characterise Mann as delusionally psychotic if you like.
Cheers,
idiot…”I guess that both NASA and me are stupid, ignorant and gullible”.
********
Bingo!!!
Only a person threatened by intelligence would say that the smart people at NASA are “stupid, ignorant and gullible.”
Some months ago, I argued that closing a cold door (preventing warm air escaping a house) could make the warmer house even warmer, which would seem to violate the second law.
Of course it doesn’t, but only now do I think I know why. A force is being applied by the door, preventing the spontaneous flow of air from warm to cold.
This would be true in the case of a greenhouse as well, where a cold ceiling and wall would be able to make the house warmer, again by impeding the convective transfer of air from hot to cold by means of a force applied to the system.
The roof, for example, is held by gravity against the upward moving air.
Does the same thing apply to clothing? Is a force being applied which prevents conductive transfer?
Seems like the same idea.
S,
Learn some physics. All will be revealed. If you still have questions, ask me.
Cheers.
MF wrote: “Learn some physics…”
I did as I managed to acquire 2 engineering degrees. What’s your excuse for your failure to understand (or explain your objections to) my Green Plate demonstration?
E,
There is nothing wrong with your demonstration that an object’s temperature can be raised by exposing it to radiation from a hotter object.
Have you demonstrated anything else? You seem to be amazed that reducing the amount of radiation reaching an object allows the object to cool. Newton’s law of cooling will allow you to calculate the rate at which an object cools, when the amount of energy reaching it is reduced.
You believe you are showing that you can increase the temperature of an object by exposing it to radiation from a cooler one. You havent, of course. That would be about as silly as claiming you could use the heat energy from ice to heat water.
Intelligence and education are no guarantee of freedom from gullibility or delusional thinking.
You cannot describe the GHE meaningfully, far less propose a disprovable GHE hypothesis. Your demonstration shows nothing new. Pointless and irrelevant, except as an object lesson in how to fool yourself into believing that you have found a way to break the laws of thermodynamics.
Bad luck for you.
Cheers.
MF wrote:
FACT: My Green Plate demonstration showed that the Blue plate warmed because the Green plate was moved next to it in a vacuum.
Of course, the energy flowing thru the bell jar is the source of most of the warming of the Blue plate, a critical fact which your analogy about ice ignores. I contend that the extra warming of the Blue plate was caused by “back radiation” from the Green plate which was thence absorbed by the Blue plate. Neither you, Gordo, or any other commentator have provided any other scientific explanation for the observed warming. Until you are able to provide some such explanation, you are just blowing smoke out of your rear orifice.
swannie…”I did as I managed to acquire 2 engineering degrees”.
There are different kinds of engineering degrees, although some might be called apprenticeships.
Here in Canada we have operating engineers, sanitary engineers, and railroad engineers.
And what are you — circuit engineer?
I’m guessing that far more Canadians come to the US for higher education than Americans go to Canada, relative to the size of their populations.
OK, since you ask, I received a Masters degree in Mechanical Engineering from Stanford in 1967, not that it matters any more. So, big guy, what are your academic credentials? Cut the crap.
Snape,
Your comments have not risen to the level of troll-like yet. However, you seem to be a fish out of water. What are you trying to do, disprove the 2LoT? If so, give us a break. Stop it.
Gordon Robertson
Come to think of it, the same applies to absorbtion.
A hot sodium atom will absorb only at 589nm because the energy absorbed is exactly the amount required to move one electron up an orbital.
A solid material absorbs across a broad band of wavelengths because it is not discrete. It can increase the kinetic energy of an atom or the distortion of a bond by taking up whatever energy the photon happens to be carrying.
Em,
More nonsense. What have electron orbitals to do with temperature?
Cheers.
Mike
“Learn some physics. All will be revealed. If you still have questions, ask me.”
You could start your own advice column………”Ask an idiot”
S,
Unlike yourself, I’d have to pretend. How much are you offering?
Mind you, would you believe anybody who claims that putting more CO2 between the Sun and a thermometer makes the thermometer hotter?
Thanks, but no thanks. I’ll leave the idiocy to you.
Cheers.
Snape
Dont feed the troll.
Entropic man
So far the troll has not even attempted to demonstrate it is an actual human and not a computer bot. I requested the troll post to an internet link (similar to some webpages have bot gates that only humans can bypass…asked to type some letters that are a little distorted).
I am not sure if it is human until it will link to some webpage and show it is not a computer generated program.
Norman,
Why not spend your time finding some data that shows an increase in global temperatures from increasing CO2. That’s what inquiring minds want to discuss.
Chic Bowdrie
I think you can just look up at Roy Spencer’s graph at the top of this thread. It shows a steady warming over the last few decades. Other global temperature graphs show similar behavior. You can assume some of these graphs are fake and false and the scientists behind them are dishonest. I am not making this assumption.
Others have already overlayed the increase in Carbon Dioxide and global temperature increase. Carbon Dioxide is not the only factor involved and can get swamped by other processes.
I do think that if you can find good data that the increase in CO2 has actually increased the amount of energy reaching the surface you have solid evidence that the additional CO2 will produce some warming.
Norman,
“Carbon Dioxide is not the only factor involved and can get swamped by other processes.”
Unfortunately my friend, the devil is in the details.
“I do think that if you can find good data that the increase in CO2 has actually increased the amount of energy reaching the surface you have solid evidence that the additional CO2 will produce some warming.”
No, this is what I’ve been looking for and asking everyone with no success. Where is the good data? I explained several times why David Appell’s references fall short of any conclusive evidence. We are still at the hypothesis stage with regard to how much, if any, CO2 heats the Earth.
CHic wrote:
I explained several times why David Appells references fall short of any conclusive evidence.
Define “conclusive evidence.”
Describe the experiment or observation that would provide such evidence, even in theory. No matter how difficult it might be to carry out.
David,
I’m working on it, be patient.
Meanwhile please stop with the references that do not show a temperature effect by additional CO2. Applying spectra calculations to a model that predicts a temperature increase is not good enough.
Chic:
Describe the experiment or observation that would provide such evidence, even in theory. No matter how difficult it might be to carry out.
David, please stop trolling.
Dr: Describe the experiment or observation that would provide such evidence, even in theory. No matter how difficult it might be to carry out.
David, PST.
Chic:
“Observational determination of surface radiative forcing by CO2 from 2000 to 2010,” D. R. Feldman et al, Nature 519, 339343 (19 March 2015).
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v519/n7543/full/nature14240.html
Press release:
“First Direct Observation of Carbon Dioxides Increasing Greenhouse Effect at the Earths Surface,” Berkeley Lab, 2/25/15.
http://newscenter.lbl.gov/2015/02/25/co2-greenhouse-effect-increase/
David,
Please stop with the references that do not show a temperature effect by additional CO2. Applying spectra calculations to a model that predicts a temperature increase is not good enough.
Chic: If a system gains energy, what happens to its temperature?
DA,
Foolish question.
Add quantity of ice to hot coffee.
System has gained energy.
Answer your own stupid and ignorant gotcha.
Cheers.
Chic Bowdrie says:
Please stop with the references that do not show a temperature effect by additional CO2.
Are you familiar with the first law of thermodynamics?
DA wrote –
“Are you familiar with the first law of thermodynamics?”
David asks another stupid and ignorant gotcha in an attempt at diverting attention away from the fact that he cannot even describe the GHE in any useful fashion.
An appropriate and equally pointless response might be Do you?”
Cheers.
g-e-r-a-n: ‘Warmer objects do not receive radiation from cooler objects. Introduction of cooler objects cannot cause anything in warmer objects.’
Gordon: ‘Warmer objects receive radiation from cooler objects only under very special circumstances. Still they cannot cause changes in the warmer objects.’
Kristian: ‘Warmer objects of course always receive radiation from cooler objects. The introduction of a cooler object may cause changes in the warmer object, but you are forbidden from saying that that this causes the warmer object to become warmer, even if, colloquially, it does.’
Perfect!
binny…”Perfect!”
Even the most base, crass, and inane pronouncements entertain you.
Barry, please stop trolling.
barry says, June 15, 2018 at 8:03 AM:
*Eyeroll*
barry, this is not what I’m saying, and you should stop it with this ‘argument by straw man’ tactic of yours, pretending that this is something that I have actually stated, just slightly paraphrased by you. It makes you come off as, yes, a rube …
What does this even mean? “The introduction of a cooler object may cause changes in the warmer object, but you are forbidden from saying that this causes the warmer object to become warmer (…)” !!???
You are not “forbidden from saying that [the introduction of a cooler object] causes the warmer object to become warmer” …! That’s exactly what you ARE allowed to say. That is exactly HOW you should state it, barry! Aren’t you reading what I’m writing!?? Oh, I forgot. Argument by straw man tactic. Sorry.
– – –
Look, this is SOOO basic and elementary, but you are simply too stuck in your “photons are just like very small thermodynamic fluxes of energy” mindset to understand.
I’ll try to spell it out for you one more (and hopefully last) time:
First, we’re talking about THERMAL effects here. If the already warmer object is to emit more photons, it has to be because it got … warmer. That’s a thermal effect. So if you’re saying that the already warmer object starts emitting more photons than it used to as a direct result of absorbing more photons coming IN from an opposing cooler object, then you are effectively claiming that absorbing the extra photons from the opposing cooler object DIRECTLY warmed the already warmer object some more. I know you’ve tried your best in the past to avoid acknowledging this particular conclusion as a given, but I’m afraid there’s no way around it. Denying it will only make you look ignorant, and stubbornly so.
Well, any THERMAL effect on a warm object by its cooler surroundings can follow from the change (reduction or increase) in the ‘net energy exchange surplus’ (the heat loss) of the warm object alone. Thermal effects can only be traced back to changes in the NET flux. Not to individual photon absorp-tion events.
There is no thermal effect resulting from the absorp-tion (or emission) of a photon by a molecule. By definition. Because this is distinctly a QUANTUM PROCESS. And in the quantum realm there is no such thing as temperature and thermal effects.
So claiming that the already warmer object becomes warmer still as a direct result of the absor-ption of extra photons from the cooler (but less cooler than before) opposing object, really bears no physical meaning. It is completely misunderstood. It will only happen insofar as it reduces the NET exchange surplus of the already warmer object. And we will never be able to figure out whether or not this is in fact the case from just looking at a subset of ALL the photons within the thermal radiation field. A situation which neatly encapsulates the fundamental distinction between the MICRO and the MACRO takes on reality.
Since it’s pointless expecting thermal effects to arise from the absorp-tion by a molecule of a single photon, simply because such a process is intrinsically so far removed from the realm where temperatures and thermal effects actually exist to begin with, then it stands to reason that the absorp-tion of a TRILLION extra photons won’t in itself make anything warmer either.
Absorbing photons won’t IN AND OF ITSELF make you warmer.
How come? you ask. Because you operate within a restricted perspective. You leave crucial parts of the whole picture out. And in so doing, you end up reading things into the system subset that YOU happen to focus on, based on your preconceived ideas about what should occur as a photon is absorbed by a molecule, that aren’t there for you to read. You draw conclusions about THERMODYNAMIC effects by extrapolating directly from specific QUANTUM processes. Without thinking system (or process) averages. Thermodynamics, just like statistical mechanics, is all about AVERAGES. Averages – probabilistic averages – of huge numbers of microscopic phenomena within defined regions of the universe. It is only changes in these averages, the NET, that can possibly cause THERMAL effects.
So, no, the increased thermal radiation of the cooler object due to a higher (cool) temperature isn’t DIRECTLY causing the warmer object to become warmer still through the absorp-tion of more incoming photons. It INdirectly causes the warmer object to become warmer still by absorbing more incoming photons. Because the NET exchange becomes less negative. It results in a reduction of the warmer object’s rate of HEAT LOSS. There is still a net energy exchange surplus. It still loses energy. The surplus is simply smaller than before.
And that’s the fundamental difference between warming through extra HEATING and warming through extra INSULATION. Opposite thermodynamic processes. Same thermal end result. IF (!) the warmer object is already constantly heated via a SEPARATE heat transfer process.
Kristian wrote:
And in the quantum realm there is no such thing as temperature and thermal effects.
Bullsh!t. Tell that to Planck and his Law.
BS? David what is the temperature in degrees K of a photon of hf energy?
What is the degrees K temperature of an iron atom mc^2 energy?
You should know this.
An individual photon has no temperature.
Nor does an individual atom.
Now, what does your question have to do with anything?
So now David agrees Kristian was right:
And in the quantum realm there is no such thing as temperature and thermal effects.
The “quantum realm” doesn’t mean a single particle.
A Bose-Einstein condensate is in the quantum realm, but it is not a single particle.
And as such the condensate has a temperature measured in nanokelvin last I read. Kristian is still right, no BS!
Regardless, it shows you are wrong in that not all quantum systems consist of just one particle, as you assumed. In fact, most don’t….
“as you assumed.”
It was Kristian’s comment David called BS! not mine, I made no assumption. Kristian was right, not David calling BS!
False.
You wrote:
And in the quantum realm there is no such thing as temperature and thermal effects.
And then you told us the temperature of a BE-condensate!
Kristian wrote that David & you called BS! Please try to pay some sort of attention.
barry…”g-e-r-a-n: Warmer objects do not receive radiation from cooler objects. Introduction of cooler objects cannot cause anything in warmer objects.”
There is a distinction between ‘receive’ and absorb’. We all agree that radiation from a cooler source cannot make a body warmer.
On the other hand, you have not proved that it can.
Gordon Robertson says:
There is a distinction between receive and absorb
No, there isn’t.
“We all agree that radiation from a cooler source cannot make a body warmer.”
“We” do not agree. See the first comment above where a cooler source of energy made a warmer body warmer by experiment. Which proves it can.
Link? I’m not going to hunt and guess what you mean.
I understand that. Avoiding scrolling up to the first comment is because it is soooo… much work. David would rather avoid work than become informed, a trait so common around here. I can’t even imagine the uproar I’d get from David suggesting a trip to the library.
What “first comment?”
This one?
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2018/06/uah-global-temperature-update-for-may-2018-0-18-deg-c/#comment-307430
No, as I wrote the one at the top of all these comments, first one under the top post by Dr. Spencer, the one with the experimental evidence. David, for someone trying to convince others you have some expertise, this lack of ability is telling.
The “first comment” is by E Swanson.
That one?
Yep. You got it David.
barry…Kristian and I are saying the same thing in different ways. You and others like Norman and Swannie are confusing the alleged absorp-tion of EM from a cooler body with the effect the colder body has on heat dissipation.
If you heat a source with 100 watts from an electrical source, and prevent all heat dissipation, the source will reach a certain steady-state temperature that it will either maintain or burn up, depending on its design parameters.
It cannot exceed that temperature, which is limited by its electrical power input. If now now allow heat dissipation, by surrounding it with a cooler environment, the source will cool as it radiates, conducts, and convects heat away from itself to that environment EVEN THOUGH IT IS STILL BEING SUPPLIED THE SAME INPUT POWER. The colder you make the environment, the faster it will radiate away the heat.
I dare say, that if you could install a 1500 watt heater element in 0K space that you could hold your hand right on the heater element and it would not feel warm.
If the colder environment begins to warm, the closer it gets to the steady-state temperature of the source, the more the source will warm. However, the degree to which it will warm is set by the temperature it acquired from the electrical power source.
The only way to exceed that steady-state temperature would be to increase the temperature of the environment till it exceeded that temperature.
Gordon Robertson says:
If you heat a source with 100 watts from an electrical source, and prevent all heat dissipation
Impossible. See efficiency of Carnot cycle….
Norman
You can have a pleasant conversation with some people here, disagreeing on the physics but mostly insult free.
Others are best ignored.
With time and experience each of us builds up two lists.
Entropic Man, please stop trolling.
Barry
Homersapiens?
https://static.boredpanda.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/funny-satirical-evolution-charles-darwin-day-22__700.jpg
Norman and any other interested Warmist,
Your arguments on cold objects adding energy to hot objects usually boil down to a situation where the hot object is receiving energy from another source (pun intended). Consider a series of experiments such as Swanson has carried out, where constant energy was input into a system and the temperatures of the two plates and the bell jar were monitored.
After a period of time sufficient to reach equilibrium, the final individual temperatures of all the objects would depend only on the input source and the composition and placement of the objects. Would you agree?
If so, would you agree that a change in position or composition of the plates would change their final temperatures, but not the heat flux in and out of the system?
If so, then would you agree that the green plate could be modified some how (emissivity, conductivity, thickness, position) to make the final temperature of the blue plate warmer?
If so, do you agree that a wire connecting the green plate to the bell jar could make the final temperature of the blue plate cooler?
(trolls need not respond)
Chic Bowdrie
My point is that a cold object will add energy to a hotter one even if it does not have an energy source heating it.
The result will just be a slower cooling rate.
I consider a surface has two separate processes going on. This is described in all the textbooks I have read on Heat Transfer to date.
There is one process, emission, which is the result of the internal energy of the object causing surface molecules to move to a higher quantum vibrational state above the ground state (where they would emit no IR). The emission is determined by the temperature of the radiating surface. The other process (opposite of the emission process and not directly related) is absorp*tion. It takes place when a surface molecule or atomic ensemble, is in a state (ground or other quantum vibration not the same as the incoming energy) that can absorb this energy and start to vibrate translating this energy into internal energy of the object.
I look at an object as always emitting and absorbing as long as it has temperature and the surrounding have temperature.
I do believe that altering the green plate will have large effects on the temperature of the blue plate. If you made the green plate out of IR transparent material then it would have almost no effect on the blue plate. If it were a good mirror it would raise to the maximum for the input energy. The blue plate would only lose energy on one side if the green plate was really close to the blue plate and warm considerably.
There is a way to actually demonstrate that the green plate is actually adding energy to the blue plate.
If you keep the green plate at a constant temperature (by controlling energy input…heating and cooling as necessary) then you have the same temperature of the green plate in all cases. Now move the green plate away from the blue plate and lower how much energy it can send to the blue plate. The blue plate will decrease in temperature even though the green plate did change in temperature, only the amount of energy it sends to the blue plate is changed.
I do like you questions and thought provoking posts.
Norman wrote, about Chic:
I do like you questions and thought provoking posts.
Except Chic isn’t interested in the answers. He isn’t interested in physics.
Chic is only interested in having his preconceived notions validated. They’re wrong, but Chic refuses to hear that, no matter what evidence is provided. He simply ignores the evidence he doesn’t like, but keeps keeps asking for it time and time again.
David,
Please stop with the references that do not show a temperature effect by additional CO2. Applying spectra calculations to a model that predicts a temperature increase is not good enough.
When you have better evidence, let me know. Otherwise you will be troll #3 in my book.
Chic B wrote:
Applying spectra calculations to a model that predicts a temperature increase is not good enough.
Feldman et al isn’t a model, it’s measurements.
David, please stop trolling.
Norman,
“My point is that a cold object will add energy to a hotter one even if it does not have an energy source heating it.”
To add energy to the hot object, the cold would have to lose energy. But the cold becomes warmer while the hot becomes cooler. Your perceived addition is only possible by conceptually separating the process into sequential halves. Doesn’t happen that way. The transaction happens in real time. Conceptual heat from cold to hot is always overwhelmed by the actual heat from hot to cold.
“I consider a surface has two separate processes going on. This is described in all the textbooks I have read on Heat Transfer to date.”
Your textbooks should be teaching you something useful. The energy transfer equation is very helpful in calculating a heat flux between two surfaces. Does it explain what happens at a point on a surface where an outgoing EMR wave meets an incoming photon. Do you know? If so, you are way ahead of me understanding heat transfer.
The heat transfer equation simply tells you what the approximate heat transfer is between two surfaces of known temperatures. EMR = e*(sigma)*T^4 is meaningless without the other half of of the transfer equation. It only gives you a theoretical contribution to a conceptual energy transfer.
Imagine a Swanson plates’ experiment where radiation is measured instead of temperatures. Using one IR detector to measure emission from the blue plate and no other information about the source and the green plate, how would you interpret the data? The only thing you could do would be to estimate the temperature profile of the blue plate from SB. You would not know whether the source input increased or that the green plate was moved close to the blue plate.
If the heat source was turned off or if the green plate was removed, how would you know the difference?
“There is a way to actually demonstrate that the green plate is actually adding energy to the blue plate.”
This only demonstrates your paradigm that a cold object adds/sends conceptual energy while in actuality heat is transferring from blue to green as long as the green remains cooler. You can quantitate that transfer monitoring the temperatures.
chic…”EMR = e*(sigma)*T^4 is meaningless without the other half of of the transfer equation. It only gives you a theoretical contribution to a conceptual energy transfer.”
That’s all there is. Boltzmann was trying to prove the 2nd law and he failed. There is no reverse radiation equation, just an equation between a hotter body and its colder surroundings.
Alarmists have added the imaginary other half of the equation, from cold to hot. It’s purely theoretical based on Kircheoff’s black body theory in which a BB is hypothesized to absorb all radiation incident upon it. Therefore alarmists have presumed both bodies in a radiation interchange are BB that MUST absorb all energy incident upon them.
That contradicts the 2nd law wrt heat transfer.
Wow, you clearly don’t understand the first thing about the 2nd law.
Pure Gordon.
What a shame.
Chic Bowdrie
I think I will try the apple idea on you to help you visualize how I see heat transfer by radiant energy.
You have a bin with 1000 apples. You are giving out 100 apples an hour. Every hour your good friend brings you 50 apples and puts them in the bin. Is your friend adding apples? Overall you are losing apples and handing out apples faster than your friend can replace them. But would you agree your friend is still adding apples or not?
Norman,
This is a complete non-starter, but it is indicative of the mindset you are stuck in. Open your mind to the possibility that time does not stop for you. Life just keeps coming at you.
I don’t stop each hour and wait for your 50 to add to my bin. Your 50 an hour are coming to me at an apple/72 sec. I am losing an apple every 36 seconds. This is all you have told me. You may or may not be adding to my bin, because I don’t know if you have more apples than me or vice versa. I don’t know if all my apples are going to you or elsewhere. I don’t know if I am receiving apples somewhere else.
If I have more apples than you, then I will be giving you apples faster than you can give me. I don’t have a choice. It’s a thermodynamic rule. Embrace it.
Chic Bowdrie
I am not sure we are on the same page with definitions of words.
So you don’t think your friend is adding apples then. If they put an apple in every 72 seconds, they did not add an apple? If adding is not the word to describe this, what is this action to you. Ignore for a moment any other action. Describe the action of what the friend is doing. Maybe you don’t like the word “adding to the bin”
Give me a word for this action that you find acceptable, then I can move on.
Norman,
Semantics is more than definitions of words, but let’s go there if that is what it will take for you understand my mindset, my paradigm. If you could just try and understand what I mean. If you still disagree, fine. You know the adage, we will just have to agree to disagree.
I think I understand you perfectly. If you don’t think so, let me know why.
If adding is what you mean by 50 apples – 100 apples = – 50 apples, then I know what you mean. I call it subtraction, but I would write it 100 apples – 50 apples = 50 apples. That’s the semantic part. Notice how you can rearrange the equations any number of ways.
“Ignore for a moment any other action.”
This is where I leave you. I cannot ignore any other action without leaving the realm of thermodynamics and reality. This is Kristian’s point about macro and micro. I will not go with you into your conceptual world until you are comfortable with my real world.
“Describe the action of what the friend is doing.”
I have to assume a scenario. I will assume the friend and I are exchanging apples. The rate of exchange depends on how many apples we have. The friend must have less than me, because I am currently giving more than receiving. My giving rate will slow as my receiving rate increases. Conversely, his receiving rate decreases as his giving rate increases. Notice how that can be expressed any number of ways. The process is inseparable and governed by rate laws determined by how many apples are in our bins. Eventually, we are exchanging at equal rates with the same number of apples in our bins.
“Maybe you dont like the word ‘adding to the bin.’ Give me a word for this action that you find acceptable, then I can move on.”
If you want to make up new words like debt-giving, owe-giving, debt-receiving, and owe-giving, knock yourself out.
You will never “move on” successfully until you free yourself of the GHE model paradigm.
LP
I think the people at the arctic ice blog would appreciate your graphs comparing extent, area and volume. (I’m still wondering why volume is so much different than the other two.)
http://neven1.typepad.com/
Arctic sea ice volume is also decreasing. (See PIOMAS.) So is extent, and area, and thickness.
PIOMAS:
http://psc.apl.uw.edu/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/schweiger/ice_volume/BPIOMASIceVolumeAnomalyCurrentV2.1.png
Snape says:
June 15, 2018 at 12:14 PM
Im still wondering why volume is so much different than the other two.
I’m wondering too. And due to this discussion with esalil, it appears also that their maxima/minima differences behave different as well.
Unlike CONUS, Arctic is a highly complex corner.
Why should CONUS temps have anything to do with the Arctic?
Why are you asking redundant questions?
Entropic man
“Dont feed the troll.”
I should probably get fined for my recent activity.
Chic
“Your comments have not risen to the level of troll-like yet. However, you seem to be a fish out of water. What are you trying to do, disprove the 2LoT? If so, give us a break. Stop it.”
I do not know why you say this. My intention is always the complete opposite. I look at real life examples where something cold has caused warming to an object with a higher temperature, and try to understand why the law was not broken……knowing full well such a violation is not possible.
For example, if you place a cold lid on a pot of simmering water, the water might come to a full boil as a result.
Why did this not violate the 2LOT?
The force of gravity is holding the lid against the pressure of the steam trying to escape. I don’t know how to properly state it, but I know the law provides exceptions for situations where something is warmed as a result of force being applied.
Snape wrote:
I look at real life examples where something cold has caused warming to an object with a higher temperature, and try to understand why the law was not brokenknowing full well such a violation is not possible.
For the Nth time…. the statement “cold cannot warm hot” only holds for an adiabatic system — a thermally isolated system.
But it’s not true in a nonadiabatic system, such as the Earth, where energy is constantly pouring in from the Sun, that does work. The surface/atmosphere is not an adiabatic system! So the fact that the atmosphere warms the surface is not forbidden. Nor is home insulation. Or a space blanket. Or a refrigerator, which moves heat outside the refrigerator.
Snape, why can’t you understand this?
“For example, if you place a cold lid on a pot of simmering water, the water might come to a full boil as a result. Why did this not violate the 2LOT?”
Snape, you have obviously never studied thermodynamics. Placing a “cold” lid on a pot is NOT an example of “cold warming hot”. It is not a violation of 2LOT.
An example of “cold warming hot” would be ice cubes warming a cup of hot coffee. Won’t happen.
Will happen, with lab ice:
https://www.space.com/40380-superionic-ice-lab-created.html
I will guarantee you that, whatever you think that means, it isn’t a violation of the 2LOT.
Because there are no known violations of the 2LOT.
Come up with one, publish it, and stand up to the scrutiny, and you will receive the Nobel Prize in physics.
And I will be able to say, “I knew him when….”
Yes, no lab work violates 2LOT, though assertions by Gordon regularly violate 2LOT. Gordon studiously avoids understanding lab work.
ball4…”Yes, no lab work violates 2LOT, though assertions by Gordon regularly violate 2LOT. Gordon studiously avoids understanding lab work”.
I have yet to be in a lab where heat could be transferred spontaneously from a cold object to a hotter object.
Gordon Robertson says:
I have yet to be in a lab where heat could be transferred spontaneously from a cold object to a hotter object.
Sure you have. You were just too dumb to recognize it.
Gordon admits: “I have yet to be in a lab…”
That’s all too obvious Gordon, neither were your heroes G&T but Clausius, Boltzmann, Kirchoff, Planck, Bohr, Schrodinger, Faraday all spent a lot of time in the lab.
Bohr spent a lot of time in a lab…? Planck? According to whom?
According to them David. A trip to the library is now formally suggested.
I knew you made those claims up.
Apprently even basic research on history of Bohr’s lab work is beyond David’s ability.
You have yet to prove your claim.
Rest assured your trip to the library will prove out my claim David. Then you are invested in doing the work. There are even research resources on line you can use to do so! Even very easy to find Sir Eddington’s comment on the 2LOT.
snape…”For example, if you place a cold lid on a pot of simmering water, the water might come to a full boil as a result.
Why did this not violate the 2LOT?”
It’s not a problem of heat transfer it’s a problem related to the Ideal Gas Equation. Put the lid on, the pressure build up, and so does the temperature.
By placing the lid you make the pot a constant volume container.
P = (nR/V)T with (nR/V) a constant. At least it is a constant till the pressure gets too high, blowing the lid ajar and allowing the liquid to overflow. Even before that, n changes due to steam seeping past the lid.
Of course, it’s far more complex than that. Liquid is changing to steam, steam is lost, and the volume of the liquid changes.
So you quote the Ideal Gas Law, but “it’s far more complex than that.”
Brilliant.
David
I like to think of heat as the net energy exchanged between bodies with different temperature. In that case, heat cannot be transferred from a colder object to a warmer object, even in an open, non-adiabatic system.
That’s a concept YOU seem to have trouble with, and is the root cause of our disagreement on this. So when I say, for instance, the atmosphere does not heat the surface, you are always quick to “correct” me.
Snape: You’re still not listening.
And you don’t understand the second law. It’s very clear, and taught to college freshman every day — what about it do you not understand?
DA…”And you dont understand the second law. Its very clear, and taught to college freshman every day what about it do you not understand?”
Generally taught in the entropy method which no one can intuitively understand because the profs have no idea what it means. However, most students get it that heat cannot be transferred from a colder body to a warmer body under normal means.
Gordon Robertson says:
Generally taught in the entropy method which no one can intuitively understand because the profs have no idea what it means.
That’s your lack of misunderstanding, not mine. Don’t project it on the rest of us….
S=k*log(W)
(On Boltzmann’s tombstone.)
Snape says:
In that case, heat cannot be transferred from a colder object to a warmer object, even in an open, non-adiabatic system.
Show the evidence that proves this.
Snape??
David, please stop trolling.
Why are you disturbed by someone asking for evidence?
David, PST.
Snape says, June 15, 2018 at 3:02 PM:
Yup, you’re absolutely right, Snape. And David is absolutely wrong.
David
You’re on the losing end of this argument. Maybe someone else can explain it to you.
*******
BTY, what did you think I meant when I wrote: “I’m still wondering why volume is so much different than the other two.?
Have you seen a long term time series that compares extent, area and volume? If so, what difference jumps off the page?
Snape says:
Have you seen a long term time series that compares extent, area and volume? If so, what difference jumps off the page?
What?
Snape says:
In that case, heat cannot be transferred from a colder object to a warmer object, even in an open, non-adiabatic system.
So where’s your evidence for this? You didn’t reply….
David, please stop trolling.
Asking for evidence isn’t “trolling.”
David, PST.
David
Here is a very good post that discusses “heat flow” in terms of a net exchange of IR between two bodies.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2018/06/uah-global-temperature-update-for-may-2018-0-18-deg-c/?replytocom=307267#respond
Huh?
DA,
Huh? Huh?
Cheers.
David, please stop trolling.
Well, that didn’t seem to work.
David
David
When heat is defined in that way, I can’t think of an example of where it could be transferred from cold to warm.
I don’t have time right now, but maybe you could take it up with someone else?
Sure, Snape, bail out just when the discussion gets interesting.
How typical.
David, please stop trolling.
Snape, David Appell
Metinks you have got entangled in the difference between heat transfer and net heat transfer.
It is entirely possible for photons emitted from an object at 20C to be absorbed by an object at 21C. That is heat transfer from a colder object to a warmer object.
There are also photons going the other way, transferring heat from the warmer object to the colder object.
However when you consider the total heat transfer you find that the warmer object is emitting more energy than the colder object, so the net heat transfer is from warmer to colder.
I gave a possible example upthread of two cannon balls sitting next to each other.
The colder ball is at 20C and transfers 100 Joules by thermal radiation to the warmer ball. The warmer ball is at 21C and transfers 101 Joules by thermal radiation to the cooler ball.
The net heat transfer Q is 101-100=1 Joule from warmer to colder.
The key is to consider the whole system. The 2nd law does not say that it is impossible for individual photons to carry energy uphill against the temperature gradient. Nor does it forbid the local concentration of stored energy U
What it says is that the whole system heat transfer Q must tend to even out temperature differences. In terms of entropy, the whole system’s entropy must always increase. If you see an apparant violation of the 2nd law it is usually because you are only looking at part of a larger system.
Biologists will be familiar with this difference. A living organism stores a lot of energy and is very complex. Over many decades my body has accumulated considerable energy and built an embarassingly large and complex structure. Apparantly this is in direct violation of the 2nd law.
In the larger context of my environment you can see that I am powered by sunlight processed into chemicals by photosynthesis and absorbed as food. My large, energy rich and complex body has been achieved by dissipating a much larger quantity of energy as heat. The whole system , myself and my environment has increased in entropy in accordance with the 2nd law.
Entropic man says:
However when you consider the total heat transfer you find that the warmer object is emitting more energy than the colder object, so the net heat transfer is from warmer to colder.
And this does not necessarily apply in a nonadiabatic system.
Entropic man says:
However when you consider the total heat transfer you find that the warmer object is emitting more energy than the colder object, so the net heat transfer is from warmer to colder.
And this does not necessarily apply to a non_adiabatic system.
“And this does not necessarily apply to a non_adiabatic system.”
David, every real system is non_adiabatic. 2LOT does necessarily apply to all systems.
Many systems are a good approximation to being nonadiabatic, for (relatively) short-time scales.
The Earth very definitely isn’t one of them.
The Earth isn’t in thermal equilibrium with the atmosphere, it’s in thermal equilibrium with the Sun. So the adiabatic clause of 2LOT applies to the Earth-Sun, not to the Earth-atmo.
“So the adiabatic clause of 2LOT applies to the Earth-Sun, not to the Earth-atmo.”
No David. The earth is a real system so there is no applicable adiabatic clause to earth system in 2LOT.
Ball:
ALL systems are subject to the same 2LOT.
All of them. DO you understand this?
Well someone wrote: “And this does not necessarily apply to a non_adiabatic system.”
Maybe David was just kidding I dunno. 2LOT applies to all real systems all the time and everywhere. If David thinks not as David wrote, see Sir Eddington.
That’s precisely what I wrote: ALL systems are subject to the same 2LOT.
Actually no David, try to rephrase in light of your more precise last comment:
So the adiabatic clause of 2LOT applies to the Earth-Sun, not to the Earth-atmo.
Yes, thanks for quoting me: the Earth-Sun system is an adiabatic system. The surface-atmo is not.
So David maintains the 2LOT doesn’t apply in some cases, a visit with Sir Eddington is recommended.
That’s a lie, Ball4. The 2LOT always applies. As I’ve said all along.
But your misinterpretation of it does not apply.
“So the adiabatic clause of 2LOT applies to the Earth-Sun, not to the Earth-atmo.”
In light of what Sir Eddington said about your theory David, he’d say it is you telling untruths.
2LOT applies to the Earth-Sun, AND to the Earth-atmo. according to Sir Eddington’s comment.
Am I supposed to guess what Eddington said, or is it a secret that only you can possess?
Only I possess until David demonstrates some expertise in research. Or any other commenter does so.
The hell with you and your game playing.
Obviously something as simple as scrolling to the first comment with an experimental description right under Dr. Spencer’s top post is demonstrated beyond David’s ability.
Why am I supposed to guess what you mean? Why can’t you be decent and just provide a link?
Providing a link wasn’t needed to find the particular comment for anyone but those that don’t have the ability to scroll up or use the slider over on the right. David – you jumped into the conversation making demands for your own reasons. Not polite to jump in before catching up on the content when the conversation is beyond your own research ability, David, as you add nothing to the conversation, you subtract in that case.
What link are you referring to?
The links I didn’t provide. You know, like some Professors leave it up to their students to do home work. Typical college stuff.
entropic…” It is entirely possible for photons emitted from an object at 20C to be absorbed by an object at 21C. That is heat transfer from a colder object to a warmer object.
There are also photons going the other way, transferring heat from the warmer object to the colder object”.
*******
It’s not heat transfer in a physical sense. Heat is not moved from the hotter body to the cooler body. The hotter body loses heat when it is converted to EM and the cooler body gets hotter when the absorbed Em is converted back to heat.
The key in that process is the action of the electrons that do the transfer of energy. As you pointed out earlier, bodies can only absorb EM under specific conditions and those conditions prevent EM radiated by the cooler body from being absorbed by the hotter body.
I suggest you get into that atomic process, it’s fascinating, and it upholds the 2nd law.
Gordon Robertson says:
The hotter body loses heat when it is converted to EM and the cooler body gets hotter when the absorbed Em is converted back to heat.
That’s called “heat transfer,” big-D Delta(Q).
Entropic man says, June 15, 2018 at 5:27 PM:
No, they haven’t.
Of course.
No, it isn’t.
Nope.
Something has got you seriously confused on this topic, Entropic. I have a feeling it’s “climate science” …
David
Typical? I love to argue, just don’t have much time at the moment.
– Sea ice volume seems to fluctuate much more than area or extent. LP’s graphs made that clear. I’ve been wondering why. Yes, the overall trend is decreasing. I’m perfectly aware.
– Here is a repost (my link didn’t work) of most of Idiot tracker’s excellent comment from this morning. He describes “heat flow” in terms of a net exchange of energy.
Most of us, apparently not you, understand the basic idea:
*********
“K is right when he says that the atmosphere subtracts energy from surface in the sense that the net flow of energy (or heat flow) is indeed from surface to atmosphere. As it is from Sun to Earth of course.
What you had in mind and what you may say instead is that the mere presence of an atmosphere is not subtracting energy from surface with respect to the situation without any atmosphere in the sense that it actually increases its internal energy and BTW its temperature. Thats the GHE.
Of course this ambiguity doesnt lend anymore pertinence to Ks usual idiotic drivel.
Any heat flux is by essence systematically the net sum of two counter flowing energy fluxes as amply shown by statistical mechanics and experiment.
Heat flow from Sun to Earth is in fact Q = Fin Fout where Fin is the SWR flux of absorbed sunlight and Fout is the IR flux emitted by Earth that finds his way to and is absorbed by the Sun. Fout is quite small for sure and Q practically equal to Fin , but Fin (as back radiatio is not a heat flow by itself.
Similarly heat flow from Earth surface to atmosphere because of radiative energy exchange is Q = Fup- Fdown where Fup is upwelling IR from surface emission and Fdown is downwelling IR emission from atmosphere absorbed by surface, the infamous back radiation.
In steady state (if one ignores -to simplify for a while- latent heat and convection) the first law of thermodynamics or conservation of energy flow implies Q = Q or Fin Fout = Fup -Fdown.
This can of course be rearranged into: Fin +Fdown = Fup +Fout which readily shows how and why incoming solar flux Fin and back radiation simply add up as total EMR energy absorbed by surface.
The DWIR is a measured value. A measurement means giving a numerical value to something. That you need to measure a net heat flow to measure the DWIR does not make it an unreal value.
Iindeee, but once more you do not need to measure the net heat flow between source to measure DWIR as in common commercial devices. A genuine lab grade bolometer or a simple CdTeHg device directly measure DWIR.”
Snape, please stop trolling.
Snape, at 4:30 pm you wrote you didn’t have time to reply.
Now it seems that wasn’t true….
Snape wrote:
The DWIR is a measured value. A measurement means giving a numerical value to something. That you need to measure a net heat flow to measure the DWIR does not make it an unreal value.
And this has indeed been done:
https://scied.ucar.edu/radiation-budget-diagram-earth-atmosphere
In fact, 2/3rds of the energy received at the surface comes from DWIR, only 1/3 from solar radiation.
Em,
I presume you are implying in a roundabout way that increasing the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere will cause the Earths surface to become hotter – presumably by preventing more of the Suns radiation from reaching the surface.
No matter how much sciency tinsel you try to decorate this nonsensical proposition with, it remains nonsense.
If you cannot even describe this amazing yet never observed or recorded GHE in even faintly scientific terms, real scientists might rightly regard you as a dilettante of the buffoonish variety.
Trying giving an actual example of how you can heat a warmer body with a cooler. An easy example is obviously how to heat the minutest quantity of water using any amount of ice you like. You cannot do it, and neither can anybody else. Hence the endless fantasies involving Green plates, cannon balls, overcoats, furnaces, and all the rest.
Climate is the average of historical weather records. The atmosphere is a complex deterministic system. As Feynman pointed out, the final state of such a system is unpredictable – even using classical mechanics without having to consider chaos theory. No matter how much information you have, no matter how smart you are or how powerful your computer is – the future state of the atmosphere is still unknowable.
Keep on dreaming.
Cheers.
In line: Trying giving an actual example of how you can heat a warmer body with a cooler.
An example already exists of how you can heat a warmer body with a cooler one, just see the first comment above experimental data. Or not, no one really cares.
What “first comment?”
The one where you scroll up to the top of these comments right under the top post.
Which post is the “top post?”
The one where Dr. Spencer reports “UAH Global Temperature Update for May, 2018: +0.18 deg. C”
Which should be on topic for comments but of course we digress.
And how does that “top post” prove what you’re claiming?
And what are you claiming again???
An example already exists of how you can heat a warmer body with a cooler one, just see the first comment above experimental data.
What is the “first comment above experimental data?”
The one by E. Swanson with his experimental data.
I thought you were referring to some real science.
Never mind.
Yes David, never minding replicable experimental evidence is rampant around here. But I’ll go with proper experiments like E. Swanson, Dr. Spencer & Bohr et. al. have reported.
Where was this experiment replicated?
What experiments have “Spencer & Bohr” done, and where were they replicated?
Citations please.
“Where was this experiment replicated?”
In my own lab! Well, actually my wet bar with my IR thermometer and some ice & some water. Minimized convection but no near vacuum. I followed Dr. Spencer’s and E. Swanson’s lead, although I was sure my work would again confirm 1LOT & Planck radiative transfer.
Bohr: pp 101-102, Pais, Abraham (1991). Niels Bohr’s Times, In Physics, Philosophy and Polity. Oxford: Clarendon Press. ISBN 978-0-19-852049-8.
Dr. Spencer, enter this string into google: roy spencer experiment
It is amazing that even after he’s been given correct explanations literally dozens of times, Mike still willfully presumes a wrong answer to fit his misguided narrative.
Not going to change his M.O., Tim. Flynn’s comments are for entertainment only. Leave the science to others more accomplished in this field.
Tim,
I realise it must be difficult to bring yourself to quote what it is with which you disagree. Even harder to support your disagreement with fact.
Do you think it is because I am right? Do you really believe you can use the heat energy contained in ice to heat water? Or maybe you believe that increasing the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere raises the temperature of thermometers exposed to the Sun, by reducing the energy reaching them?
Just because buffoons like Hansen, Schmidt, Mann and Trenberth are delusional, does not mean that their bizarre pseudoscientific claims are supported by fact!
Off you go – heat some water using ice. Make thermometer hotter using CO2 (you can chant mystical Manntras at the same time, if you think it might help).
Or try more stupid and irrelevant analogies to support the impossible and invisible GHE!
Cheers.
“Trying giving an actual example of how you can heat a warmer body with a cooler.”
An example already exists of how you can heat a warmer body with a cooler one, just see the first comment above experimental data. Or not, no one really cares.
Unless you give a link, no one knows what you’re writing about.
I repeat…just see the first comment above experimental data.
Scroll up David. If you have a PhD you will be able to find the up arrow on your key board or find the slider over on the right –>
I’m not wasting my time hunting for something you claim exists.
If you can’t provide a link, it doesn’t exist.
Ok, now David joins Gordon in studiously avoiding lab work to learn how you can heat a warmer body with a cooler one. Or maybe his PhD didn’t cover the scroll up arrow and slider buttons or the little phrase at the bottom that shows how to get to the top post & first comment.
If you can’t provide a link, your claim doesn’t exist.
I’m not wasting my time hunting because you’re too much of a dipstick to provide one with your claim.
Just as well, it doesn’t matter to me that David would rather remain uninformed by the lab work. Makes the readers of your comments that much more suspect of their worth.
ball4…”Ok, now David joins Gordon in studiously avoiding lab work to learn how you can heat a warmer body with a cooler one”.
The conditions of the lab work you mentioned do not exist in the atmosphere and they do not refer to the 2nd law’s stipulations that heat can NEVER be transferred BY ITS OWN MEAN from a colder body to a hotter body.
We already know heat can be transferred cold to hot but it requires extensive external intervention which involves supplying electrical power, machines, gases, and devices.
The lab work to which you refer was done at extremely high temperature and pressures such as would be found in a star.
“The lab work to which you refer was done at extremely high temperature and pressures such as would be found in a star.”
No Gordon, the lab work was done on STP Earth in a normal lab where a near vacuum was created in a vessel to minimize convection. Dr. Spencer found the same results on the actual Earth atm. in the wild with actual convection.
Ball4 says:
Just as well, it doesnt matter to me that David would rather remain uninformed by the lab work
What’s wrong that you can’t simply and politely link to the work you claim exists?
Gordon Robertson says:
We already know heat can be transferred cold to hot but it requires extensive external intervention which involves supplying electrical power, machines, gases, and devices.
Wow, for a moment here you seem to actually actually understand the 2LOT.
This will be useful to quote in the future, once you’ve forgotten this again.
Gordon Robertson says:
We already know heat can be transferred cold to hot but it requires extensive external intervention which involves supplying electrical power, machines, gases, and devices.
Or, something as simple as the Sun.
“What’s wrong that you can’t simply and politely link to the work you claim exists?”
Nothing is wrong. Other than David obviously hasn’t learned to scroll up or use the slider. A learning experience is at hand David.
You’d rather play games than be clear.
And you wonder why no one takes you seriously.
They (and you) should take the replicable lab work in the 1st comment above seriously not any commenter.
Which “first comment?”
This one?
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2018/06/uah-global-temperature-update-for-may-2018-0-18-deg-c/#comment-307417
No, 1st comment right after top post by Dr. Spencer.
Keep struggling David, you can do this. Research must not be your strong suit.
By E. Swanson?
You’ve now dicked around so much that I don’t even remember the original question.
I think that was your goal all along.
Yes nice research work David, after a little prodding. The very 1st comment by E. Swanson on his experiment where:
An example already exists of how you can heat a warmer body with a cooler one, just see the first comment above experimental data.
What experimental data?
I thought you were quoting some real science. Now it’s clear you were not.
So an experiment is not real science in David’s opinion. This is why lab work goes along with physics courses in the real world.
What experiment?
I accept the peer reviewed literature, at least as a start.
You got anything like that? You got any standards at all?
I am suspect of the peer reviewed literature David unless it points to replicable, proper experimental evidence such as E. Swanson and Dr. Spencer have provided. It’s really easy to do your own experiment just by following their lead proving to yourself:
“how you can heat a warmer body with a cooler one”
DA…”Gordon Robertson says:
We already know heat can be transferred cold to hot but it requires extensive external intervention which involves supplying electrical power, machines, gases, and devices.
Wow, for a moment here you seem to actually actually understand the 2LOT.
This will be useful to quote in the future, once youve forgotten this again”.
********
Unfortunately it won’t help you because you have absolutely no idea what I’m talking about or how the 2nd law was defined.
You probably thought my post was an admission that heat can flow cold to hot under normal conditions.
–David Appell says:
June 15, 2018 at 8:02 PM
Gordon Robertson says:
We already know heat can be transferred cold to hot but it requires extensive external intervention which involves supplying electrical power, machines, gases, and devices.
Wow, for a moment here you seem to actually actually understand the 2LOT.
This will be useful to quote in the future, once you’ve forgotten this again.–
I think he is referring to stuff like a microwave oven.
also things like fans or pumps.
Or as I would say, gravity- ie heating gas higher and gases lower becomes hotter than the heated gas was, when it was at higher elevation {Venus- or when Mediterranean Sea dried up].
g,
A cylinder of highly compressed gas – say a SCUBA tank – cannot necessarily be distinguished from an empty cylinder on the basis of temperature.
Another example of what “everybody knows” being completely wrong.
Even the gravito-thermal effect believers have to acknowledge that gravity doesn’t seem to make the oceans hotter with depth. Rather the reverse.
Oh well – onward and upward!
Cheers.
“Mike Flynn says:
June 15, 2018 at 9:16 PM
g,
A cylinder of highly compressed gas – say a SCUBA tank – cannot necessarily be distinguished from an empty cylinder on the basis of temperature.
Another example of what “everybody knows” being completely wrong.”
A SCUBA tank when air is added, will become warm, but it will cool to room temperature.
Though one could just pipe in liquid air [which is cold] and as liquid air in tanks warmed to room temperature one get same pressure as pumping compressed air into it.
But if pumping air into tank, one is not increasing the velocity of gas molecules rather you forcing more molecules of gas to occupy the same volume of space. Or by increasing density of air one is adding more mass to the KE = 1/2 mass time velocity squared. Or if velocity is constant you increase air temperature because you increase the mass within a volume of space. And when tank cools to room temperature, you are reducing the average velocity of gases and keeping the mass of molecules in volume constant. Or the SCUBA tank cooled to room temperature has a lower velocity of molecules in tank as compared to the air of room, or if you release the air from the pressurized tank, the air is colder than the air at the room’s pressure.
“Even the gravito-thermal effect believers have to acknowledge that gravity doesn’t seem to make the oceans hotter with depth. Rather the reverse.”
Well the gravito-thermal effect believers are wrong, and would say there are as wrong as GHE believers.
But what I am talking about is and was known before the GHE and gravito-thermal effect believers, existed.
Or it’s “settled science”.
gbaikie says:
“ie heating gas higher and gases lower becomes hotter than the heated gas was”
What the hell does this mean?
We had this talk.
I believe Venus is hot, because the clouds of Venus are or acting like, a surface.
And as for “Mediterranean Sea dried up”, it is called:
Messinian salinity crisis:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Messinian_salinity_crisis
Or quoting from the wiki article:
“Nonetheless, one can study the forces at play in the atmosphere to arrive at a good speculation of the climate. As winds blew across the “Mediterranean Sink”, they would heat or cool adiabatically with altitude. In the empty Mediterranean Basin, the summertime temperatures would probably have been extremely high even during the coldest phase of any glacial era. Using the dry adiabatic lapse rate of around 10 C (18 F) per kilometer, a theoretical temperature of an area 4 km (2.5 mi) below sea level would be about 40 C (72 F) warmer than the temperature at sea level. Under this simplistic assumption, theoretical temperature maxima would have been around 80 C (176 F) at the lowest depths of the dry abyssal plain permitting little life other than extremophiles.”
I think he is referring to stuff like a microwave oven.
And the Sun-Earth system.
gbaikie…”I think he is referring to stuff like a microwave oven”.
I was actually talking about a refrig.e.rator or an air conditioner.
Similar to what you’re getting at I think. If you can compress a gas to a high pressure, higher temperature liquid, expose it to the atmosphere so it can lose heat, then expand the hp liquid to a low pressure gas, you can transfer heat from cold to hot.
Mike Flynn,, Your inability to grasp the EM detailed and patient explanation of how radiant heat transfer works demonstrates a lack of engineering/science skill. Thermal equipment is designed and analyzed using heat transfer analysis as taught to engineers. The part on radiant HT is far more complex than discussed here. It includes view factors, emissivity and, when significant, the fluid between radiating bodies.
This also explains your bogus belief that there is no GHE.
I list in my blog/analysis 6 examples of compelling evidence that CO2 has no significant effect on climate and it appears that the 8% increase in water vapor since 1960 has been delaying an average global temperature downturn. Your skeptic perception is valid but your basis for that opinion is unclear.
A rational explanation of what causes climate change and why CO2 has no significant (<1%) effect on climate is at my blog/analysis. Click my name.
Dan Panburn wrote:
I list in my blog/analysis 6 examples of compelling evidence that CO2 has no significant effect on climate….
And nobody believes you.
Get your work published in a decent peer reviewed journal, and a few people will begin to look at your claims. And, if they have even a bit of significance, will address them. Then the discussion can begin from there.
Until then you’re just farting into the wind and no one who matters cares at all what you think.
David,
“…you’re just farting into the wind and no one who matters cares at all what you think.”
That’s exactly the impression I have of you. Until you can refute Dan’s analysis with your own thoughts or data, you just fart and stink up this blog bad.
DA,, As to peer review there is this quote, available in Wikipedia, by Richard Horten, editor of the Lancet ,,But we know that the system of peer review is biased, unjust, unaccountable, incomplete, easily fixed, often insulting, usually ignorant, occasionally foolish, and frequently wrong.,,
The situation wrt climate is particularly egregious. Peer review of climate related papers has substantially morphed into an academic cult approving each others papers which elicit government grants. Biased peer review is de facto censoring.
I provide formulae, links to sources, results for various assumptions. Identify specific errors and I will fix them or defend their basis.
Yes peer review is all that bad but up to now no better system could ever be implemented.
Now I can reassure you.
Fore sure, there is not the slightest chance your drivel about climate will ever get published in any scientific journal.
Not because peer review is that bad but merely because your science is that bad. As you were repeatedly told, you misunderstand and/or ignore a good deal of fundamental physics and this is conspicuous in whatever you say.
Dan,
Unfortunately, you cannot be bothered taking the time to quote me, and then provide facts to support any point of disagreement you may have with what I present. Pity.
Just asserting that I lack skill smacks of an appeal to your own authority, if you cannot show otherwise. As to characterising the obvious fact that there is no useful description of the GHE, nor, as a consequence, any disprovable GHE hypothesis, as a bogus belief, is odd.
I do not believe in the existence of a scientifically competent GHE, because none exists. If you think I am wrong, you might present one. Facts do not require my belief or otherwise – I leave that pseudoscientific nonsense to self appointed climatologists.
Thank you for accepting that my perception is valid. The word skeptic is irrelevant – there is no GHE to examine, no disprovable GHE hypothesis to look at. Just facts – or rather, the complete lack thereof. No GHE. Not even anyone here prepared to assert that increasing the amount of CO2 between the Sun and a thermometer makes the thermometer hotter – and provide some valid physical reason which would make this fantasy a fact!
Nothing to be skeptical about, is there?
As to climate change – climate is the average of weather, no more and no less. Weather is unpredictable, as is its average – climate. If you believe you can predict the future, I wish you good luck. Toss a couple of billion my way, if you feel generous, once you have captured all the world’s wealth for yourself. How hard can it be if you can predict the future?
No offence intended, but that won’t stop you from taking some if you feel so inclined. Be my guest.
Cheers.
Mic F,, Being a skeptic is the ONLY thing you have that is valid. You show nothing which explains climate change.
CO2 has no significant effect on climate for reasons which are apparently beyond your comprehension.
The water vapor, which produces the poorly named GHE, is between the earth and the cosmic background temperature of about 3 K, which is apparently also beyond your comprehension.
I speak with knowledge of engineering/science skill. You do not. Consequently, we have no common language with which to communicate.
Dan,
You have not managed to provide anything to contradict anything I said, have you?
You can speak with all the authority you believe you possess – it won’t change a single fact.
You provide precisely no reason for your assertions about CO2 (nor about much else). The physics of the atmosphere are such that useful predictions of future states are impossible. The atmosphere appears to behave chaotically, which means that there is no minimum change to inputs which can be shown to make a difference between chaos and non-chaos of any future state.
CO2 may have a large effect on future states, or it may not. The effect may be advantageous, or it may not. And so it goes, for each component, down to individual photons and beyond. Throw in Heisenberg, and any body who claims to to be able to predict future atmospheric states better than a naive persistence forecast is either a fool or a fraud.
You can choose to ignore fact, and dwell in fantasy land, as you wish. You may ignore me or not, as you desire. Others may believe your assertions – or not. Their decision.
Cheers.
dan…”Your inability to grasp the EM detailed and patient explanation of how radiant heat transfer works demonstrates a lack of engineering/science skill. Thermal equipment is designed and analyzed using heat transfer analysis as taught to engineers”.
There is no equipment designed by engineers based on the two way emission/absorp-tion described in many engineering texts. The theory taught is based on Kircheoff’s work at thermal equilibrium and the equations given using a two way absorp-tion/emission are bogus.
In other words, it’s pure theory with no application.
View angles are a fancy word for what each body can see. Where in reality is that ever a factor? Normally, an engineer would work that out using geometry but now they have a fancy word that has little meaning.
If you cannot accept that then look it up first hand in a text and see what problems they give to prove it. The problems given are usually related to normal heat flow, hot to cold, with other forms of transfer involved.
Another trick they use is to assign surfaces with no temperatures then apply the equations, inferring a transfer. They do not try to explain how it’s possible nor do any of them I have seen say anything about Clausius and the 2nd law. They avoid both like the plague.
It’s bs physics but that does not surprise me given other bs I have seen in texts.
GR,, Your comments disclose that you have very little useful knowledge on heat transfer analysis.
Dan,
Your link contains the following –
“Only solid or liquid bodies and greenhouse gases (ghg) can absorb/emit in the wavelength range of terrestrial radiation. Ghg absorb/emit only at specific wavelengths which are characteristic for each molecule specie. In the range of terrestrial temperatures, non-ghg must transfer energy to ghg (or liquid or solid bodies) for this energy to be radiated.”
Unfortunately, this is simply not true. Another thing which “everybody knows”. They dont.
A sample of air with the CO2 removed at 20 C is precisely the same temperature as a sample of air containing CO2 at 20 C. If you choose -90 C to +90 C as being roughly the surface temperature range, you will find that oxygen, nitrogen or other gases which remain gaseous through this range can be heated by the surface, and in turn can have their temperatures taken by measuring their radiative intensity – even through a vacuum, as from a satellite. Gases radiate energy just as any other matter above absolute zero.
Your detailed, patient, explanation is based on fantasy, and therefore irrelevant.
Maybe you could explain in your detailed, patient, way, how CO2 compressed in an engine cylinder to say 500 C manages to obtain the necessary specific wavelengths to heat itself. In the absence of CO2, the remaining gases get just as hot – how can this be, do you think?
A hair dryer or heat gun emits heated air. The air can be any temperature within design limits – no specific wavelengths necessary.
If you disagree, would you mind quoting the words you disagree with, and why. If I am wrong, i will cheerfully admit it. I don’t feel an attack of cheerful admissions of serious error coming on, so feel free to be as factual as you like.
Cheers.
MF, your analogy misses the facts which underlie Spencer and Christy’s satellite brightness temperature data. It’s all based on the absorp_tion and emission of EM radiation at microwave frequencies layer by layer thru the entire atmospheric column from the surface to space. It’s the same theoretical foundation on which the GHE is based. The spectral emissions measured at TOA would be different in an atmosphere lacking CO2, the same situation as observed in lab experiments of gas mixtures.
Yes, this part of DP’s article is quite correct.
Spencer’s satellite measurements of course do by no means measure radiation of N2, O2 or any other non GHGs in the IR range. There is essentially none at any measurable level.
What is measured is microwave radiation from O2 and only this molecule has a triplet ground state and radiates as a magnetic dipole there, not N2, not Ar nothing else in atmosphere.
http://dspace.mit.edu/bitstream/handle/1721.1/4963/RLE-TR-087-14236979.pdf
The measurements are performed at different wavelengths ( channels ) in the wing of the absorp-tion band in order to modulate the strength of absorp-tion and thus the opticial depth probed in atmosphere. This is then take advantage of to get information on temperature in different atmospheric layers.
Optical depth is a concept that remains to be learned and grasped by DP before he may ever correct his overall nonsense .
As you point out, Swanson, exactly the same physical principles are involved in GHE theory and that’s why Spencer as any serious scientist cannot reject the GHE as a bunch of idiots here do because of their physics illiteracy.
E. Swanson,
“[the absorp_tion and emission of EM radiation at microwave frequencies layer by layer thru the entire atmospheric column from the surface to space] is the same theoretical foundation on which the GHE is based.”
Assuming microwave frequencies are analogous to IR, I agree that is the basis of a GHE.
“The spectral emissions measured at TOA would be different in an atmosphere lacking CO2, the same situation as observed in lab experiments of gas mixtures.”
Unfortunately, those measurements do not account for the constant circulation of the atmosphere making predictions from those measurements about changes in temperature due to future CO2 increase unreliable.
idiot…”Spencers satellite measurements of course do by no means measure radiation of N2, O2 or any other non GHGs in the IR range”.
Why do they have to, they are measuring the temperature of oxygen based on microwave emissions?
Do you think that nitrogen at 25C in a glass container located in a vacuum in a room at 20C, with no conduction and convection possible, would remain at 25C indefinitely? Do you think there’s something different about the electrons in a nitrogen molecule that allow them to preserve heat because they cannot radiate it away?
What would likely happen is that the N2 gas would transfer heat to the inner container, which would radiate the heat away. But the container is not made of GHGs, so how does it radiate EM? This notion that only GHGs in the atmosphere can absorb and radiate energy is seriously biased.
I think the theory that gases like N2 and O2 cannot cool via radiation is nonsense. I think the problem is that no one has an interest in looking for the radiation.
Here’s proof of nitrogen emitting in the infrared.
https://www.osapublishing.org/ao/abstract.cfm?uri=ao-9-1-195
It does not matter how much it emits, it’s like a slow leak in a tire. If you have a tire at 35 PSI, even a tiny leak will allow it to deflate over time.
idiot…”The measurements are performed at different wavelengths ( channels ) in the wing of the absorp-tion band in order to modulate the strength of absorp-tion and thus the opticial depth probed in atmosphere”.
Obfuscation if I have ever heard it.
The different wavelengths are all in the microwave band centred around the microwave frequency at which O2 emits microwave energy. The microwave frequency corresponds to the temperature of the oxygen at a certain altitude therefore measuring with different receivers tuned in bands adjacent to each other allows a determination of temperature to frequency at different altitudes.
A common problem with such instruments sampling a range of frequencies with tuned centre-bands is that their reception overlaps other bands of frequencies.
Think of a graphic equalizer used in music as a very sophisticated tone control. The equalizer has the ability to amplify and attenuate frequencies that fall within a bandpass frequency. For an octave equalizer, the band frequencies may be tuned to 440 Hz which is A above middle C. The next octave down is 220 Hz, then 110 Hz, then 55 Hz. Going up the way, it’s 880 Hz, 1760 Hz, 3520 Hz, and so on.
So you have these bands adjacent to each other.
55Hz
110Hz
220Hz
440Hz
880Hz
1760Hz
3520Hz
.
.
.
What happens if we have a sound at 1000 Hz? It falls between the bandpass filter at 880Hz and 1760Hz, so adjusting the control on either of those bandpass filers or both, will affect a frequency we hear at 1000Hz. It will either boost the sound or attenuate it.
It’s the same in the atmosphere with AMSU units although Roy may like to add a correction to my description. The bandpass filters on AMSU units have centre frequencies in Gigahertz and they will be spaced according to expected temperatures at certain altitudes.
There are 22 bandpass channels on an AMSU unit but it appears only channels 5 to 14 are used for temperature measurement. Channel 5 is centred at 53.59Ghz, channels 6 at 54,4 Ghz, channel 7 at 54.94 Ghz, and so on.
If oxygen is emitting at a frequency in between channels 5 and 6, it will be received by both receivers. I don’t know exactly what happens then but I have heard the term ‘weighting’ use, so I am guessing that the degree to which the signal affects either channel is weighted to determine how much it affects either.
Here’s a graph of the weighting functions.
https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/full/10.1175/JTECH-D-13-00134.1#
Some have argued that the AMSUs only average the lower 4 km of the atmosphere but that seems nonsense to me. You can see the channel 5 peaks right at the surface and should be able to measure surface temperatures accurately.
Gordo, You are forgetting the earlier MSU instrument, speaking only of the AMSU. But, for both instruments, the weighting function represents the fraction of the measured radiance seen by the instruments. Those weighting curves are calculated from theoretical models of the emission and absorp_tion at each channel’s frequency. Those calculations are similar to the calculations of the absorp_tion and emissions of CO2 and other greenhouse gases. The curves so calculated are also based on an assumed model of the temperature/pressure profile from the ground to the TOA. Those curves can not be measured, only calculated from theory.
You apparently have no clue of the relationship and your ignorance is manifest in your acceptance of the theory when applied to the satellite data while rejecting the same theoretical analysis when applied to AGW.
dan…”GR,, Your comments disclose that you have very little useful knowledge on heat transfer analysis”.
Can you supply some evidence that I am wrong by going into the theory?
As it stands, I am left with your opinion and opinion without proof is not science. At least I supplied proof of my assertions in the form of a challenge to supply evidence that the radiation theories offered in text books is correct.
dan…”Your inability to grasp the EM detailed and patient explanation of how radiant heat transfer works demonstrates a lack of engineering/science skill”.
Can you link to this detailed, patient explanation so I can see for myself? Any I have seen, even in engineering texts, seriously confuse blackbody radiation with the real world.
Kircheoff initiated the concept of a blackbody and he defined it as a body that absorbs all energy it intercepts. He took that further to define the emission and absorp-tion capabilities of BBs. However, he did all that work at thermal equilibrium.
In the real world, there are no restrictions on bodies re them having to absorb all Em incident upon them.
He also did it long before Bohr introduced the notion of an electron converting heat to EM and vice-versa. Bohr made it clear that bodies absorb at specific frequencies and he explained why based on the properties of the electron.
I have never seen an explanation of two way EM transfer at bodies of different temperatures based on electron theory. Even Norman steers clear of atomic theory preferring to view molecules as magical devices that can somehow vibrate on their own, independent of the electrons and protons that make up molecules.
Let’s get one thing clear, either the 2nd law applies to radiative heat transfer or it does not. There are no in-betweens such as a net transfers, it’s all or nothing. It’s the way atoms work.
Can you link to this detailed, patient explanation so I can see for myself?
Click his name.
Or:
http://globalclimatedrivers2.blogspot.com/
Btw he begins by saying:
Summary (rev 6/3/18)
Thermalization and the complete dominance of water vapor in reverse-thermalization explain why atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) has no significant effect on climate. According to the 2017 update, reported average global temperature (AGT) since before 1900 is accurately (98.3% match with measured trend) explained. The temperature change 1909-2005 is explained by a combination of ocean cycles (34.8%), sunspot number anomaly time-integral (39.0%) and increased atmospheric water vapor (26.2%). The temperature change 1909-2017 reveals a substantial increase in the influence of water vapor: ocean cycles (22.2%), sunspot number anomaly time-integral (40.5) and increased atmospheric water vapor (37.2%).
And I would say it is a recovery from the Little Ice Age.
Or it not clear to me, what caused the cooling of LIA.
And generally think there is lack of understanding of what causes cooling, and understanding what causes cooling is much more important than what causes warming.
gbaikie says:
June 15, 2018 at 11:25 PM
Or it not clear to me, what caused the cooling of LIA.
*
Part 1
1. Maybe you should read this:
Abrupt onset of the Little Ice Age triggered by volcanism and sustained by sea-ice/ocean feedbacks
Miller & alii 2011
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2011GL050168
And this:
Indications for a North Atlantic ocean circulation regime shift at the onset of the Little Ice Age
C.-F. Schleussner & alii 2015
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00382-015-2561-x
(behind paywall)
https://tinyurl.com/yd496uf6
(free)
gbaikie says:
June 15, 2018 at 11:25 PM
Or it not clear to me, what caused the cooling of LIA.
Part 2
2. The understanding of the influence of huge volcanic events is increased a lot by reading this:
Source of the great A.D. 1257 mystery eruption unveiled, Samalas volcano, Rinjani Volcanic Complex, Indonesia
Frank Lavigne & alii 2013
https://tinyurl.com/y7t9rqtk
This is to be viewed in relation to the following major volcano eruption sequence (unprecedented in the last 25,000 years):
Samalas 1257, VEI 7/8
Quilotoa 1280, 6
Kuwae 1452, 6
Bárðarbunga 1477, 6
Billy Mitchell 1580, 6
Huaynaputina 1600, 6
gbaikie says:
June 15, 2018 at 11:25 PM
And generally think there is lack of understanding of what causes cooling…
I disagree.
Much has been done until now in that direction, e.g. investigations concerning possible causes of earlier collapses of the Thermohaline Circulation.
A resumee of this can be found for example in
An Abrupt Climate Change Scenario and Its Implications for United States National Security
Peter Schwartz and Do-ug Randall 2003
http://tinyurl.com/y8owdsqg
The latter might appear very alarmist to us, but it is nevertheless an interesting point of view.
binny…”The latter might appear very alarmist to us, but it is nevertheless an interesting point of view”.
The paper is written by a couple of alarmist idiots.
Birds of a feather flock together.
gbaikie…”The only way that energy can significantly leave earth is by thermal radiation. Only solid or liquid bodies and greenhouse gases (ghg) can absorb/emit in the wavelength range of terrestrial radiation”.
Although I was not put off by do.ug-c in particular, I did bug me that he kept referring people to his site for his own particular take on climate theory. In much the same way, I think Dan’s claim above is incorrect.
Dan only thinks the only way energy can leave the planet is by thermal radiation therefore by GHGs making up only 0.31% of the overall atmosphere. I don’t think that mass of water vapour and/or CO2 can account for the radiation to space required for surface heat dissipation.
It makes no sense, not just because GHGs are a seriously minor component of the atmosphere, but due to the fact that heat can be dissipated by other means.
I agree partly with your theory that the oceans control climate and neither water vapour nor CO2. Although WV can affect climate by producing arid situation after WV rises high into the atmosphere and condenses, leaving dry, warm air to fall into the band of desert regions near the equator, I don’t think it’s effect on climate is major.
It makes no sense to me that the 99% of the atmosphere constituting nitrogen and oxygen plays no part in the temperature of the atmosphere.
I am trying to work out my own theory that the atmosphere can expand during the day when heated by solar energy, then contract during the night when solar input is absent. That expansion/contraction alone should moderate temperatures, thus heat, naturally.
I’m not implying that radiation is not a factor, I just think its effect has been over-blown by climate modelers and climate alarmists.
gbaikie…”The only way that energy can significantly leave earth is by thermal radiation. Only solid or liquid bodies and greenhouse gases (ghg) can absorb/emit in the wavelength range of terrestrial radiation”.
Although I was not put off by d**o.u**g*-c in particular, I did bug me that he kep.t referring people to his site for his own particular take on climate theory. In much the same way, I think Dan’s claim above is incorrect.
Dan only thinks the only way energy can leave the planet is by thermal radiation therefore by GHGs making up only 0.31% of the overall atmosphere. I don’t think that mass of water vapour and/or CO2 can account for the radiation to space required for surface heat dissipation.
It makes no sense, not just because GHGs are a seriously minor component of the atmosphere, but due to the fact that heat can be dissipated by other means.
I agree partly with your theory that the oceans control climate and neither water vapour nor CO2. Although WV can affect climate by producing arid situation after WV rises high into the atmosphere and condenses, leaving dry, warm air to fall into the band of desert regions near the equator, I don’t think it’s effect on climate is major.
It makes no sense to me that the 99% of the atmosphere constituting nitrogen and oxygen plays no part in the temperature of the atmosphere.
I am trying to work out my own theory that the atmosphere can expand during the day when heated by solar energy, then contract during the night when solar input is absent. That expansion/contraction alone should moderate temperatures, thus heat, naturally.
If there’s any truth to my theory I would not care to declare how much heat can be dissipated naturally. If the Earth did not rotate and faced the Sun 24/7, I would think differently, however it turns regularly, allowing input solar energy to be dissipated by other means.
The fact that we have a residual heat that some like to call a GHE feeds my theory.
I’m not implying that radiation is not a factor, I just think its effect has been over-blown by climate modelers and climate alarmists.
Gordo, I’m stunned. After all the time you’ve been posting comments around here, is it possible that you really don’t understand that the only mechanism by which energy leaves the Earth’s TOA toward the vacuum of space is EM radiation?
swannie…”Gordo, Im stunned. After all the time youve been posting comments around here, is it possible that you really dont understand that the only mechanism by which energy leaves the Earths TOA toward the vacuum of space is EM radiation?”
*********
Gotta pay attention, Swannie, I said no such thing. I was talking about heat dissipation WITHIN the atmosphere.
PV = nRT
I also mentioned that we have a unique situation with a rotating planet whereby solar energy is not input over the entire planet over the full rotation. We also have a heated atmosphere that cools when solar energy is not there.
Think it through.
Gordo, Thinking it thru is rather easy.
The atmosphere has the mass equivalent of 10 meters of H2O. That works out to 1×10^7 gm of water for a column of water above a 1 meter^2 surface. If the solar energy input on a clear day is 1,000 watts/m^2 for 10 hours per day, the energy input would be about 1.0×10^4 watt-hrs or 8.60×10^7 calories. At the end of that 10 hours of heating, the column of water equivalent would be warmed by about 0.9 K (if my math is correct). That heat energy may then be lost thru cooling over night.
“I agree partly with your theory that the oceans control climate and neither water vapour nor CO2. ”
I am a lukewarmer, which indicates I think CO2 could cause some
warming.
But I am not sure how.
And if CO2 causes some warming, it seems water vapor causes more warming, probably a lot more than CO2
If I have a theory, it is that we living on planet mostly covered with a ocean and the tropical ocean warms the rest of the world.
But one could just call this being somewhat educated, rather than a theory or my theory.
One could say, I am working on a theory, but I would much rather be provided with a theory, I know enough that I know it would require a lot of work to make a theory.
I am working on a theory, about as much as I am working on writing a novel, and I would really, really like to write a sfi novel, but I am, without any doubt, a terrible writer.
An observation is that people can be very stupid.
And they are being brainwashed, a lot, which increases the stupidity.
Btw, it seems one has to be smart, in order to become very stupid and generally, requires a lot of effort.
I have working premise, that people have to do everything which is stupid, and go back endless to same stupid, and reach absolute exhaustion, before doing something smart.
But that is British humor, ie Hitchhiker guide to Universe
The world is awashed in pseudoscience.
Science has been quite successful in some matters and people want to associate their stupid ideas with “science” {and comes from desire to take the easy route.
Political science is interesting label, it is at best, critical thinking regarding politics, and obviously not a science.
So, there are numerous fields or studies which can have methodologies and employ logic and maybe one can have some hope, they could be predictive like science.
Anyhow, I don’t think GHE is a scientific theory- and it is wrong.
One could argue it points in the right direction, but it does not do this.
And I would say it closely resembles a cargo cult.
The cargo cult didn’t invent the cargo airplanes, it is worshiping, which is part of why GHE is like cargo cult.
It is religion/cult and it is political in nature.
An ideology or ism.
One could say that the intention of GHE is to be storybook intended for the unwashed masses, but it a story made by a group of people who are stupid. They are projecting their groupthink of ignorance and dressing it up as science.
One could explain my interest in “climate science” because I am interested in topic of terraforming worlds.
I have an obession related to question, why aren’t we now living on say, the Moon, or far more importantly, why are we using the space environment {actually, using more then we are using it}.
The correct, though somewhat useless answer, is due to politics.
And obviously politics is not something new- it more like Groundhog Day. Anyhow there are other answers, though one is in the sea of politics, and it is main issue, rather than say a lack of technology. Actually, NASA also has cargo cult type problem, though one could also say the entire world has numerous cargo cult problem.
But back to issue, why is Earth warm? First answer is, it is not warm.
Next answer related to why warm is, Earth has atmosphere and an ocean [and 30% land area].
That atmosphere and ocean and land would be -18 C, is wrong.
It is closer to about 5 C. Then add in effects greenhouse gases. Plus one has cooling mechanisms. Clouds warm and cool, etc, etc.
A reasonable human interest should be focused on, what causes cooling, and currently we are in an icebox climate.
And don’t ignore geothermal heating of Earth.
As we are living on thin cold layer/skin of a large and active hot rock.
explanation by Entropic Man is at http://www.drroyspencer.com/2018/06/uah-global-temperature-update-for-may-2018-0-18-deg-c/#comment-307388
Your assertion that there are no net transfers is just wrong!
dan…”Your assertion that there are no net transfers is just wrong!”
That’s great, Dan, but you cannot explain why. You take a thought experiment of a layman as proof of your position while ignoring the science presented by the likes of Clausius, Bohr, Schrodinger, and even Boltzmann.
BTW, what entropic is talking about is the theory of Kircheoff. The difference is, K did all his work at thermal equilibrium. He made no inferences about mutual emission/absorp-tion of photons between bodies at different temperatures. Even a 1C difference is major when dealing with atoms.
Then there’s the 2nd law. It states clearly that heat can NEVER be transferred by its own means from a colder to a hotter body. How do you get around that one?
HOW THE EARTH BECAME A HOTHOUSE: BY H2O
Andy May / 22 hours ago June 15, 2018
–Guest Post by Wim Röst
ABSTRACT
Water, H2O, determines the ‘General Background Temperature’ for the Earth, resulting in Hothouse and Ice House Climate States. During geological periods the movement of continents changes the position of
continents, oceans and seas. Because of the different configurations, a dominant warm or a dominant cold deep-water production configuration ‘sets’ average temperatures for the deep oceans. Changing vertical oceanic circulation changes surface temperatures, especially in the higher latitudes. During a Hot House State, higher temperatures in the high latitudes result in a high water-vapor concentration that prevents a rapid loss of thermal energy by the Earth.
These three processes, plate tectonics (continental drift), vertical oceanic circulation variability and variations in atmospheric water vapor concentration and distribution, caused previous Hot House and Warm House Climate States. A change in the working of those mechanisms resulted in a transition from the previous Hot House Climate State to the very cold ‘Ice House State’ that we live in now. That change was set in motion by the changing configuration of continents, oceans and seas. —
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/06/15/how-the-earth-became-a-hothouse-by-h2o/
I have not finished reading it yet.
But it might be interesting.
It was interesting and it seemed to me, that it involved new theory.
I have my doubts about it, and roughly speaking it seems to involve a lot of salt. I would call it the solar pond theory, because like a solar pond, it’s warmer at the bottom than top and involves using lots of salt.
And as was reading it, I was having problems trying to “follow the salt”. It appeared to me that perhaps a lot salt would end up in polar region and I was thinking it might be way to prove the theory if the salt was found [a lot of salt was found]. But author was saying stuff which conflicted with assumption or as I said, I was having problems “following the salt”- it was unclear to me.
What I found interesting:
“Clearly, the Earth loses more energy in an Ice House State because of the lower content of water vapor over the middle and higher latitudes, resulting in a strong cooling for the Earth as a whole. Therefore, our present average temperature for the Earth as a whole is low.”
Of course I agree that we at low average global temperature and I agree that one would get more water vapor in “the middle and higher latitudes” in a warmer world. But also I think “everyone” agrees with this.
Next:
“The temperature of the deep ocean is the main factor. Deep-ocean temperatures from -1 to +3 degrees Celsius, as we have now, keep the Earth in an Ice House State. Slightly warmer deep-oceans with temperatures from 6 to 10 degrees Celsius* bring the Earth to a Warm House or a Hot House Climate State. ”
I guess what is interesting or different from my general view, is idea of rivers of cold currents [presently] and rivers warm currents in hothouse climate.
In terms of key part of it:
“In oceans and seas certain water goes down and other water wells up from the deep oceans, both in huge quantities. Think in terms of a million or more cubic kilometers a year. For the final temperature of the
deep-ocean it is important which water wells down: relatively cold or relatively warm water. Present seas like the Mediterranean, the Red Sea and the Arabian Gulf demonstrate that it is possible to produce warm deep water: in arid regions the local evaporation produces high salinity surface water that is that dense that it goes down (sinks) as warm salty water. After welling down, the warm and now deep water is covered by less dense ocean water.
In this way, even in our present Ice House State, the above-mentioned seas produce warm deep water of
around 12 degrees Celsius and more. When the warm deep-water flows back into the oceans, it sinks to depths of 1000 to 4000 meters, depending on the salinity and the density of the local deep ocean.”
Now this is interesting.
But what I was thinking while reading it, is these specific region involve a plate boundary and wondering if that could also be involved.
AGW will be proven wrong as global temperatures fail to show any further warming much less now in a cooling trend.
Overall sea surface temperatures now in a nice down trend. This being due to very weak solar (UV/NEAR UV LIGHT ) which is what determines sea surface temperatures not the phony CO2/INFRARED relationship versus sea surface temperatures.
The North Atlantic now -.60c below 1981-2010 means needs to be monitored along with land areas in the high Arctic. This is a place where change could impact the global climate.
AGW THEROY not one of the basic premises has come to be from the lower troposphere hot spot, to distinct stratospheric cooling, to a decrease in OLR, to a more zonal atmospheric circulation to overall sea surface temperatures warming.
ENSO a natural CLIMATIC FACTOR was responsible for the recent warmth not AGW. One can see this by looking at the MEI index over the past few years.
My two solar conditions for cooling are now present which are 10+ years of sub solar activity in general (which started in year 2005) and within this sub solar activity in general a period of very low average value solar parameters (which started in year 2018/late 2017) whose values are greater in degree of magnitude and duration of time which commonly occurs between typical solar minimums between normal sunspot cycles.
The theory is simple which is very low prolonged minimum solar conditions result in overall lower sea surface temperatures (less UV/NEAR UV LIGHT )and a slightly higher albedo(due to an increase in explosive volcanic activity and an increase in snow/cloud coverage the result lower global temperatures.
The geo magnetic field modifying the solar activity.
The upshot is a climatic regime change which happens in decades if not years. Since post Dalton times till now the climate has been in the same climatic regime. It is common to have temperature fluctuations of +/- 1 c within a climatic regime due to ENSO/VOLCANIC ACTIVITY.
When the climate changes to another climate regime it usually happens at the top of the previous climatic regime and changes in the opposite direction. This is what I think is taking place now with year 2018 being the transitional year. If one looks at the climatic history that is what it shows more often then not.
In addition if one looks at the climatic history they will see the climate of today is in no way unique, and that every period of prolonged solar activity has been associated with lower overall global temperatures.
I say if my theory is correct AGW will be proven wrong prior to year 2020.
The AGW “theory” was proven wrong decades ago, by established physics.
But it won’t go away until the funding is cut off.
JDHuffman
You are strong on opinion but short on facts. What evidence do you bring that AGW theory was proven wrong by established science?
Which science what proof?
You are a poster that cannot understand view factor even when explained in detail to you, yet you believe your opinion is so good we should just all accept your word for it? If you showed even a little knowledge of heat transfer physics I might take note. As it is you are one of the unscientific posters that get all your knowledge of heat transfer from blogs. That is not very convincing.
Norman I will address it.
I have said many times Norman, that the climate test will be on and which way the climate goes will determine who is correct and who is wrong.
I said if my 2 solar conditions are meant expect cooling and I said this year is the first year since post Dalton times that this is happening.
On the other hand all predictions and premises AGW theory has been based on have yet to come true.
The climate being no way unique, and premises such as the positive feedback between water vapor and CO2 failing to materialize. Not to mention their ridiculous bogus infrared /overall oceanic temperature connections. What BS!
I have examined AGW theory that is why I am so sure it is WRONG.
Yes there is a GHG effect but it comes as a RESULT of the climate it is not the cause. This has been shown time and time again through Ice Core data. CO2 follows the temperatures does NOT lead it. This time is no different.
The global warming which did occur was entirely due to ENSO ,and lack of major explosive volcanic activity which can influence the climate within a climate regime to values of +/- 1 C .Look at the MEI INDEX.
AGW theory hi jacking that and trying to say it was AGW causing the recent relative warmth instead of naturally occurring ENSO.
When the climate changes to another regime which I think it is (colder) it will be more then 1C when all is said and done.
CO2 or the so called AGW has yet to change the climate regime the climate has been in since 1850.
The climate regime did change post 1850 when solar went from an inactive state to an active state, and from there the climate zig zagged in an upward trend moderated by ENSO/VOLCANIC ACTIVITY within the general rise from 1850-2017.
It was not until year 2005 that the sun switched from an active to an inactive state, meaning up to year 2005 the solar contribution to the climate was warming. That changed in year 2005 but lag times of 10+ years have to be considered.
Now I expect the climate to cool in a zig zag fashion but could be abrupt. The other shoe to drop will be major explosive volcanic activity, and an increase in global cloud /snow coverage. That equates to higher ALBEDO game over climate cools down.
Once again Norman, hiding his last name, resorts to personal attacks and distortions.
JDHuffman
Are you a whiner and complainer. Why do you need to know my last name? What purpose will it serve you.
You lack scientific knowledge. When you can understand view factor maybe we can talk,
Basically, as I see it, you are one of the people that get all their physics from blogs and none from actual textbooks.
I certainly hope you are not as much a crackpot as Gordon Robertson.
You are someone who I think it is a waste of time to reply to. You have little real knowledge and you do not want to learn anything. You just want to come here and whine about other posters and make idiotic examples of why you imagine energy fluxes can’t add.
norman…”I certainly hope you are not as much a crackpot as Gordon Robertson”.
I’m a crackpot in Norman’s eyes because I support the scientific method and respect eminent scientists like Clausius, Bohr, and Schrodinger. I presume Norman must regard them as crackpots as well.
“because I support the scientific method and respect eminent scientists like Clausius, Bohr, and Schrodinger.”
You do not Gordon as the scientific method involves testing of which you do none. If you did proper experiments, THEN your words would support the scientific method. You misquote the scientists mentioned to assert anything you would like.
Gordon Robertson
YOU: “Im a crackpot in Normans eyes because I support the scientific method and respect eminent scientists like Clausius, Bohr, and Schrodinger. I presume Norman must regard them as crackpots as well.”
No you do not support the scientific method in the least. You think textbook science is wrong and bad. You misquote and mislead on the leading scientists in your post. I do not regard them at all as crackpots. They have rational logical thought and if demonstrated that they erred in some fashion, would not continue with their errors but learn and be thankful they were directed in the right direction. You are not such a mind. You make up bogus physics, when pointed out it is bogus you continue peddling it as if it came from an Authority.
The only reason you post respected scientists in your posts is to give your junk fake science a look of validity. It does nothing of the sort. Bohr determined quantum leaps of electrons were necessary to explain the line spectrum emitted by various atoms at highly heated temperatures. You twist this useful notion and force it, against Bohr’s will, to include Mid-IR in explaining this emission path. Bohr would not agree with you and tell you so. You would not care if Bohr called your misguided notions “crackpot” you would pretend he agreed with you. A crackpot you are!
Norman…”No you do not support the scientific method in the least. You think textbook science is wrong and bad”.
I have never claimed that about textbooks, only parts of certain texts.
The 2nd law is about the scientific method. Clausius brilliantly took us through the operation of a heat engine and based on that he formed conclusions that became the 2nd law and entropy. He showed clearly why heat cannot by itself flow from a colder body to a warmer body or be transferred both ways between bodies of different temperatures.
He showed an alternate proof of the 2nd law using entropy and everyone today still abides by his findings
….except you.
You’re the outlier here, Normie, it is you who makes up nonsense about heat flowing two ways and bypassing the 2nd law using a net energy flow which does not exist.
Your buddy ball4 doesn’t even think heat exists. He has claimed that if you remove the word heat from the language of science everything will work better. Then heat can be transferred from cold to hot as some mysterious form of energy no one can explain.
norman…”You are a poster that cannot understand view factor even when explained in detail to you….”
Norman’s got a new term, ‘view factor’. Doesn’t mean anything but Normie will use it to baffle those who don’t know it doesn’t mean anything.
Here’s an explanation. If I’m looking at a house with nothing blocking it my view factor is 100%. If a double-decker bus stops in front of me so I can’t see the house at all, my vf is 0.
However, if someone down the street is looking at the same house, and the bus does not block their view, their vf is 100% while mine is 0%.
Very important stuff. Norman thinks it explains why the 2nd law can be contradicted using associated bogus math that does not apply.
Gordon Robertson
I have used the term view factor on numerous occasions. Primarily with dealing with the skeptics that believe, since ice can’t bake a Turkey, there can be no GHE.
You even do not understand view factor at all. Sad, I linked you to articles on it and you still can’t manage to get it right.
The view factor has nothing to do with blocking. It is about the amount of energy you are able to receive from an emitting object based upon the geometry involved.
If you are looking at your house and nothing is blocking your view, the view factor is not 100%!! Get something right just once. Do you have to mangle everything??
You, in actually, have a very small view factor of your house. You receive only a tiny fraction of all the energy your house is reflecting and emitting (IR EMR).
If you build a sphere around your house the sphere would have a 100% view factor of your house. All the energy leaving your house will hit the sphere.
I wonder if you could get more ridiculous with your posts and then you make really stupid claims for no reason at all. So are you just a troll then, making stupid statements on purpose to get some type of emotional response?
N, PST.
Norman…”The view factor has nothing to do with blocking. It is about the amount of energy you are able to receive from an emitting object based upon the geometry involved”.
What are we viewing, Normie? EM? So look at EM as a visual spectrum of energy and see what happens when you’re looking at something and something else blocks the EM. You can’t see it, ergo you can’t view it.
Now simply translate that to EM as IR. Same thing, it’s what a body can ‘see’ of another body, that’s where your geometry comes in. Actually, it’s trigonometry…sines, cosines, etc.
Overall sea surface temperatures now DOWN to less then +.10c deviation from 1981-2010 means from a +.35c deviation last summer!
That is a drop of .25c or +.45 f n less then a year.
What could be the cause. It must be AGW,LOL.
No, the cause is the diminished intensity of UV/NEAR U VLIGHT emanating from the prolog solar minimum period we are now firmly in.
I called for this and is half of my theory the other part being a slight increase in albedo al tied into very weak solar conditions and a weakening geo magnetic field.
Salvatore Del Prete
June 16, 2015 at 9:11 am
“ROSCO -We will not have to wait that long. We will know before this decade ends how much influence natural factors have on the climate, namely due to this prolonged solar minimum. Once this is more established we can go on from there.”
Things are looking good for your theory Salvatore. 2020 is just around the corner, and it is looking like it will be cooler (Globally) than when the decade started (below the UAH baseline).
What will be more interesting if the paradigm will shift away from CO2 is the control knob towards more on these physical cycles? It would be nice if we could move the science forward.
Thanks. I like the way it is going of late.
David what are you going to say? I will be waiting.
“Things are looking good for your theory Salvatore. 2020 is just around the corner, and it is looking like it will be cooler (Globally) than when the decade started (below the UAH baseline).”
Love your ability to confirm predictions 2 y in advance. How do you do it?
Thank You, experience mostly, but keeping an open mind helps tremendously. Oh and for the record, I am not confirming anything in that statement, just observing the potential.
Thanks Nate. The supporters of AGW keep looking back in time instead of forward in time.
It is still early, but how did I come up with it?
AS FOLLOWS:
Very low prolonged solar activity will over time result in less UV LIGHT /NEAR UV LIGHT which penetrates the ocean surface waters to several meters and transfers energy to the oceans. When weaker in intensity less energy is received by the oceans hence they cool, starting at the surface.
Secondly very low prolonged solar activity seems to correlate to an increase in global cloud coverage/snow coverage due to atmospheric circulation changes and galactic cosmic rays which will result in a higher albedo lower global temperatures.
Then you have the very low solar/explosive volcanic connection which will also result in a higher albedo result lower temperatures.
All of these solar effects moderated by the geo magnetic field.
I will send the theory on the volcano/solar connection.
Global OHC / 0- 2000 m /quarterly through March, 2018 / NOAA
2005-3 8.972987
2005-6 9.391529
2005-9 9.681848
2005-12 12.636982
2006-3 11.932278
2006-6 12.998004
2006-9 12.264493
2006-12 13.356965
2007-3 13.498150
2007-6 11.382808
2007-9 12.277043
2007-12 12.418795
2008-3 13.305184
2008-6 14.606297
2008-9 13.024848
2008-12 12.090649
2009-3 12.614719
2009-6 12.241169
2009-9 13.816815
2009-12 15.052814
2010-3 15.881298
2010-6 13.484779
2010-9 13.959781
2010-12 14.823184
2011-3 15.215552
2011-6 14.630487
2011-9 16.870249
2011-12 14.859973
2012-3 17.308126
2012-6 15.461417
2012-9 15.346320
2012-12 16.630146
2013-3 20.317980
2013-6 17.425900
2013-9 16.296843
2013-12 20.558161
2014-3 20.874861
2014-6 19.914608
2014-9 18.526079
2014-12 21.123238
2015-3 23.416958
2015-6 22.368597
2015-9 21.546423
2015-12 22.271896
2016-3 22.763397
2016-6 19.730759
2016-9 19.145727
2016-12 21.557800
2017-3 23.699747
2017-6 24.154409
2017-9 21.977037
2017-12 24.524509
2018-3 25.390392
OHC: 0 – 700 m and 0 – 2000 m
Both measurements set records in the first quarter of 2018. Global cooling? A short lived surface blip. That’s my prediction.
if you think it is a blip you must subscribe to the false premise that AGW through an increase in infrared radiation heats the oceans.
WRONG!
Snape it starts at the surface and works it way down over time.
What DETERMINES the climate is the surface ocean temperatures which are controlled by the sun.
My prediction is as long as solar stays in the tank oceanic sea surface temperatures will NOT be rising.
David Appell, Snape
You were looking for examples of movement of heat from colder to hotter.
Have you encounted the use of the Peltier effect to pump heat from the cooler side of a thermoelectric cooler to the warmer side?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermoelectric_cooling
entropic…”You were looking for examples of movement of heat from colder to hotter”.
We already have them, a refig-e-rator and an air conditioner.
The thermoelectric effect is interesting and Peltier noted that with a copper wire connected to a bismuth conductor then back to a cooper wire, that a temperature gradient developed at each junction. Now they are doing it with semiconductors, especially of different types, joined in parallel.
Of course, that does not contravene the 2nd law because there is compensation. It’s the old ‘you can’t get something for nothing’.
You have to supply power and you have to arrange semiconductors in a specific manner.
Since heat involves electrons, both for heat transfer in solids and to heat or cool a body, they seems to be manipulating the electrons in different material so the electrons either gain energy or lose energy. A gain in energy translates to heating and a loss to cooling.
With a semiconductor, an N-type is doped with atoms that have an excess of electrons and the P-type with atoms that have a shortage of electrons. As researchers have found, that situation causes slight temperature drops/gains across the semiconductor. By stacking the semiconductors of differing types in parallel, and running a current through the lot, the temperature drop/gain is increased.
THE VOLCANO/SOLAR CONNECTION PRESENTED BY THEODORE WHITE WHO IS RIGHT ON.
Theodore White
The mechanism Dave Burton is electromagnetic. All seismic activity such as earthquakes and volcanic eruptions are triggered by external pressures being forced on the Earths magnetic field.
The stress that is put on Earths magnetic field begins at the ionosphere, which can be observed by the appearance of luminous phenomena very close to regions showing tectonic stress, seismic activity or soon-to-be volcanic eruptions.
The connection between prolonged minimum and maximum solar phases to large magnitude earthquakes and increased volcanic eruptions is supported by overwhelming scientific evidence that is easily found online.
There is strong statistical data which shows powerful correlations between major volcanic activity and numerous earthquakes of 8.0 magnitude or more on Richter scale to the Suns Grand Minimum states.
Over the last several decades scientific papers began to appear that clearly show correlations between galactic cosmic ray and low solar activity with a rise of destructive geological events like earthquakes & volcanic eruptions.
This has been supported by statistical evidence that extend back centuries.
A 1967 study published by the Earth & Planetary Science Letters discovered that solar activity plays a significant role in the triggering of earthquakes.
Then, In 1998 a scientist from the Beijing Astronomical Observatory, Chinese Academy of Science, also discovered a correlation between low solar activity and earthquakes.
Additional research by The Space & Science Research Center found direct correlation between solar activity and the largest earthquakes and volcanic eruptions within the continental United States and other regions around the world.
The study examined data of volcanic activity between 1650 2009 along with earthquake activity between 1700 2009 while utilizing solar activity data.
The findings of study said that there was very strong correlation between solar activity and the largest seismic and volcanic events worldwide.
The correlation for volcanic activity was larger than 80 percent and 100% for the greatest magnitude earthquakes measured with Solar activity lows.
Moreover, the findings concluded that there was proof of a strong correlations between global volcanic activity among the largest of classes of eruptions and solar activity lows; with 80.6% occurrence of large scale global volcanic eruptions taking place during the Suns minimums and 87.5% occurring for the very largest volcanic eruptions during times of major solar minimums.
We are entering such a period of a Grand Solar Minimum with the start of solar cycle #25 due to begin anytime between now and the year 2020.
When I forecasted back in 2006 that the world would enter global cooling just before the Sun entered its Grand Minimum and would see an increase in large magnitude earthquakes and numerous volcanic eruptions, some conventional scientists derided me by saying that there was no physical mechanism.
This, despite the fact that I named that mechanism which is electromagnetic and penetration of galactic cosmic rays into our solar system.
Then, two years later, in 2008, NASA announced that a close link between electrical disturbances on the edge of our atmosphere and impending earthquakes on the ground below has been found.
The finding fell into agreement with additional scientific studies performed by other space research institutes.
For example, orbiting satellites above the Earth picked up disturbances that were 100 to 600 kilometers above regions that have later been hit by earthquakes.
Fluctuation in the density of electrons and other electrically-charged particles in the Earths ionosphere have been observed, and huge signals have been detected many times before large magnitude earthquakes struck.
These are climatic events which feature seismic activity connected to atmospheric disturbances caused by celestial bodies and the Suns quiescent phase, which is underway.
During times when the Earths axis rotation slows, in concert with the Suns minimum output and weakened heliosphere allows cosmic rays to enter our solar system and straight into the Earths atmosphere.
Planetary modulation relative to the Earth and the condition of the Interplanetary Magnetic Field (IMF) of outer space where our planet lives and transits all play significant roles.
The fluxes of cosmic and solar radiation charges the Earths ionosphere.
The result means a rise in anomalies of the Earths geomagnetic field which produces Foucault currents also called Eddy Currents.
Eddy currents are essentially loops of electrical currents that are induced within conductors by a changing magnetic field in the conductor. This is due to Faradays law of induction.
Anyway, eddy currents flow in closed loops within conductors, in planes that are perpendicular to the magnetic field.
The eddy current heats the rocks inside faults as the shear resistant intensity and static friction limit of the rocks decrease.
This is the physical mechanism that trigger earthquakes and volcanic eruption, but it is an effect of what is happening where the Earth lives and that is in outer space.
You see, during eras of solar minimums high energy cosmic radiation can and does penetrate deep below the Earths surface.
It is the reason why most earthquakes that occur during solar minimum are deep earthquakes.
The stress on the Earths Magnetosphere during solar minimum is higher because the Suns Heliosphere is weaker which allows the high-energy charged particles of cosmic rays to flood into our solar system.
For instance, on average, the flux of cosmic rays is 20 percent or more higher during solar minimums.
Over the last 250 years consider the fact that these major volcanic eruptions took place during strong solar minimum and Grand Minimums:
*Grimvotn (Iceland) 1783/84 (14 km3)
*Tambora (Indonesia) 1810 (150 km3)
*Krakatoa 1883 (5.0 km3)
*Santa Maria (Guatemala) 1902 (4.8 km3)
*Novarupta (Alaska) 1912 (3.4 km3)
Salvatore…”All seismic activity such as earthquakes and volcanic eruptions are triggered by external pressures being forced on the Earths magnetic field”.
Kristian, having expertise in geology, will likely jump all over me for this. However, I have always questioned the geological theory that plate tectonics causes earthquakes. I say that because earthquakes have an epicentre and if 200 mile wide plates are slipping past each other one would think they’d generate 100s, if not 1000nds of quakes simultaneously.
The Earth’s magnetic field runs right through the Earth and has to be like a huge bar magnet. The field it creates surrounds the Earth and interacts with solar plasma, which is a stream of raw electrons and protons.
According to Syun Akasofu, a geoscientist, and an expert on the solar wind, the interaction produces thousands of volts and forces electrical currents through our atmosphere, the oceans, and the surface.
I like the theory that the Earth is like a giant pumpkin and as it turns, it flexes. The flexing can cause major friction in fault lines and that could generate magma and cause quakes in more localized regions of the interior.
Who knows what chaos the added electrical currents from the interaction between the magnetosphere and the solar wind can add to the fault line friction.
Salavatore,
Sorry this theory is about as difficult to swallow as the pirates caused global warming theory (or vice-versa).
Correlation (especially a weak one) is not proof of causation.
Theodore White is an astrologer, correct?
David Appell, Snape
The Peltier effect is one of three effects which together comprise the thermoelectric effect.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermoelectric_effect#Peltier_effect
entropic…”The Peltier effect is one of three effects which together comprise the thermoelectric effect”.
Show it to Norman, he doesn’t think electrons do anything in atoms but take up space.
Note the name, thermo-‘electric’ effect. Electric and electron sound similar for a reason, the electrons and their charges are the currents involved. No electrons, no thermoelectric effect.
Protons count too, but they are stuck in place. It’s the electrons that transfer heat and current. It’s the electron energy level that is responsible for heating/cooling.
TESTING SOME POST ARE NOT GOING OUT.
Entropic man
Thanks for that. Looks interesting.
Salvatore
“Snape it starts at the surface and works it way down over time.”
I’ll keep you posted.
So you must think it starts from below and works it’s way up.
Explain how and why that occurs if that is what you think?
Also explain why you think the drop in overall sea surface temperatures is a blip? A blip going on for almost a year.
— La Pangolina says:
June 16, 2018 at 12:01 PM
gbaikie says:
June 15, 2018 at 11:25 PM
Or it not clear to me, what caused the cooling of LIA.
*
Part 1
1. Maybe you should read this:
Abrupt onset of the Little Ice Age triggered by volcanism and sustained by sea-ice/ocean feedbacks
Miller & alii 2011
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2011GL050168 —
Well, I like the paper, as reading it, is says:
“However, the natural radiative forcings are either weak or, in the case of explosive volcanism, short‐lived [Robock, 2000], thus requiring substantial internal feedback. The LIA is particularly enigmatic. Despite extensive historical documentation and a wide array of proxy records that define climate change during the past millennium [Mann et al., 2008], there is no clear consensus on the timing, duration, or controlling mechanisms of the LIA.”
And I agree, “LIA is particularly enigmatic”.
I will continue finishing the paper, but I will mention, at this point in time, that I am looking for less enigmatic – “ness” regarding LIA.
And it seems LIA probably involves volcanic and solar activity.
And is related to Milankovitch cycles.
But none of these aspects could be said to be nailed down.
gbaikie says:
June 16, 2018 at 1:04 PM
And is related to Milankovitch cycles.
No, it is absolutely not!
There are three Milankovitch cycles:
– precession (about 19-22-24 Kyear);
– obliquity (about 40 Kyear);
– exxcentricity (about 95-125-400 Kyear).
gbaikie, we are for all three perfectly in the cycle’s miiddle.
Thta is in my humble opinion the reason why Mankind is present actually.
Milankovitch Cycles are more favorable for cooling now then they were during the Little Ice Age.
The geo magnetic field will enhance solar effects more now then it would have during the Little Ice Age.
–Salvatore Del Prete says:
June 16, 2018 at 1:36 PM
Milankovitch Cycles are more favorable for cooling now then they were during the Little Ice Age.–
I don’t agree because I believe we are recovering from the LIA.
And I don’t think even in thousand years, we are particularly closer to having it be more favorable for cooling.
But we are cold right now and I want the world to get warmer. And I think eventually, humans will be able to make Earth warmer [and cost much less than present effort to make Earth cooler].
Precession and obliquity two Milankovitch Cycles are more favorable for cooling now and have been moving in that direction for the last 8000 years when they were very unfavorable for cooling.
The geo magnetic field moderates what solar can or can not do.
Largely ignored it can act in concert with solar activity as it is now or oppose it.
When in concert I think it is a player.
I think mankind is the center of the universe- it just my opinion, and I think like it best because it pisses off all the Lefties.
–La Pangolina says:
June 16, 2018 at 12:12 PM
gbaikie says:
June 15, 2018 at 11:25 PM
And generally think there is lack of understanding of what causes cooling
I disagree.
Much has been done until now in that direction, e.g. investigations concerning possible causes of earlier collapses of the Thermohaline Circulation.
A resumee of this can be found for example in
An Abrupt Climate Change Scenario and Its Implications for United States National Security
Peter Schwartz and Do-ug Randall 2003
http://tinyurl.com/y8owdsqg
The latter might appear very alarmist to us, but it is nevertheless an interesting point of view.–
From link:
“Drawing upon compelling evidence from stratigraphic and geomorphic data, physical volcanology, radiocarbon dating, tephra geochemistry, and chronicles, we argue the source of this long-sought eruption is the Samalas volcano, adjacent to Mount Rinjani on Lombok Island, Indonesia. At least 40 km3 (dense-rock equivalent) of tephra were deposited and the eruption column reached an altitude of up to 43 km. ”
Well I agree that volcano in tropics could have large effect.
And if above described volcano occurred, today, I would be quite worried about it.
gbaikie…”Abrupt onset of the Little Ice Age triggered by volcanism and sustained by sea-ice/ocean feedbacks….”
That was at the start, there were also two major solar minima during the LIA, Maunder and Dalton. There may have been others.
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2011GL050168
WRONG!
Volcanos part of it as a consequence of very low solar activity as well as the ocean/ice feedbacks.
All again a s a consequence of prolonged minimum solar activity. Which they do not understand. WRONG!
Salvatore, you are like many commenters very quick here with contradiction.
What about a paper reference proving that?
I just posted articles all day today explaining all of this including the solar /volcanic connection.
I explained the whole solar/climate connection(as I see it) there is not much more for me to add.
https://climatebusters.org/
re:
“I explained the whole solar/climate connection(as I see it) there is not much more for me to add.” – Salvatore Del Prete
So:
“One solar climate mechanism/connection theory which has much merit in my opinion, is as follows:
A BRIEF OVERVIEW. At times of low solar irradiance the amounts of sea ice in the Nordic Sea increase, this ice is then driven south due to the atmospheric circulation (also due to weak solar conditions) creating a more northerly air flow in this area.(-NAO) This sea ice then melts in the Sub Polar Atlantic, releasing fresh water into the sub- polar Atlantic waters, which in turn impedes the formation of NADW,…”
I will note this is a slow current and requiring, time.
But such mechanism is discussed a fair amount {there are number of papers, dealing broadly with this, out there}.
Continuing:
“To elaborate on the above, when the sun enters a prolonged solar minimum condition an overall reduction takes place in solar spectral irradiance, namely in UV light (wavelengths less then 400 nm)….”
Ok.
“UV light reduction likely will cause ocean heat content and ocean surface temperatures to drop, due to the fact that UV light in the range of 280 nm-400nm penetrates the ocean surface to depths of 50-100 meters.”
Or I could say, in the common pseudo jargon: less energy is “lost to ocean”, more energy goes to “global warming” {air temperature increases}. One gets immediate results rather warming entire planet. Though immediate results could have negative feed backs which common pseudo yakking does not want to mentioned.
Though those who like the Iris effect might want to discuss.
I will skip ahead to MECHANISM TWO.
” A reduction of the solar wind during a prolonged solar minimum event would cause more galactic cosmic rays to enter the earth’s atmosphere which would promote more aerosol formation thus more cloud nucleation. The result more clouds higher albedo, cooler temperatures.
Compounding this would be a weaker geo magnetic field which would allow more galactic cosmic ray penetration into the atmosphere , while perhaps causing excursions of the geo magnetic poles to occur in that they would be in more southern latitudes concentrating incoming galactic cosmic rays in these southern latitudes where more moisture would be available for the cosmic rays to work with, making for greater efficiency in the creation of clouds.”
I don’t have much to say about this.
MECHANISM THREE:
“MILANKOVITCH CYCLES overall favor N.H. cooling and an increase in snow cover over N.H high latitudes during the N.H summers due to the fact that perihelion occurs during the N.H. winter (highly favorable for increase summer snow cover), obliquity is 23.44 degrees which is at least neutral for an increase summer N.H. snow cover, while eccentricity of the earth’s orbit is currently at 0.0167 which is still elliptical enough to favor reduced summertime solar insolation in the N.H. and thus promote more snow cover.
In addition the present geographical arrangements of the oceans versus continents is very favorable for glaciation.”
I would say NH has more land, and land is where glaciers form.
And I will limit my comment to that.
MECHANISM FOUR:
“High latitude major volcanic eruptions correlate to prolonged solar minimum periods which translates to stratospheric warming due to an increase in SO2 particles while promoting more lower troposphere cooling….”
hmm. Can’t say I heard that before.
Though:
“One theory of many behind the solar/volcanic connection is that MUONS, a by product of galactic cosmic rays can affect the calderas of certain volcanoes by changing the chemical composition of the matter within the silica rich magma creating aerosols which increase pressure in the magma chamber and hence lead to an explosive eruption.” I heard mentioned.
As for former, what about the crazy Chinese and their SO2 emissions?
Thanks for posting that. I pretty much stand by that with a minor adjustments here or there. You do evolve some but my basic argument is the same.
I stand by it.
gbaikie…”To elaborate on the above, when the sun enters a prolonged solar minimum condition an overall reduction takes place in solar spectral irradiance, namely in UV light (wavelengths less then 400 nm).”
Climate modelers and alarmists, being myopically focused on the IR band, would likely not notice. They would see no evidence.
I feel the same about N2 and O2 in the atmosphere, no one is really taking any notice. A serious study of N2 with modern instrumentation is not that in-depth. It’s known to absorb in the IR band and there’s a whole lot of it.
Salvatore…”Volcanos part of it as a consequence of very low solar activity as well as the ocean/ice feedbacks”.
Which begs the question, what else is going on during a solar minima besides a lack of Sun spots?
but that an explanation of the LIA does not require a solar trigger.
That is what that article says gbaikie at the end. They do not know what they are talking about.
Sal
“So you must think it starts from below and works its way up.
Explain how and why that occurs if that is what you think?
Also explain why you think the drop in overall sea surface temperatures is a blip? A blip going on for almost a year.”
The ocean is a giant heat sink. Water has a high heat capacity, and the oceans are very deep. Takes a long time to warm or cool, but as you can see, the overall temperature has been steadily increasing, warmest ever last quarter.
*********
Independent of the overall average, the surface temperature can fluctuate up and down very quickly, by virtue of convection……upwelling and downwelling currents.
Downwelling currents in the tropical oceans carry warm surface water to depths…..cooling the surface and atmosphere. Typical of la nina.
Opposite with upwelling currents.
As Norman pointed out, DWLWIR is absorbed by the surface of the ocean much like its absorbed by the land surface. Main difference, land only carries the heat a short ways (conduction). Oceans can carry the heat to great depths (conduction + convection).
Not adequate.
Explain why all of the oceans for the most part are now in a cooling trend for the past year.
I do not care about ENSO.
So what is causing convection, upwelling and down welling currents to cause virtually all of the oceans all over the globe to cool now as opposed to warming earlier?
You apparently do not think it just might be less energy input coming into the oceans via the surface ?
Why? I am interested.
Infrared radiation is not the oceanic temperature driver it is UV /Near UV light that is.
AGW has an answer for everything like pulling rabbits out of a hat.
Salvatore
Whether you care or not, la nina (downwelling) has influenced average ocean skin temperature during the past year.
Less INPUT into the ocean should cause the ocean as a whole to cool. We’ve seen the opposite, long term warming capped by consective OHC records……..last quarter of 2017 followed by an even warmer first quarter 2018.
Increase in DWLWIR has outpaced decrease in solar.
Snap, you can not answer my question. Fine.
Do you have the ability to look forward?
Increase DWLWIR has nothing to do with ocean temperatures. ZERO.
All of the increase was due to strong solar conditions 1850-2005.
Time will tell . In the meantime overall oceanic temperatures are in a nice down trend and if this continues you will have to explain why.
I already have explained it.
That’s all a huge simplicifcation. Fits well with the observations, however.
An excellent review of the Milankovitch Cycles
http://www.indiana.edu/~geol105/images/gaia_chapter_4/milankovitch.htm
1. Eccentricity
At present the orbital eccentricity is nearly at the minimum of its cycle.
2. Axial tilt
At present, axial tilt is in the middle of its range.
3. Precession
At present, the Earth is at perihelion very close to the winter solstice (winters with Earth nearest to the sun).
Thus we are ten thousands of years away from any Milankovitch-based cooling period.
–An excellent review of the Milankovitch Cycles
http://www.indiana.edu/~geol105/images/gaia_chapter_4/milankovitch.htm —
“It is of primary importance to explain that climate change, and subsequent periods of glaciation, resulting from the following three variables is not due to the total amount of solar energy reaching Earth. ”
This interesting. This is also claiming Milankovitch Cycles don’t affect the time period of the year.
If we re-arrange it, one could also say if the year time period of a year is not changed the amount average sunlight over a year period does not change.
Which bring to my mind other things. Our moon has same year as Earth does. And any moon of Earth has same year as Earth. And any satellite of Earth has same year as Earth. And all receive same amount of sunlight on average per year compared to each other.
And to annoy some, do all of them have the same time?
But anyhow, I was uncertain about Earth having the same year time period in regards to Milankovitch Cycles, or failed to notice this claim that it was the case.
Now, not in regards to Milankovitch Cycles, has Earth year time period changed, as seem to recall some mention of it.
It seems if year is longer, it’s colder, and warmer if shorter.
https://www.quora.com/How-does-the-length-of-a-year-change-over-time
—
4 billion years ago, it took 1450 days to make one year and each night and day was 6 hours. It took approximately 8700 hours for the earth to orbit the sun.
2 billion years ago, it took 800 days to make one year and each night and day was 11 hours. It took approximately 8700 hours for the earth to orbit the sun.
1 billion years ago, it took 500 days to make one year and each night and day was 17 hours. It took approximately 8700 hours for the earth to orbit the sun.
1/2 billion years ago, it took 450 days to make one year and each night and day was 19 1/2 hours. It took approximately 8700 hours for the earth to orbit the sun.
Today, it takes 365 days to make one year and each night and day is 24 hours. It takes approximately 8700 hours for the earth to orbit the sun.
There are fewer days in one orbit because the earths rotation is slowing down. The earths speed around the sun is about the same.
—
Source: Earth’s History
https://earthdevelopslife.blogspot.com/
So, what I was probably thinking about was the longer day.
Milankovitch Cycles apply to the long climatic picture.
Right now precession favors cooling.
Axial tilt neutral.
Eccentricity does not favor cooling.
That said 8000 years ago none of them favored cooling or were neutral.
–Salvatore Del Prete says:
June 16, 2018 at 6:24 PM
Milankovitch Cycles apply to the long climatic picture.
Right now precession favors cooling.–
Why?
—
Axial tilt neutral.
Eccentricity does not favor cooling.
That said 8000 years ago none of them favored cooling or were neutral.
—
Axial tilt goes from 21.5 to 24.5 degrees in 41,000 years and we at
about 23.5 degrees. And if instead it was 21.5 or 24.5 one call it not neutral and 23.5 is somewhere in middle so neutral-ish.
And I assume if at 21.5 degrees it takes 41,000 years to go to 24.5 degrees and back to 21.5 degrees.
Not sure which direction we going but let’s guess it from 24.5 going to 21.5, so take 20500 years to go from 24.5 to 21.5 or
20500 years to go 3 degrees which is about 7000 years per degree or we about 7000 years from the time, our axis tilt was 24.5 degrees, and about 14,000 years before at axis tilt of 21.5 [or tropics gets the smallest]. So 8000 years ago, we had tilt of about 24.5 [and what we call the tropics was near the biggest area]. And though presently it might be called neutral, I don’t see why 8000 years age would be called neutral.
Salvatore
“Infrared radiation is not the oceanic temperature driver it is UV /Near UV light that is.”
AGW has an answer for everything like pulling rabbits out of a hat.”
*******
Then let’s instead look at an argument popular among skeptics:
a two decade DECREASE in short wave flux at the TOA, explains the observed INCREASE in ocean heat content over the same time period.
Brilliant.
I never said that.
a two decade DECREASE in short wave flux etc.
I was referring to that statement.
Kristian,
Since it’s pointless expecting thermal effects to arise from the absorp-tion by a molecule of a single photon, simply because such a process is intrinsically so far removed from the realm where temperatures and thermal effects actually exist to begin with, then it stands to reason that the absorp-tion of a TRILLION extra photons won’t in itself make anything warmer either.
EM Radiation from the sun does not warm the Earth (above the temperature of the background state + inner temp).
That’s the consequence of the above quote.
Radiation doesn’t warm anything. Only changes in NET heat flow???
Your thermodynamic sect is way too puritan.
I noted that you agree with the colloquial way of putting it above. Your issue is with ‘back radiation’.
barry says, June 16, 2018 at 4:41 PM:
No, it isn’t. You obviously have a mental block somewhere, preventing you from accepting certain basic physical truths about the world.
It is the NET input from the Sun that warms us, barry. Not its radiant exitance at 1AU, what we experience as the “Total Solar Irradiance (TSI)”.
Heat is what heats. Always. Not radiation itself. Radiation isn’t itself heat. It is ‘energy’, but not ‘heat’. Heat [Q] is simply equal to the NET exchange of energy in a thermal transfer between two objects or regions at different temperatures.
The solar heat is called ASR (“Absorbed Solar Radiation”). It is the Net SW (SW_in – SW_out) from the Sun to Earth, the TSI (340 W/m^2) minus the reflected portion of it (100 W/m^2, ~29-30%): 240 W/m^2.
Not ‘net HEAT flow’, barry. The heat flow IS the net. But, yeah, exactly! It’s called heat transfer! It seems you’re finally slowly starting to pick up what I’m putting down … Good for you!
No. It’s just thermodynamics. Nothing spooky.
Not really. My ‘issue’ is only with the emphasis put on it, and with the role it is given; basically, with the way it is treated.
It is treated as if it were a separate, independent macroscopic flux of energy to the surface of the Earth, right next to and fully equivalent to the solar (heat) flux, when it is NO SUCH THING!
And people are completely confused as to cause and effect in the Earth system because of it.
That is my ‘issue’.
Kristian says, June 17, 2018 at 3:08 AM:
Well, yes, it is.
It is treated as if it were a separate, independent macroscopic flux of energy to the surface of the Earth, right next to and fully equivalent to the solar (heat) flux, when it is NO SUCH THING!
And people are completely confused as to cause and effect in the Earth system because of it.
The sun is the cause of all (or 99.99%) of activity in the earth system.
What do you think people get wrong? That back radiation from the surface warms the atmosphere, causing more warming at the surface? Is it this articulation that bothers you?
Why they say so is clearer from the perspective of the green plate exercise. The blue plate temperature increases because it is receiving more energy from the green plate.
That is a physical fact. It is more of a basic, material fact than the next extrapolation, which is the NET exchange you would have everyone defer to at the expense of a bidirectional view.
If the green plate were transparent to radiation, the blue plate would not get any warmer. If the green plate absorbed radiation but did not emit it, it would get warmer (until it exploded) but the blue plate would not.
The blue plate gets warmer because the green plate is emitting radiation to it. That is simple and straightforward. It’s not an unphysical explanation. But it’s thermodynamically heretical, at least according to your rather strict school of thinking.
Here is MIT breaking down NET exchange of energy via a two-way exchange.
http://web.mit.edu/16.unified/www/FALL/thermodynamics/notes/node137.html
There’s nothing wrong with that model.
There’s nothing wrong with pointing out that this thermodynamic model is bidirectional, and that the resulting NET exchange is derived from a subtracting equation.
If the cooler body were to warm, so would the warmer body, using those equations.
The NET flow will always be hot to cold.
The 2nd Law is only
only
ONLY
about the NET flow of heat.
2nd Law does not consider 2-way exchange. So talking about 2-way exchange does not impinge on the 2nd Law.
People saying the cooler body makes the warm one warmer are using non-thermo language. Big deal.
Everyone here knows that the NET flow must be hot to cold. That there is a constant 2-way (multi-way) exchange. That the atmosphere doesn’t create energy, just reduces the rate at which energy flows from the surface to space.
I don’t think anyone here would disagree with any of those statements.
The disagreements tend to be on ridiculously fine points.
So it seems to me.
“People saying the cooler body makes the warm one warmer are using non-thermo language. Big deal.”
That is what happens though. Heating an object increases its temperature.
Experimentally introducing the cooler green object increases the temperature of the warmer blue object by 1LOT. The entropy of the warmer object is increased so no problem with 2LOT either.
Thus it is equally good thermodynamics to write the cooler green object is heating the warmer blue object as the energy balance eqn.s show and that is allowed by 2LOT – BUT you have to fundamentally understand the 2LOT is an entropy law to understand the lingo. Many fail that essential part of thermodynamics.
Barry,
“If the cooler body were to warm, so would the warmer body, using those equations.”
This is a good example of incorrectly applying textbook info. The MIT link you provided explains radiation between two bodies. There is no external input mentioned. There has to be external input which at least maintains the hotter body’s temperature if the colder body is going to warm it further.
Without the external input, warming the cold body will only slow the cooling of the hotter body. It would never warm it using those equations.
“People saying the cooler body makes the warm one warmer are using non-thermo language. Big deal.”
Saying that without accurately describing the system IS non-thermo and IS a big deal.
To me that is a very important fine point which causes disagreements when ignored.
A case in point is the earlier reply:
“Heating an object increases its temperature.”
This is not always the case. Without specifying the system, the door is open to disagreement.
“This is not always the case.”
Please, then, show an example where heating an object does not increase the object’s temperature in the new equilibrium state.
This is a good example of incorrectly applying textbook info. The MIT link you provided explains radiation between two bodies. There is no external input mentioned. There has to be external input which at least maintains the hotter bodys temperature if the colder body is going to warm it further.
Yes, I had an external input in mind. I usually write here with the ‘green plate‘ context as the frame, as so much conversation here assumes a system with an external input (or internal heat source to the warmer object). But the conversation ranges and I don’t always get the balance between brevity and required context right.
barry says, June 17, 2018 at 5:56 AM:
You being serious!? I’ve explained it to you now a dozen or so times.
No, the HEAT from the surface warms the atmosphere, barry. Jeez!
No, this is the kind of explanation that ISN’T bothering me. When the surface heats the atmosphere, the atmosphere ends up warmer than space, which means the temperature difference between the solar-heated surface and its thermal surroundings is reduced, which in turn means that its heat loss at equal temp will be smaller, which will lead to a net accumulation of energy at the surface (Q_in > Q_out), which will force the surface to warm.
No. And I just explained you why it isn’t. Receiving more energy doesn’t make you warmer per se. Your NET energy output needs to be reduced while you net input stays unchanged. THEN you’ll get warmer.
MICRO vs. MACRO. You just don’t want to get the distinction. This is NOT a semantic issue, barry. It is a PHYSICS issue. You don’t get the physics. Which is why you think that terminology, definitions and process explanations don’t matter. It does. In physics that’s precisely what matters. The language doesn’t dictate the physics. The physics dictates the language. Use the correct language and you might understand the physics.
The way you’re operating, barry, you will never understand the physics.
You don’t get to EXPLAIN the increase in U and T of a warmer object as the direct result of an extra input of energy from a cooler object. Because that would mean that the extra input of energy from the cooler object acts just like a HEAT input to the warmer object. Which is in violation of the 2nd Law. So, the observed effect is real, but your explanation of it needs to change. You need to drop the MICRO perspective.
Thermal effects are ALWAYS about the NET exchange. MACRO perspective.
End of story.
Net exchange is not at the expense of a bidirectional view, barry. Keep your bidirectional model. But the two opposing ‘hemifluxes’ can’t ever operate independently from the other. That’s all you need to bear in mind.
They operate simultaneously. Yet you can describe each action separately.
In your coin example, two things happen simultaneously. Yet you can describe each action separately.
The MIT page I cited even gives the maths as a 2-WAY expression, and clearly articulates that one accounts for the energy being received by the one surface and then the other, even though they are at different temperatures.
“The blue plate temperature increases because it is receiving more energy from the green plate.
That is a physical fact.”
No. And I just explained you why it isnt. Receiving more energy doesnt make you warmer per se. Your NET energy output needs to be reduced while you net input stays unchanged. THEN youll get warmer.
In the green plate experiment, the blue plate gets radiation from the sun. The green plate is introduced, receiving radiation from the blue plate.
How does the blue plate ‘know’ to reduce its energy output and heat up when the green plate appears?
It does this because of radiative energy being received from the green plate after the green plate has been introduced.
Whether or not this is heresy to you, this is the fact. There is no other physical way the blue plate has its rate of energy loss changed by the green.
And the radiation from the green plate is entirely dependent on the radiation from the blue plate. They are inextricably linked (in proxima). But both fluxes are identifiable. MIT has equations for them.
http://web.mit.edu/16.unified/www/FALL/thermodynamics/notes/node137.html
The 2 things happen simultaneously, so that at all times the NET flow of HEAT is hot to cold.
And if you believe that I am ignoring some infinitesimal delay here, where for a pico-second the green plate is ‘warming’ the blue one before the interaction is mutual – this means absolutely nothing to the 2nd Law because the 2nd Law is only interested in NET exchange and bulk (beginning and end) states.
But there is no pico-second delay, because at the appearance of the green plate, the blue plate is sending radiation to it, warming it. I’d say that happens first.
You can’t, as you said, observe single photons and talk about each one warming anything. It’s a barrage of photons en masse from each direction. It’s an average. And it happens in 2 directions (simplified).
Here’s the math again.
http://web.mit.edu/16.unified/www/FALL/thermodynamics/notes/node137.html
So, I don’t see the 2 fluxes operating independently. But I see 2 ‘fluxes’. I speak about them individually, knowing all the time that they are dependent.
How does that work for you?
barry says, June 18, 2018 at 8:03 AM:
Of course you can. However, that doesn’t MAKE them separate thermodyncamic entities/quantities.
* * *
The dime analogy (of MICRO vs. MACRO):
Imagine you have your hand stretched out with the open palm facing up. In your palm lie two dimes. A person is standing right in front of your outstretched hand, holding a single dime. In this situation, you represent the surface, the person in front of you represents the atmosphere, and the dimes represent photons.
Now here’s what happens: The person holding the single dime places it in your palm with his one hand at the very same moment as he grabs the two dimes that were there already with the other, removing them from your hand. That is, he performs these two separate operations simultaneously.
The question then becomes: Did you ever have THREE dimes in your hand during this exchange?
The answer is of course “No”. First you had TWO. Then you had ONE. And that’s it. The first of the original two was simply exchanged with another one, while the second was lost.
People, however, have this instinctive, almost monomaniacal tendency – I would almost call it an ‘urge’ – to look at and interpret ONE of these operations (‘events’) at a time, and to just adamantly stick to that approach, an approach that is fundamentally mathematical rather than physical in both origin and application. It basically derives from how our human mind works. It always seeks order and simplicity even when and where there is none to be found. And it does so for a very simple reason: To get a grasp of how things really work. You need to pick the clock apart in order to understand what makes it tick. That is, start by breaking things down into their most basic, irreducible constituents and then work your way up from there. And this has of course turned out to be an exceedingly successful method for gaining knowledge. It has served us well. And still does. However, it CAN also be misapplied. We should be careful not to follow it blindly. Sometimes our mental compartmentalisation process goes too far. We end up “seeing” things (and/or potential connections between things) that aren’t really … real; or meaningful, or relevant to what we’re actually trying to get a grasp of. And so we end up confusing ourselves instead. Mostly regarding “cause and effect”.
In this case, conflating specific phenomena of the MICRO and MACRO realms is the pitfall to beware. Invoking a distinctly QUANTUM MECHANICAL quantity and/or process to justify or explain an inherently THERMODYNAMIC effect is simply profoundly misunderstood … And people just don’t seem to get exactly HOW misunderstood it really is.
What most people do is simply analysing the effect of each operation (‘event’) in the analogy above IN ISOLATION from the other one, in fact from everything else. They estimate its effect AS IF the other (opposing) one didn’t happen at the exact same time. They only regard the photon absorp-tion and “forget” or “ignore” the simultaneous (and larger) photon emission. Such a narrow scope doesn’t work if you want to discuss THERMODYNAMIC effects. Then you will only fool yourself into thinking that we’re dealing with two SEPARATE thermodynamic processes in one. We’re not. There aren’t. There is just the one. The one instantaneous exchange.
There are two distinct ways of seeing this exchange, two ‘perspectives’, so to say:
#1 The MICROscopic (quantum mechanical) perspective, and
#2 the MACROscopic (thermodynamical) perspective.
Both are in a sense ‘real’, but they address very different aspects of ‘reality’.
What people tend to do is mix them up, or rather somehow merge them into one and the same perspective. And that’s where the confusion arises.
It is claimed (or at least very much implied) that the atmosphere (the person originally holding the single dime) ADDS energy to the surface (the palm of your outstreched hand). However, this is only correct in the MICROscopic perspective, that is, IF – and only if – we choose to follow ONE particular photon (dime) through the exchange and ignore the other two; that is, the photon/dime originally held by the person in front of you, coming IN from ‘the atmosphere’.
THAT individual photon (and the energy it carries) is indeed ADDED to the surface in this exchange. But as I pointed out above, this circumstance isn’t “meaningful, or relevant to what we’re actually trying to get a grasp of”. Which is whether or not ‘energy’ (in the generic sense, not one particular quantum of energy) was added from the atmosphere to the surface during the exchange. The MACROscopic perspective.
What they do is “Invoking a distinctly QUANTUM MECHANICAL quantity and/or process to justify or explain an inherently THERMODYNAMIC (thermal) effect”.
Did the atmosphere ADD energy equivalent to the energy of a single photon to the surface during the exchange? No. It added one PARTICULAR photon, yes, but it removed two OTHER photons at the exact same time. From the very same surface. Your hand.
So what ACTUALLY happened? The energy associated with one of the two photons/dimes that you held in your hand originally was simply EXCHANGED with the energy associated with the one photon/dime originally held by the ‘atmosphere’ person in front of you. The other one was lost (removed by the ‘atmosphere’ person), without compensation.
And so, the NET effect – the THERMODYNAMIC (macroscopic) effect – of the thermal radiative exchange between sfc and atm is that the atmosphere doesn’t add ANY energy at all to the surface (zero dimes), while the surface gives IT some energy (one dime), but LESS energy than it would’ve handed to space in the same situation (two dimes).
* * *
And THIS is where the THERMAL effect arises. ONLY here. Not in each single photon absorp-tion/emission event, barry.
It is only in changing the NET that you might cause a change in TEMPERATURE.
To make it even plainer:
The warmer object doesn’t and can’t get warmer simply from its molecules absorbing photons. Those are individual quantum events and have, in themselves, nothing at all to do with the temperature of the whole object. Molecule & photon: MICRO; object: MACRO.
The warmer object will and can only get warmer as its NET LOSS of photons (its ‘net energy exchange surplus’) is reduced.
So when and how is this net loss reduced? When the cooler object becomes warmer, hence radiating more photons towards the warmer object.
So, yes, it IS because the cooler object, now being warmer than before, happens to radiate more photons towards the warmer object. But it is NOT a direct result of the actual extra photon absorp-tions from the cooler object. It is ONLY because the higher temperature of the cooler object ends up making the NET radiative exchange between it and the warmer object smaller than before:
σ(T_h^4 – T_c^4) => σ(333^4 – 300^4) = 238 W/m^2
σ(T_h^4 – T_c^4) => σ(333^4 – 310^4) = 173.5 W/m^2
The radiative heat transfer from h to c (effectively h‘s radiative heat LOSS) decreases from 238 to 173.5 W/m^2 as c warms from 300 to 310 K.
Sure, but as you’ll notice, the two operations are always brought together in the end as ONE process. They never pretend that each one is itself an actually separate, independent thermodynamic process. The thermodynamic/thermal effect is always to be found only in the NET of the two.
Mathematics vs. physics. Method/model vs. reality. Feynman: “Physics is not mathematics, and mathematics is not physics. One helps the other.”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MZZPF9rXzes
K, So many words just to say don’t end your sentences with a preposition. Its not proper.
But what is the consequence? Is there any?
If researchers want to treat radiation as a two-way exchange, and regularly make separate measurements of each of those. Good on them. It works well.
And its even taught that way.
So what’s the point?
“Did the atmosphere ADD energy equivalent to the energy of a single photon to the surface during the exchange? No. It added one PARTICULAR photon, yes, but it removed two OTHER photons at the exact same time. ”
Really, the exact same time? No, no way. It is random and independent.
Barry and Ball4, please stop trolling.
DREMT, please stop trolling
Impersonator, please stop trolling.
b,
Do you believe that increasing the amount of CO2 between the Sun and a thermometer makes the thermometer hotter?
I don’t, but it seems that many delusional self proclaimed experts do.
What is your considered view?
Cheers.
I think your premise is a straw man.
My considered view is that if the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere increases to a non-negligible degree over time, the surface will warm, all else being equal.
As Dr Spencer, his colleague John Christie, Anthony Watts, Roger Pielke Snr and Richard Lindzen all agree with that premise, I think my view is on safer ground than residing with those who reject this proposition.
Of course, my view is not based on what they think.
But it pleases me to point out that even qualified skeptics don’t deny the enhanced GHE.
I invited posters engaging in a discussion about adding fluxes to continue it from here:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2018/06/uah-global-temperature-update-for-may-2018-0-18-deg-c/#comment-307170
A synopsis:
300 W/m2 from ice can’t add be added to warm a 1 m2 surface above 273K.
Sunlight (600 W/m2?) can be added to give 1200 W/m2 and warm a 1 m2 surface to ?.
Ten (or more?) 3000K (5 million W/m2) light bulbs plus mirrors can’t add to make a 1 m2 surface hotter than 3000K.
What are the formulas that are applicable?
Chic, let’s number your three scenarios, for clarity.
1) True
2) False, except in special cases.
3) True
JDHuffman,
One principle seems to be that an object can’t warm another object any warmer than itself. What about the special cases on 2)? When are fluxes addable?
Exactly, an object cannot raise temperatures higher than it is.
That’s why fluxes can’t be added, arithmetically.
In the case of the Sun (#2), the emitted flux spreads out as it travels to Earth (inverse-square law). So, at Earth’s surface, you can re-combine the flux with a magnifying glass. This is not “adding”. as the flux was spread out and the magnifying glass just “un-spreads” it. No new flux is created.
If you’re trying to understand why fluxes don’t add, think of a flux as a temperature. Then, you can easier understand because you have more intuitive knowledge of temperatures than you do fluxes. For example, if you have two separate rooms, connected by a closed door, both at 25 degrees, and you open the door, do the temperatures add (25 +25 = 50)?
Of course not.
It’s the same with fluxes.
‘Exactly, an object cannot raise temperatures higher than it is.
That’s why fluxes can’t be added, arithmetically.’
Nope. One does not follow from the other.
All fluxes hitting a spot will add, otherwise energy is gone missing, and that’s a big no-no.
You are failing to consider that all the objects are radiating, and only the NET radiation has an effect on temperature.
So of course, if an is object surrounded by ice, radiating at 300 W/m2, the object will reach a temp (ice) where it is radiating 300 W/m^2, unless there is another source of energy. Then the NET is 0.
Nate,
I hate to play logic police, but Chic Bowdrie’s my name (not really) and that’s my game.
JDHuffman has given an example where fluxes don’t add (additional ice blocks don’t help one warm an object above 273K).
This one example shows that ALL fluxes don’t add. I want to compose a statement that will clearly indicate when and how fluxes do add.
With respect I do appreciate your effort, but your analysis is confusing me.
“JDHuffman has given an example where fluxes dont add (additional ice blocks dont help one warm an object above 273K).”
JD’s writing is confused as Tim points out: 300 W/m^2 from a m^2 ice block is still 300W/m^2 by adding another m^2 of ice. Not 600 W/m^2.
Nate and Ball4, PST.
‘Think of a flux as temperature’
That would lead one astray, since flux is not equivalent to temperature.
Nate, please stop trolling.
Chic Bowdrie
I still think this is an excellent example showing fluxes adding in the real world. You can see that by creating a vacuum the temperature of the blue plate went up. It reached a higher steady state because the heat loss mechanisms of conduction and convection were greatly reduced.
When the green plate was moved up the blue plate warmed more.
The two fluxes were adding energy to the blue plate. The outside energy source of the light and the radiant energy of the green plate.
https://app.box.com/s/5wxidf87li5bo588q2xhcfxhtfy52oba
This result was predicted by Eli Rabbet in a thought experiment and it did exactly as predicted.
You can use a similar device to get real good results that energy fluxes add. You can do this by controlling the temperature of the green plate directly (adding or removing energy to maintain a certain equilibrium temperature). Since the blue plate has two sides both sides are able to receive incoming energy. You could then go about and start making predictions on the the steady state temperature of the blue plate based upon what you do with the green plate temperature. You will find you can directly control the steady state temperature of the blue plate by changing the temperature of the green plate.
Chic Bowdrie
If you want equations to find out how energy will add to a surface you will have to use these.
https://tinyurl.com/y8thsgcp
The material presented here will give you many potential equations to use to determine the amount of energy reaching a surface from other surrounding surfaces. If you use this material for a given setup you can see how the fluxes will add, the ones that reach the surface will be the ones to be added.
If you want simple systems the E. Swanson set-up is the best. You have two faces to add energy to that are distinct and separate. Energy will be absorbed only at the surface at each and won’t make it to the opposing side. The surfaces are only linked via conduction, the amount of energy each one is able to absorb will be distinct to whatever is in their surroundings.
Did you think I was interested in net energy flows? Well I am, in the other thread, if you are ready to abandon your cold adds to hot mentality.
Here I was inviting further discussion about adding heat fluxes from sources to a given surface. Not a bell jar scenario.
If you have a relevant application from your link, please share it.
Norman,
Apparently you did not realize the point of me suggesting to connect a wire from the green plate to the bell jar. That simulates how convection cools the surface.
You can play a lot of games with Swanson’s bell jar. Knock yourself out. It will not prevent heat from always flowing from hot to cold.
Chic Bowdrie
Download this textbook on heat transfer if you have time and read chapter 10. This chapter deals with radiant heat transfer.
http://web.mit.edu/lienhard/www/ahtt.html
I think you will understand where I am coming from if you take some time to read. Also note the use of qnet for heat flow and read what that means.
Nate says:
June 16, 2018 at 6:07 PM
Chic (earlier): If you calibrate a 100 Watt spot to deliver 100 W to a 1 m2 surface, how are three of those 100 W spots going to supply more heat than a 1 m2 block of ice?
Nate: You are leaving out some elements of the problem. If you are in space, looking at 3K, placing a 1 m2 block of ice in front of you will cause you to warm. The ice is emitting ~ 300 W/m^2 while space is emitting close to 0 W/m^2.
Chic (now): I didn’t know any elements of the problem had been defined. That is why I asked the question. Now you seem to be saying ice will only warm something with a lower temperature.
Nate: If you are in a room at normal temp, than a 1 m^2 block of ice will not warm you, it is blocking out the much warmer walls emitting more than 300 W/m^2.
Nate: If you are in a normal room, with 3 100 W lights shining on you than those Watts are added to whatevr the walls are already shining on you. So you feel warmer.
You did not define the 100W source so I did as something delivering 100 W/m2. Supposing the walls are ice. How many 100 W/m2 spot lights will it take to warm me?
Chic,
“Nate: If you are in space, looking at 3K, placing a 1 m2 block of ice in front of you will cause you to warm. The ice is emitting ~ 300 W/m^2 while space is emitting close to 0 W/m^2.
Chic (now): Now you seem to be saying ice will only warm something with a lower temperature.”
No. As you can clearly see, I said in that particular situation, the presence of the block of ice caused you to warm.
Because being exposed to a surface that is warmer, will cause you to warm. Its all relative.
‘Supposing the walls are ice. How many 100 W/m2 spot lights will it take to warm me?’
Clearly, you will be warmer with any number of lights added, relative to just ice.
Nate,
If I understand your “looking at 3K” system, you are describing a colder version of Swanson’s experiment. I understand that, but how does it apply to adding fluxes?
I was trying to confirm my suspicion that, with a 100 W/m2 light source, it would take at least three to make it to the ice power. But according to JDHuffman, three could not get anything above the temperature of a 100 W/m2 power source, because those fluxes don’t add.
Understand my question now? We need to distinguish between W/m2 power sources and ?? Watt spot lights with filaments above 1000K.
I think the issue is this. Fluxes add when they are striking the same point on the same surface. Clearly if I point one spot light on you and another one on Roy, then their fluxes don’t add.
Similarly with the 1m^2 ice block, if you are up close you can get almost the full 300 W/m^2 hitting you, but as explained by Tim, at a distance, its flux spreads out, weakens and much of doesn’t hit you–you will get < 300 W/m^2.
If up close to a source like a block of ice (and getting 300 W/m^2), there is no way, geometrically, for a second block of ice to 'shine' its radiation on the same spot on you. It is blocked. Therefore it does not add its flux.
With a tiny source like a filament, it is possible, geometrically, for more than one to shine flux onto the same spot. They don't block each other. Their fluxes can add.
Yes, the 2nd paragraph makes sense. Not sure I understand the first.
And, “But the target surface can never be heated above the temperature of the heat source.” without additional heat input or an internal heat source (such as the case of a person)
“without additional heat input or an internal heat source (such as the case of a person)”
Yeah, that was meant to be included under the umbrella of external heat sources.
The third sentence of the second paragraph was difficult to phrase. I was trying to describe the physical limitation of cramming too many heat sources into the target area. At some point they would start impinging on each other’s view factor, if that’s the right term.
That sounds good. So to summarize:
Heat sources are defined to be physically confined to an area equal to or less than the target surface which has no external heat source and was initially at a lower temperature than the sources.
There is a view factor and a temperature factor limiting how much fluxes can be added. The maximum flux from a 300 W/m2 source is 300 W per m2 of surface. Fluxes from hotter sources can be added until reaching the optimum view factor configuration which prevents any further increase in W/m2. But the target surface can never be heated above the temperature of the heat source.
Is this correct?
Wrong place-see above
Chic,
Do you still have doubts about whether fluxes add?
Please don’t listen to the highly confused troll JDHuffman.
Nate,
Can a solar flux be added to DWIR? I think JDHuffman would say no.
Yes, why not? As long as it is striking the same surface.
Nate, please stop trolling.
DREMT,
What does trolling mean to you?
Hint, having real back and forth discussion is not trolling.
Nate, PST.
Oh, I see. You are a bot.
N, PST.
300 W/m2 from ice cant add be added to warm a 1 m2 surface above 273K.
True. But what if prior to the ice being introduced, the surface was first equilibrated to the input of deep space, the ultimate heat sink at about 2.5K? Would the the introduction of the ice radiating at 300 W/m2 then have some impact on the surface?
Yes, barry. The starting conditions would definitely affect the initial temperature changes. Unfortunately, I assumed it to be understood the target surface was not receiving internal or external heat input other than the ice directly over the target surface. Without those additional sources, eventually a hotter target surface would cool to not more than 273K or a cooler surface would warm to not more than 273K. Yes?
The target surface will equilibrate to whatever inputs affect it.
“Starting conditions”
Balancing brevity with context – tough when the discussion has ranged so far and become protracted. Your starting condition in this subthread seemed to presuppose a cooler surface than the ice – “ice can’t warm the surface to more than….”
It’s hard enough describing the physics, and impossible when people are in entrenched opposition to each other. Every linguistic imperfection is ammunition, any word used in more than one way by even the scientists and engineers grappling with these concepts is an opportunity to pitch your tent.
I wish you luck.
Kristian
Correct me if I’m wrong, but you think it’s incorrect to add the ONE WAY DWLWIR (333 3/m^2) contribution from the atmosphere to surface, to an ACTUAL HEAT FLUX (solar/DWSWIR, 161 w/m^2)? Micro/Macro, right?
https://scied.ucar.edu/sites/default/files/images/large_image_for_image_content/radiation_budget_kiehl_trenberth_2011_900x645.jpg
********
If that’s your argument, let me fix things!
The ONE WAY, micro contribution from sun to surface (not the net, and therefore not a heat flux)………equals ~ 161 w/m^2
Snape says, June 16, 2018 at 6:03 PM:
I don’t THINK it’s incorrect. It IS incorrect.
Mmmm, no.
Here’s Stephens et al., 2012, and their Earth Energy Budget visualised:
https://curryja.files.wordpress.com/2012/11/stephens2.gif
Pretty confusing, right? Where are the actual heat fluxes in this diagram?
Here they are:
https://okulaer.files.wordpress.com/2018/06/stephens2.png
You will (perhaps) notice that there are two crucial Earth system heat fluxes not represented here at all: the Net SW at the ToA (the solar heat flux to the Earth; the ASR_toa), and the Net LW at the surface (the radiative heat loss of the surface). It’s almost as if they didn’t exist.
No wonder people have a hard time wrapping their head around this subject …!
“Where are the actual heat fluxes in this diagram?”
There are no heat fluxes shown in Stephens as heat doesn’t exist in nature more than a measure of temperature (brightness or thermometer) of an object so the gross photonic energy fluxes (as measured by radiometers) are properly shown in Stephens; the net photonic energy flux can be summed per 1LOT, a calculation.
All of the fluxes shown absorbed by an object in Stephens chart increase the entropy of the object so they all are in accord with 2LOT also.
Ball4, please stop trolling.
Gordon Robertson
Since you included me.
YOU: “He also did it long before Bohr introduced the notion of an electron converting heat to EM and vice-versa. Bohr made it clear that bodies absorb at specific frequencies and he explained why based on the properties of the electron.
I have never seen an explanation of two way EM transfer at bodies of different temperatures based on electron theory. Even Norman steers clear of atomic theory preferring to view molecules as magical devices that can somehow vibrate on their own, independent of the electrons and protons that make up molecules.”
What Bohr was demonstrating was the mystery as why you had line spectra rather than all bands for a particular atom or molecule.
He was concerned with visible light and explaining the spectra scientists were discovering.
I never have steered clear of the atomic theory. I DO NOT view molecules as magical devices. They do vibrate. I have sent you many links showing you what that vibration means. I can’t help it if you are not able to understand the concept of molecular vibration. Most people get it. I am not sure why you don’t.
Atoms are composed of protons, electrons and neutrons. They exist as a unit because of strong nuclear force holing the nucleus together and the electromagnetic forces produced by the electrostatic charge difference between protons and electrons.
It takes lots of energy to move electrons away from the force the nucleus exerts on them. They need the energy of UV, visible or Near IR to be able to gain enough energy to move to a higher state (where most remain only for a very short time before emitting EMR and moving back to a lower energy state…closer to the nucleus).
As with an individual atom, all the protons, electrons and neutrons are a unit. They move together as one. In a molecule you have more than one atom making it up. Each atom of the molecule still acts as a unit connected together by electronic bonding of valence electrons (only the electrons in the outer shells participate). The oxygen atoms of a carbon dioxide molecule still are basically the same. Only the outer electrons are shared with the carbon atom, the rest are part of the oxygen atom. When it moves they all move with it. In molecular vibration the molecule as a whole absorbs IR which makes the oxygen atoms able to move further away from the carbon atom (they have added energy to do this from the IR). They move away but the bonding electrons are pull back on the oxygen acting like springs tightening. The oxygen move so far away, stop and move back being pulled by the tension of the bonding force. The oxygen atoms are vibrating. Moving out and then in at a very rapid rate. Then the molecule emits an IR and the higher energy vibration goes back to a ground state vibration until another IR will reach the molecule and excite it to a higher energy level vibration (as quantized as the visible light EMR is), only certain vibrational states are possible.
http://chemtube3d.com/vibrationsCO2.htm
This tool will help you see the IR emitted by each type of vibration. The wavenumber is the format they use. Check it out!
JD, Chic
You can’t just add fluxes willy nilly
Place two, 100 watt light bulbs an inch away from an object’s surface. Measure the temperature change.
Do the same thing, but place one of the bulbs 100 meters away, but still in view. Will the result be the same? Of course not.
You need to add the fluxes actually arriving at the surface/ per unit area (total irradiance).
Scientists have measured the TSI at ~240 w\m^2
That is NOT what the sun emits!
Are you trying to be funny, Snape?
Acting as if you’re teaching something, and then ending up with TSI = 240 Watts/m^2?
Your knowledge of TSI is about where your knowledge of 2LOT is–somewhere between “wrong” and “non-existent”.
Above was sloppy: You can add the fluxes, measured in w/m^2, that arrive at the object’s surface.
That will almost certainly not be the sum of what the various energy sources emit.
Fluxes don’t add.
JDHuffman
Based upon what supporting evidence do you so confidently claim that
“Fluxes don’t add.”
Maybe it is how you are wording what you are saying. Sometimes semantics is what drives a debate.
If you are out in a cabin in winter and your only source of heating is some portable electric IR heaters, are you saying that one will warm the room as much as 10 will? I am really not sure what you are trying to say and it might just be about how you are using the word add.
Anonymous Norman, why are you hiding? Are you hiding so that you don’t have to be accountable for what you say? Like Ball4, who doesn’t care if he misleads or not.
Like now, you are pretending you don’t know what the debate is about. But you were in on it from the first. If you are now confused, it is only because you have confused yourself.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2018/06/uah-global-temperature-update-for-may-2018-0-18-deg-c/#comment-307170
Why do you have to hide and pretend?
JDHuffman
I have asked you to explain why you think my last name would have any meaning to you. You have not answered. Until you answer don’t expect me to tell you what it is. Not that it would matter much.
It would not help raise your knowledge one iota. Rather than seeking a last name that would have no meaning to you, I guess you could search and find my address or phone number if that interests you, why not seek information on physics that can help you.
I linked you to a very good article on view factor. If you understand this material it will answer you questions. I posted an actual calculation for you. I do not think you understood what was going on. I don’t think you will understand until you take some time to learn the material.
JDHuffman
So will 10 IR heaters make a cold room warmer than one? If so why? If fluxes cannot add what is making the room warmer? These are radiant heaters. They work on emitting IR.
By remaining anonymous, you strive for an unfair advantage. You can attack, intimidate, falsely accuse, and insult, all without repercussions. You don’t care about science. You only care about squashing anyone that does not believe as you believe.
Mike Flynn has you, and your ilk, pegged. And, I’ve learned well from him.
JDHuffman says:
June 16, 2018 at 9:24 PM
Anonymous Norman
And who are you, JD Huffman?
Do you think everybody using a so called real name in blogs uses his/her really real name? Are you really soo naive?
JDHuffman says:
June 16, 2018 at 7:55 PM
Fluxes dont add.
Do you have a consistent, valuable proof of that?
LaP,
Stupid question. Prove him wrong – that’s the way real science works. That’s why hypotheses are disprovable. Proof is for mathematics.
Fluxes in terms of W/m2 are meaningless.
A polished silver container containing boiling water may be losing energy at a rate 30 W/m2. A block of ice may be emitting 300 W/m2. The rate of energy emission may tell you nothing of use.
Maybe you could add the two fluxes – 330 W/m2? What would that tell you? Nothing, that’s what!
Just like your comments in general – irrelevant, pointless and imparting no useful information whatsoever. But carry on – re analyse some numbers, draw more brightly coloured graphs. You might find colouring-in books too difficult – staying between the lines requires skill.
Cheers.
Pangolina, you will likely not understand, but I don’t maliciously attack commenters. I don’t try to get things wrong. I don’t deliberately give out incorrect information. I don’t purposely confuse, obfuscate, and distract, all in an effort to deceive.
You jump in to question me, but you offer no evidence of where I have been incorrect. But, all of Snape/Nate/Norman/Bsll4’s mis-information goes unnoticed by you. You are as guilty as they are.
Jesus Huffman what are you an arrogant person!
And the only conclusion I can draw from your answer is that you have NO valuable proof to present here.
Like the Flynn guy, you probably will pretend that not you will have to prove what you pretend, and that it is the role of your readers to prove you are wrong!
That is perfect antiscience.
Maybe you also doubt about the accuracy of Einstein’s work, like does the Robertson guy?
Welcome to the Pseudoskeptic clan, feel free to add yourself to the Robertson and Flynn team!
I have no problem with people like you. You have nothing to present, apart from your self-pretended “experience”.
“You jump in to question me, but you offer no evidence of where I have been incorrect.”
JD you are incorrect physically to the extent your (or anyone’s) comments do not agree with proper experiments by E.Swanson & Dr. Spencer et. al.
Ball4, please stop trolling.
Pangolina, as I said:
“You jump in to question me, but you offer no evidence of where I have been incorrect.”
I appreciate the examples of your incompetence.
Yes. HEAT fluxes add. Two suns in the sky would surely make us warmer than just the one.
Kristian, unfortunately that is the problem with jumping into the conversation without having done any work to understand what has been discussed. It just makes you look lazy and uninformed. That’s the advantage of being anonymous, you don’t care if you appear stupid. Would you have been so irresponsible and careless if your true identity were known?
Adding another sun is adding a new heat source, so of course it would allow the Earth to rise to a higher temperature. But, the Earth would still not be able to get above the effective radiating temperature of the suns, 5800K.
The conversation started with ice, and the fact that you cannot boil water with the infrared from ice. You could use as much ice as you want. You could use mirrors and magnifying glasses. You still could not raise the temperature of the water above the temperature of the ice. That’s because fluxes do NOT add.
JDHuffman says, June 17, 2018 at 4:56 AM:
And again: Fluxes DO add. WHEN THEY’RE HEAT FLUXES.
So stop saying “fluxes don’t add”. Indeed, SOME fluxes don’t add. But OTHER fluxes do add. Which was my point.
Be specific.
“The conversation started with ice, and the fact that you cannot boil water with the infrared from ice.”
That is not a fact as shown experimentally by E.Swanson so JD’s comment is a known case of JD being wrong.
Ball4, please stop trolling.
Kristian: “But OTHER fluxes do add. Which was my point.”
Kristian, if you can provide us with examples of fluxes adding, resulting in more energy, please entertain us.
Or, alternatively, maybe you don’t have a “point”.
“unfortunately that is the problem with jumping into the conversation without having done any work to understand what has been discussed. It just makes you look lazy and uninformed. Thats the advantage of being anonymous, you dont care if you appear stupid. Would you have been so irresponsible and careless if your true identity were known?”
Now THAT is what a troll does. See the difference DREMT?
To clarify, what a troll SAYS.
Nate, please stop trolling.
JDHuffman says, June 17, 2018 at 3:46 PM:
I already did. Two suns.
JD
Yes, I absentmindedly gave ASR value.
Similar to Norman’s heaters, imagine another sun next to the original. Also producing a TSI of 341 w/m^2
You think the earth wouldn’t get hotter, arguing……..”fluxes don’t add”?
And now you have TSI at 341 Watts/m^2!
Better try again.
S,
Do you think it might engender more trust if you could avoid admitting your sloppiness, absentmindedness, and general inability to get things right, quite so frequently?
As to fluxes, if TSI is 240 W/m2, and ice can emit 300 W/m2, what makes ice colder than sunlight?
If you add them, how hot will the ice get?
You are a silly-billy, aren’t you? Maybe you can just admit you are stupid, ignorant and sloppy again.
Obviously, none of your bizarre nonsense is supposed to support a disprovable GHE hypothesis – because such an impossible concept doesn’t exist, does it?
I sympathise with your compulsion to make irrelevant and meaningless comments. You can’t help it, any more than you can help your stupidity, ignorance, sloppiness and absent mindedness. Maybe you could develop a rigorous GHE description – then you would at least have some idea of what you are trying to think.
Or you could just continue to imagine things.
Cheers.
JD
Looks like this is your logic:
If you open the doors to two connecting rooms, same temperature, there would be no temperature change.
By the same reasoning, two suns in the sky, rather than one, would produce no temperature change either. Proof that fluxes don’t add!
*******
Maybe you should check out some of the Norman links.
S,
You live in a bizarre imaginary world. What is it you are trying to say? What temperature are you talking about? Six months of continuous exposure to the Sun at the South Pole doesn’t even create the surface temperature that six hours exposure to that same Sun does in the tropics (or most other places on Earth, for that matter).
You do not appear to have a clue. More meaningless waffle, trying to disguise the fact that you can’t even describe the GHE which some claim causes thermometers to get hotter in the presence of CO2!
You’ll probably claim that the GHE doesn’t do anything like that, but you can’t actually remember what the GHE is really about, due to absentmindedness or something equally silly. Brilliant. Pseudoscientific nonsense at its best.
Are you sure that you are not just stupid and ignorant?
Cheers.
MF, Speaking of a “meaningless waffle”, your comment about the energy at the South Pole ignores the cosine effect. Which is, since the Sun’s elevation never rises above 23.5 degrees at the poles, the maximum radiance on the surface is never more than about 0.4 times the TOA solar radiance and that only occurs on one day of the year. Not to mention the other important fact of the high surface albedo when the surface is covered by solid ice or snow.
Just another example of your own “Brilliant Pseudoscientific nonsense at its best”.
E. Swanson, let us know when you want to seek reality.
JDH, I suggest that you need to study geometry.
I have loved geometry since 7th grade.
Geometry is a good start to learning physics.
Obviously you never earned either.
Snape, it looks like your “logic” failed, again.
JD
“And now you have TSI at 341 Watts/m^2!
Better try again.”
Thanks for that, my bad. I needed to review the difference between “incoming solar radiation” (energy budget diagram) and TSI. There’s a lot to keep straight.
As for thinking 10 suns would produce no more warming than one? I think you could use a refresher as well.
S,
You keep making mistakes, apologising for being stupid, but immediately start telling people who pointed out your mistake what they need to learn! Good luck with that.
Would you take advice from someone who keeps admitting they don’t know what they are talking about? I guess you would – that’s why you keep believing in something you can’t even describe!
Good luck with that, too.
Cheers.
Mike Flynn says, June 17, 2018 at 12:54 AM:
Hahahaha! This is indeed Snape in a nutshell!
Mike
I try to learn from my mistakes. I just learned, for instance, that if you were lying with the sun directly overhead, on a clear day, you would be receiving about 1000 w/m^2.
S,
It’s a start, I suppose.
Now, if you reduce the amount of CO2 between you and the Sun, do you think that the amount of radiation reaching you will increase, decrease or remain the same?
Think carefully, because I might point out that the atmosphere as a whole prevents the full radiation from the Sun reaching the surface.
So, does less CO2 increase or decrease the radiation reaching you? You could always say it makes no difference, I suppose, but that might annoy some silly pseudoscientists!
I figure you might know what my next question will be. Feel free to decline answering, if you think you’ll wind up looking pretty silly.
Cheers.
Cooling has already started and will be continuing for the foreseeable future.
Already overall oceanic temperatures are now less then +.10c deviation from 1981-2010 means down from around +.35c a year ago.
The trend is still down but even if it should hold at these levels that would be sufficient to end the recent warming and promote cooling.
As far as what the sun is going to do time will tell, but it is safe to say since post 2005 it has been in an inactive state and that will not be changing anytime soon.
Then the denial of the role of the geo magnetic field which modifies all solar activity. Sometimes in concert ,sometimes in opposition.
Year 2018 is the transition year and it will be colder going forward but the question is how much?
So far so good
Salvatore Del Prete says:
June 17, 2018 at 3:58 AM
Cooling has already started and will be continuing for the foreseeable future.
Cooling?
Which cooling are you talking about, Salvatore?
Sea surface?
Take the temperature series of HadSST3 for the surface, and UAH6.0 ocean for the lower troposphere, enter them in any spreadsheet calculation tool, and inspect how many times there has been a temperature drop similar to the actual one!
You will wonder.
I think I have been saying for years that the climate test will be coming once solar meets the criteria which would cause it to exert a climatic influence.
This has now come about.
We are in the top of the 1st inning, a long way to go but so far the visiting team (cooling) has scored as all climatic indicators thus far in year 2018 are down.
According to my studies the globe should have warmed due to solar activity up to the end of year 2005.
After year 2005 solar activity was overall low enough to induce cooling, but lag times have to be applied of at least 10 years not to mention a period of time of very low average solar parameters following the 10+ years of sub solar activity in general.
This brings us to year 2018. Climate test now on.
AGW has hi jacked ENSO which was very instrumental in the warmth of the recent years prior to this year.
Look at the MEI index.
As I said when the climate transitions to another regime it usually occurs at the top of the previous regime.
The climate has been in the same climatic regime post 1850-2017.
The climate can have variations of +/-1c when in a climatic regime which is what has happened since 1850 ,nothing more, nothing unique.
By AGW!
Snape wrote elsewhere –
“Oceans can carry the heat to great depths (conduction + convection).”
Complete nonsense, of course. Unfortunately for Snape and his ilk, water which is less dense floats on water which is more dense.
You’ll need a miracle of the climatological variety to get the hotter, less dense surface water to stop floating, and start sinking, displacing cooler water as it goes. It doesn’t matter how many scientists agree that it happens – they are all wrong, and I am right. NASA copies NOAA’s wishful thinking.
Not a clue between them. Even the NSF refused to accept that Archimedes’ Principle applied to floating sea ice, until 2010, and were forced to amend their web page, regretting their error in claiming that melting sea Ice would raise sea levels.
Obviously CO2 has miraculous delusional properties on some particularly suggestible so-called scientists.
Cheers.
Mike , that is for sure. Utter nonsense.
Of all the false claims AGW theory has made the Infrared /Oceanic warming one is the most absurd.
MF, as others have pointed out, the waters of the Persian Gulf and the Red Sea are salty compared to the open oceans, so much so that the waters leaving these areas sinks to some depth when it enters the wider oceans.
But, the world’s oceans are filled with very cold waters which are sourced from the polar regions. This process is the result of both cooling of the surface water and the addition of brine as the result of the yearly sea-ice cycle of growth and melt, aka, the THC. As sea-ice retreats, less sinking is predicted to result, with more cool, fresh waters leaving the Arctic Mediterranean in the East Greenland Current, which flows into the North Atlantic sub-Polar Gyre. Measurements have shown that this is freshening appears to be presently underway.
I finally figured out the root cause of one of the major misunderstandings here! Why we are talking past each other so much. In a nutshell:
* JD (and some others siding with him) are discussing how much flux LEAVES a surface.
* Me (and some others siding with me) are discussing how much flux ARRIVES at a surface.
Both are plausible starting points; neither is incorrect per se.
To me, if you are talking about trying to warm a specific object (like a patch of the earth or a pot of water), it is more logical to talk about the energy ARRIVING at that specific object. You sum the contributions from all the radiators around and you get the total flux. This is where “view factors” and “solid angles” and “surface integrals” come into play.
It is easier to talk about energy LEAVING a surface. All you really need is temperature and emissivity. Ice @ 273 K & emissivity = 0.95 emits 300 W/m^2. It doesn’t matter how large the area or what the shape or how far away the ice is. It emits 300 W/m^2. You can’t add twice as much ice and get 600 W/m^2. So JD is correct that you can’t add EMITTED fluxes.
The two are, of course related. If you have a dome of ice above a surface, the ice emits 300 W/m^2 (no matter the size of shape of the dome) and the surface receives 300 W/m^2. If you have half a dome, then the ice still emits 300 W/m^2, but the surface receives 150 W/m^2. If you ADD the other half of the dome, you ADD an additional 150 W/m^2 of flux being received at the surface.
Two sides of the same coin. Just please state which you are using so we can all follow along.
Tim Folketts, regretfully this is just a new twist on your original trick. We said you could use all the flux emitted–“perfect” view factor. You can use mirrors, and even more ice. You STILL cannot heat water above the temperature of the ice.
(You might need some new tricks.)
“We said you could use all the flux emitted–“perfect” view factor. You can use mirrors, and even more ice. You STILL cannot heat water above the temperature of the ice.”
The funny thing is, this is exactly what I just said. You simply don’t have the depth of understanding to realize it.
Tim Folkerts
You gave an excellent example to demonstrate that fluxes add even with ice.
If you start in deep space (only to ensure that no other energy is available to distort the results), you have a plate with a total of 10^2 surface area. Very close to this large plate you have a 1 m^2 sheet of ice emitting IR at 300 W/m^2.
The large object will absorb all of this 300 Watts of energy and still be quite cold. It will not reach the temperature of the ice.
The object will get around 151 K at maximum steady state conditons.
Now increase the ice sheet to 5 m^2. It will emit a total of 1500 watts of energy to the larger object and will warm it to a temperature of around 227 K.
If you make the ice sheet 10 m^2 the object will reach 270 K the temperature of the ice. If you increase the 10 m^2 ice sheet to 100 m^2 it won’t matter because none of this energy will reach the 10 m^2 object’s surface.
So you can easily see from this that fluxes do add. And in doing so will continue to raise the temperature of the object.
Mirrors and lens will not help in the situation because they can only focus and concentrate energy that is parallel to the lens or mirror. Of all the 300 W/m^2 being emitted by ice only a small fraction of this total is emitted as parallel rays to the lens and can be bent and focused to a smaller area.
“You STILL cannot heat water above the temperature of the ice.”
JD theory is again wrong as shown by the experimentalists. E. Swanson shows experimentally how added ice can boil water.
Ball4, you are not really helping!
1) JD is right that you can’t add 300 W/m^2 from one sheet of ice and 300 W/m^2 from a 2nd sheet of ice and get 600 W/m^2 of flux. You cannot add these outward fluxes.
2) The ice is never “heating” a warmer object in the sense of “Q” from thermodynamics. Q, “heat”, is always from the warmer to the cooler object.
3) If could be argued that the ice could be “warming” the warmer object (If the object has some other source of heat as well.). Others would prefer to be more precise and say the ice “limits the cooling” of the object. Any object in deep space (radiating 0 W/m^2) might be receiving 500 W/m^2 from sunlight (or an electric heater or radioactive decay or ….), reaching a temperature of ~306K. If the power input is kept constant and the object is surrounded by ice radiating 300 K, the object will warm to ~ 345K. Note that:
* even though the object starts warmer than the 273 K ice, adding the 273 K ice still results in the object warming from 306 K to 345 K.
* you CAN add the 500W/m^2 flux of sunlight to the 300 W/m^2 flux of “icelight” to get 800 W/m^2 of total flux hitting the surface,
Tim,
Something seems wrong here:
“* you CAN add the 500W/m^2 flux of sunlight to the 300 W/m^2 flux of icelight to get 800 W/m^2 of total flux hitting the surface,”
Is the ice still surrounding the surface or is it receiving from two separate views?
If the former how does the 500 W/m2 alight?
If the latter, the input flux has to be lower because of being farther away.
Most important, it just doesn’t seem possible that ice will provide 3/5 of the heat of solar.
Maybe some of the confusion on fluxes adding is forgetting that when you would add a 300 W/m^2 flux to a second 300 W/m^2 flux you would get 600 W/2m^2. You doubled the area with additional ice as well as increasing the total energy so the flux W/m^2 will not change.
If you go to 100 m^2 and have a combined energy from the fluxes of 30000 watts that would give you a flux of 30000 W/100 m^2. As you add ice and increase energy you also are increasing the area of that energy. If you want 30000 W/100 m^2 back to W/m^2 you still get 300 W/m^2.
“Is the ice still surrounding the surface or is it receiving from two separate views?”
Well, originally the ice that provided the 300 W/m^2 covered the entire hemisphere above the surface = 2*pi steradians = 6.28319 steradians.
The sun covers ~ 0.00007 steradians, or about 1 ppm of the total hemisphere. So we would need to cut a hole through the ice, reducing the view of ice from 6.28319 to 6.28312 steradians, while introducing a second view of 0.00007 steradians of sunlight. This would reduce the flux from the ice to ~ 299.9997 W/m^2. The 500 W/m^2 of sunlight through the hole would then actually result in 799.997 W/m^2 total. But I am willing to round that to 800 W/m^2.
“Something seems wrong here:”
You are correct Chic. There is something missing from Tim’s words as they do not specify the m^2 illuminated exactly.
Tim sez: “* you CAN add the 500W/m^2 flux of sunlight to the 300 W/m^2 flux of icelight to get 800 W/m^2 of total flux hitting the surface,”
No. Which surface? If the ice is in front of, blocking the sun (like a total eclipse) you still have 300 W/m^2 striking the m^2.
If the ice is in back of the sun you will have 500 w/m^2 striking the m^2.
You cannot add them when in line, this is such a basic mistake but seems almost ubiquitous.
If they are not 100% in line, then you could have a 2nd m^2.
You then have 500+300 over say 2 m^2 or 800w/2m^2 = 400 W/m^2. Or for two blocks of ice 300+300/2=300W/m^2
There will be endless superpositions (partial eclipses as Tim calculates)) if one is not careful about the wording.
Also I am not careful here either as I did not specify intensity (W per sr.). This is why careful authors exist in textbooks and label their irradiance of the specific m^2 more exactly per sr and per cm. Funny, many don’t and you can learn to chuckle at those spotted mis-labeling irradiance units (which even when accurate totally confuse Gordon btw).
Ball4 says: “If the ice is in front of, blocking the sun …”
I thought I was being very careful about the wording — the ice was NOT in front of the sun in my example. I went to great lengths to calculate that the sun is so small in the sky (such a small sold angle) that it makes an imperceptible change to the radiation from the REST of the sky (ie the ice in this case).
“You then have 500+300 over say 2 m^2 or 800w/2m^2 = 400 W/m^2.”
You are basically covering half the ‘sky” with 1 m^2 @ 270K surface (300 W/m^2) and half the sky with 1 m^2 @ 306K surface (500 W/m^2). That is one way to do it, but it is not at ALL like using the sun or a spot light.
A 2500 K filament would be 5.67e-8 * 2500^4 = 2,214,844 W/m^2! So 500 W would require about 0.000023 m^2. You then have 500+300 over say 1.000023 m^2 or 800w/1.000023 m^2 = 799.8 W/m^2. Light @ 5700K like the sun would require even LESS area to provide 500W, and the result would end up abut 799.99 W/m^2.
Ball4,
I had to read your comment twice looking for the “BUT ….”
Having detected no troll-like content, I’m making a one time exception to my no-comment-on-trolls rule.
You picked up on the view factor problem, too. Good. However, Tim’s response was to assume a dome of some large size, providing the full 300 W/m2, with a hole in it to let at least some solar heat through giving 500 W/m2 on some small area of the larger surface irradiated by ice. This would be close to 300 W/m2 from ice and 500 W/m2 from solar on at least a small area.
My question is whether the energy from the sun adds to that from the ice to give a full 800 W/m2 even on that small area when the source temperatures are so different. Any thoughts?
This discussion has for me resolved a wonderment why irradiance is reported in meteorology texts as W/m^2 per sr per cm a strangely obtuse unit. With those units, all these discussions about the various view factors are rendered useless. When you read someone say ice illuminates such and such object and they don’t invoke those strangely obtuse units, then their discussion is lacking some needed info. Just chuckle to yourself or point out the issue (uselessly with Gordon imo).
—-
Tim: * you CAN add the 500W/m^2 flux of sunlight to the 300 W/m^2 flux of icelight to get 800 W/m^2 of total flux hitting the surface…provided the resulting W/m^2 per sr per cm from the sun and the ice both fully illuminate the m^2 in question.
Chic: so the equivalent energy in W/m^2 per sr per cm from the sun adds to that from the ice to give a full 800 W/m2 even on that small m^2 area in question when the source temperatures are so different provided the resulting W/m^2 per sr per cm from the sun and the ice both fully illuminate the m^2 in question.
NB1: W/sr is luminous intensity, an SI base unit measure like length is a base unit measure named meters. Luminous intensity of the sun (W/sr) is far greater than that from ice but ice illumination of the m^2 in question comes from far more sr (Tim’s ice sky).
NB2: This lays out the root cause source of Gordon’s confusion over w/m^2 per sr per cm also, at least imo.
NB3: sr = steridian
Bohren 2006 text p. 191: “The only way to truly grasp radiance, or indeed any physical concept, is to become familiar with its properties, to observe how it behaves in as many contexts as possible. Defining radiance is only a first small step toward understanding. One essential property of radiance is that it is additive: if several incoherent sources contribute to the radiance at a particular point and in a particular direction, then the total radiance is the sum of the radiances from each source as if it were acting alone.
If absorp_tion and scattering by the medium in which radiation propagates is negligible, then radiance is invariant along a particular direction.”
Bohren later continues: “Many of us as children have used a magnifying glass to burn a piece of paper or to incinerate some unfortunate ant or even to start a fire. An ant at the focal point would see a sun of larger angular size but just as bright and be uncomfortably warm. Indeed, the focal point of a lens is called a caustic, and something that is caustic burns: caustic soda burns skin, a caustic remark (see Mike Flynn again per Ball4) burns your ears (eyes maybe per Ball4). This common experience with lenses has unfortunately engendered the misconception that lenses can increase radiance.
Consider a piece of white paper illuminated by sunlight on a clear day. If we neglect attenuation by the atmosphere, (like Mike “No GHE” Flynn per Ball4) the solar radiance at the paper is the same as that at the surface of the sun.”
Tim, Norman and Ball4, please stop trolling.
Interesting
A useless troll posting to stop trolling. Maybe this troll needs to take its own advice.
Norman, please stop trolling.
And what prevents you from trolling?
Wonder which skeptic you are. It is obvious you are not an unbiased poster since you only single out a few posters.
Norman, PST.
Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team, please stop trolling.
Impersonator, please stop trolling.
Not only are there trolls, now there are hecklers around here. I will defer to Joan Rivers stand up improv for some of the best heckler come backs…evah!
A bonus sub-thread.
Factless Folkerts, and nameless “norman” and “ball4”
I couldn’t have designed this any better.
As Mike Flynn would say: “Carry on”.
Ah yes … I explain “view factors” to you, which you clearly did not understand. I provide detailed calculations to clarify your hand-waving. I explain both your perspective AND an alternate perspective (both of which have merit). And I am the factless one — got it!
Tim,
You are still stringing sciency words together, to no good purpose whatever.
You still cannot use the heat in something colder to heat something hotter. No matter what shape, no matter how much, or how cleverly you imagine things.
No GHE. No adding back radiation to front radiation. No making the surface hotter by slowing down the rate at which it cools. Complete nonsense. You cannot even usefully describe this so called GHE – that’s because it is impossible.
Keep going – try another semantic diversion, or an irrelevant and pointless analogy. If you cannot even describe the GHE in any sensible fashion, it is unlikely that claims you can explain its effects will be taken seriously.
Expecting anyone to believe that increasing the amount of CO2 between the Sun and a thermometer makes the thermometer hotter, would be humorous, except that appear to truly believe it yourself. That’s more sad than funny. Maybe appealing to your own authority might bolster you?
Cheers.
tim…”You sum the contributions from all the radiators around and you get the total flux”.
Unless that flux comes from an object with a higher temperature than the target, it will not be absorbed.
2nd law makes that clear. Heat can NEVER be transferred by its own means from a colder to a warmer object.
You are hung up on the fictional black body theory. A BB is defined as a body that must absorb all energy incident upon it. Real bodies do not behave like that, you can only transfer heat from a warmer body to a cooler body.
With BB theory, if you have BB1 near BB2, then any EM radiated by BB2 must be absorbed by BB1, and vice versa.
There are no BBs in our atmosphere and the surface certainly is not one.
Gordon Robertson
Enough of your declared statements with zero evidence and zero proof.
Find ONE VALID source of physics that supports your claim.
YOU: “Unless that flux comes from an object with a higher temperature than the target, it will not be absorbed.”
Where do you get this from?
YOU: “2nd law makes that clear. Heat can NEVER be transferred by its own means from a colder to a warmer object.”
Correct but this says nothing about energy!! EMR is energy and it will be transferred from a cold body to a hot body.
If you can understand NET then there is no problem. If you understand that a hot object is emitting EMR at a faster rate than it absorbs it from the cold object you would see that energy absorbed DOES not violate the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics.
The fluxes do add. I wish you would give real science instead of your made up version. In some weird world you believe all electrons within a hot object are in an excited state so are unable to absorb any energy from a colder object. Claes Johnson has really conned you big time. If Claes would use math to prove the Earth was Flat would you believe him. He knows nothing of quantum physics or statistical thermodynamics. He is a worthless source of information on physics. The only thing you can get from this crackpot is to become a crackpot yourself. One who can never understand actual physics because real experimental physics does not agree with the made up version. Rather than throw out the bad physics people like you reject the real physics.
Norman, please stop trolling.
Warmer than normal is more accurate. Great depths? Yes, quite an exaggeration. I have a lot to learn.
https://www.pmel.noaa.gov/tao/drupal/assorted_plots/images/TAO_5Day_EQ_xz.gif
Kristian
Maybe you could do some digging and find out the one way energy contribution from earth to sun? It’s a long ways away, you know.
(I’ll be out of cell coverage for a few days). See ya
No digging required. It is essentially 0.
Kristian
From a quick back-of th-envelope calculation.
At any one time Earth is receiving 1.53 10^17 W fron the Sun and is returning 4.5 10^11 W.
The sun diameter is 109 times larger than Earth.
So 1 cm diameter circle compared to 109 cm diameter circle
Or 2 cm diameter circle vs 218 cm circle
3.14 square cm vs 37306 square cm
1 vs 11881
And if sun was creating 11881 times less light
at earth distance it would be 1.53 10^17 / 11881 =
1.28 10^12 W.
So if had mini-sun same temperature as sun and it warming earth
by 1.28 10^12 W how much would it warm earth?
And of course in terms of earth warming sun, Earth is much colder than +5000 K
My back-of-the-envelop calculation.
1) the relative sizes won’t really matter for the relative energy transfers. The sun is large, but the light has to hit a small target; the earth is small, but light is headed toward a large object.
2) The sun is roughly 22x hotter than the earth (5700K vs 255K). The earth produces ~ 1/22^4 = ~ 4e-6 as much thermal radiation to the sun as the sun does to the earth. That is pretty tiny. (also note that the earthlight is spread out over ~ 100^2 = 10,000 times as much area. The sun supplies ~ 1400 W/m^2 toward the earth; so the earth supplies ~ 1400 * 4e-6 / 10,000 or 0.6 microWatts per square meter!)
This is in line with Entropic Man’s calculation.
“1) the relative sizes wont really matter for the relative energy transfers. The sun is large, but the light has to hit a small target; ”
It is a small target. One could think of Earth has part of huge sphere with average radius of 149,600,000 km radius.
At surface sun has “6.33 x 10^7 Watts/m2”
http://www4.ncsu.edu/~franzen/public_html/CH437/lec1/pdf/earth_T.pdf
And at 149.6 million km radius to goes from 63.3 million watts per square meter to 1360 watts per square meter.
And likewise the Earth in relation to sun, would have 149.6 million km sphere.
Earth radiates an average of 240 watts of IR, and reflects sunlight.
The reflected sunlight is probably much more significant.
How much reflect sunlight is there coming back to the sun?
One could say .3 of 1360 watts which is 408 watts, but it is more complicated than that- or it would not be that much.
And of course sun is sphere.
Earth disk is getting about 1360 – 408 = 952 watts which spread over the sunlit hemisphere which is twice area of disk. and reflected sunlight would be reflected at sun and spread over the sun’s hemisphere.
so have:
63.3 million watts going to 1360 watts
400 watts going to ?
You say, 0.6 microWatts or .0006 watts per square meter.
If reduce 63.3 million by 50,000 I get 1266
400 watts by 50000 is .008 watts
so if 400 watts left earth it should be more .008 watts per square meter- which higher than your 0.6 microWatts number.
So, hmm.
area earth 510 million or trillion square meter/ 2 = 255 trillion times by 400 is 1.0 x 10^17 watts.
Sphere is 2.83 x 10^23 m2 and half sphere is 1.415 x 10^23
So
1.0 x 10^17 watts / 1.415 x 10^23 is 7.0 x 10^-6 watts
being much lower number then my first wild guess and your number.
Anyhow if .0006 watts per watt meter or .000007 watts per square meter, it not going to warm sun.
Tim…”The sun is roughly 22x hotter than the earth (5700K vs 255K)”.
You mean the Sun’s surface temperature. It’s interior is closer to 15 millions C. The corona is 1 million C.
“You mean the Suns surface temperature. “
That goes without saying! The radiation comes from the photosphere (almost entirely), so that is the only temperature that matters for exchange of thermal radiation.
The sun supplies ~ 1400 W/m^2 toward the earth; so the earth supplies ~ 1400 * 4e-6 / 10,000 or 0.6 microWatts per square meter!)
That’s tiny but readily measured as incident radiation flux on a lab grade bolometer with Noise Equivalent Power in the 10^-14 W hz^-1/2 range.
http://www.infraredlaboratories.com/About_Bolometers.html
http://www.infraredlaboratories.com/Bolometers.html
In such lab devices the radiation from source is modulated (chopped) and the bolometer signal fed to a lock in amplifier.
snape…”Maybe you could do some digging and find out the one way energy contribution from earth to sun? Its a long ways away, you know”.
It would be ignored at the solar end.
Snape is having an attack of absent mindedness, so I’ll help him out.
I asked –
“S,
Its a start, I suppose.
Now, if you reduce the amount of CO2 between you and the Sun, do you think that the amount of radiation reaching you will increase, decrease or remain the same?
Think carefully, because I might point out that the atmosphere as a whole prevents the full radiation from the Sun reaching the surface.
So, does less CO2 increase or decrease the radiation reaching you? You could always say it makes no difference, I suppose, but that might annoy some silly pseudoscientists!
I figure you might know what my next question will be. Feel free to decline answering, if you think youll wind up looking pretty silly.”
I assume young Snape is happy to have a few days out of contact – he can avoid looking silly by letting people think he would have answered, but unfortunately couldn’t, due to lack of cell coverage.
All part of the rich tapestry of pseudoscientific dodging and weaving.
Cheers.
Dr. Spencer, I just finished a post that you may find interesting. Please share with Dr. Christy and others.
The Winning Strategy to Defeating Climate Sophist Michael Mann
https://co2islife.wordpress.com/
Tamino caught Curry using a deceptive graph in her presentation:
https://tamino.wordpress.com/2018/06/14/global-warming-new-rules/
Your blog post, when you’re not ranting and calling people names, says this:
“The Progressive CAGW Theory is a giant house of cards, founded upon Michael Manns infamous Hockey Stick graph.”
You have a big misunderstanding. The hockey stick is a reconstruction of PAST temperatures. It doesn’t attribute a cause to them, it just deduces what they were. So it has NOTHING to do with AGW, or the future, or what’s causing the warming. AGW is *not* founded on the hockey stick.
Major fail.
PS: The hockey stick has been replicated many times by now, and by methods using completely different mathematical techniques.
DA…”The hockey stick is a reconstruction of PAST temperatures”.
It failed. The IPCC has abandoned it and issued a graph that looks nothing like it.
Wrong again Gordon — the hockey stick is now well accepted.
Nor did the IPCC avoid it — it’s in the 4AR and 5AR. See Figure 5.12 in the IPCC 5AR WG1, and also section 5.3.5.2.
And which graph is that?
CO2is LIFE – no strategy is needed what is needed is for the climate to do the opposite of what AGW is predicting and that will take care of it.
It is that simple, and I think it is happening now and will continue as we move forward.
“..what is needed is for the climate to do the opposite of what AGW is predicting.”
How would the climate do the opposite of what AGW is predicting?
Ball4, please stop trolling.
Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team, please stop trolling.
Impersonator, please stop trolling.
Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team, please stop trolling.
Impersonator, PST.
Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team, PST.
I, PST.
Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team, PST.
I, please stop trolling.
WHY would climate do the opposite of following the laws of physics.
That’s what Salvatore never gets.
DA…”WHY would climate do the opposite of following the laws of physics”.
What has climate got to do with the laws of physics. Climate is a statistical average of daily weather over the long term. Daily weather has far more to do with physics than climate. At least it’s driven by real forces.
What do you think would be that answer?
Whatever the answer would be, the answer would be based on experiment. Anyway, it is Salvatore stating what is needed and it has to be the opposite of what AGW is predicting.
I’m interested in what is needed for the climate do the opposite of what AGW is predicting per Salvatore.
Ball go back on this thread and read all of my post and you will have your answer.
ball4…”Whatever the answer would be, the answer would be based on experiment”.
How much experimentation was done by climate modelers? What experiment in modeling lead to their assumption that CO2, at 0.04%, has a warming effect of 9% to 25%?
How much experimentation went into the assumption that CO2 at 0.04% can back-radiate enough energy from a cooler part of the atmosphere to raise the surface temperature that warmed it?
Gordon Robertson
Yes just like the green plate caused the blue plate to reach a higher temperature in E. Swanson’s test. Same process different setup.
I have also linked you to spectra of downwelling IR that shows this. You were unable to understand the units of the graphs and assumed the amount was tiny but you were wrong there as well. If you were not obsessed with the idea that GHE is a big hoax and started to think about it as a possibility you may find that you were wrong all along and not the scientists. This will never happen, trying to prove it is a conspiracy hoax is your major obsession and reality plays no role in you righteous conviction.
Norman,
Either you just can’t admit that the Swanson experiment does not prove more CO2 will increase global temperatures or you just don’t understand why it doesn’t.
My final comments to you: Try to understand what is YOUR obsession, pick on someone your own size or bigger, and don’t think too highly of yourself.
Chic Bowdrie
The Swanson experiment shows that a colder object will lead to a hotter steady state temperature of a powered object.
I don’t think you have given a valid reason why you think adding CO2 will NOT increase global temperatures. When you are able to do this you might have a point.
I am not at all concerned with my own value. My goal is to keep the science valid. I have little tolerance for made up science. There is established science that is based upon years of evidence and research. The only way to overturn this is with some really good experiments. My obsession is to keep valid science alive. News and politics is in the realm of fake reality. People like Mike Lynn, Gordon Robertson and no JDHuffman are trying to bring that horror to science. I will do my best to prevent the world of made up science from destroying the real thing.
I linked you to a textbook. That is what drives my arguments. I am not making up the information to pretend I have super knowledge. I just read what is out there and work to understand it but I will not sit quiet while people make up their own unsupported science beliefs and pretend they are authorities on the topic.
Of course, my demonstration doesn’t “prove” CO2 in the atmosphere causes warming of the Earth’s surface. However, I contend that the demo does represent an example of warming of a body by back EM radiation from a cooler body, under certain conditions. These results do not contradict the Second Law of Thermo, which is about energy flows, not temperatures. Those conditions are similar to that within the atmosphere, which is, a flow of energy from an external source thru the boundary of the system, energy which then continues to flow thru the system and finally out to the colder surroundings.
It’s rather like the flow of water in a stream. Along the stream, the flow represents potential energy relative to some point further along, energy which is released as heat as the water continues down hill. Place a dam across the stream and the water fills the reservoir behind, causing a local increase in PE. But, the water eventually over tops the dam, thus the flow downstream resumes. At the dam, the local PE can be turned into some mechanical energy thru a turbine, but there’s no more energy available than that which was previously being dissipated to the environment by the free flowing water in the stream.
E. Swanson,
I think your experiments are instructive, if not elegant. I wish I had the time to do them myself. IMO, you don’t have anything to defend as long as you don’t claim the green plate acts like the atmosphere. The green plate has no conduction, evaporation, convection, or clouds.
Are the plates conductive? By connecting cable between them and the jar, and alternating the heat source, you could simulate the cooling effects of the atmosphere as well as well as the warming effect.
We don’t actually know that an increase in CO2 will have any further effect on the average global temperature. It might based on the possibility of reducing diurnal temperature extremes. If cloud feedback is negative, then even if more CO2 tended to increase warming, the decrease in solar insolation would counteract it.
A search for “what is needed” and “predicting” returns no answer. I’m still curious what is needed.
I have already said it.
Stay curious.
You have not already “said it” Salvatore, searching this blog entry proves you have not answered what is needed opposite of what AGW is predicting.
Yes, I will therefore remain curious but my expectation remains that you have no real answer to satisfy curiosity.
I keep thinking about the cycles:
Obliquity (change in axial tilt)
“As the axial tilt increases, the seasonal contrast increases so that winters are colder and summers are warmer in both hemispheres. Today, the Earth’s axis is tilted 23.5 degrees from the plane of its orbit around the sun. But this tilt changes. During a cycle that averages about 40,000 years, the tilt of the axis varies between 22.1 and 24.5 degrees. Because this tilt changes, the seasons as we know them can become exaggerated. More tilt means more severe seasons—warmer summers and colder winters; less tilt means less severe seasons—cooler summers and milder winters. It’s the cool summers that are thought to allow snow and ice to last from year-to-year in high latitudes, eventually building up into massive ice sheets.”
https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/Milankovitch/milankovitch_2.php
So we are heading to towards 22.1 degree tilt
Wiki:
Earth’s obliquity oscillates between 22.1 and 24.5 degrees on a 41,000-year cycle; the earth’s mean obliquity is currently 23°26′12.8″ (or 23.43689°) and decreasing.”
So low tilt, forms glacier, high tilt melts glaciers {roughly speaking and probably depends on other two cycles also- and other factors}.
Now when did that flood occur:
“Many explain the 8,200 cold period as a result of a large discharge of cold melt water into the Atlantic from Lake Agassiz at the edge of the Laurentide ice sheet in North America.
It may seem paradoxical that a warmer weather in the Arctic, which caused the melting of ice caps and sea ice and thus production of cold fresh water, caused a colder climate in Northern Europe and probably also in North America. This is explained by that the large amounts of cold fresh water, that is lighter than salt water, disturbed the ocean currents, and a weakened Gulf Stream was the cause of colder weather along the North Atlantic coasts. Many believe that such melt water mechanism also caused The Younger Dryas cold period.”
http://www.dandebat.dk/eng-klima7.htm
And about 7000 years ago, tilt would be about 1 degree added, or about 24.44 degrees, 7500 years ago 24.5 and 8000 years ago about 24.4, and 15000 years about where we are now, 23.4 [and increasing in coming years- we are decreasing in coming years.]
So sea level rise started, say 18,000 years ago, and took off around or less than 15,000 years ago. And 8000 years ago [or less]
stopped rising at fast rate
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_level_rise#/media/File:Post-Glacial_Sea_Level.png
hmm.
I would think I think it matters which direction it is going.
The lower angle axis [22.1] will have more heating in tropics, and 24.5 will less heating in tropics.
Tropics is earth heat engine, it can heated more, but could lose more heat. A number of ways, it heated up and make more clouds and energy is reflect rather than absorbed. So could heat up less.
Or tropics could transport more heat to world, and transport so much that the tropics does get warm.
Or 3, tropics could simply radiate energy rather than 1 where more sunlight is reflected by clouds.
With second one, the more transported heat be could “wasted” thereby not increase global temperature, or it could increase global temperature.
Wasted heat could be warming antarctic by 10 or 20 C, or basically any warming of Land is wasted as land is more effective at losing heat.
Those options [or others] could brought about by the two other cycles, or other things, like ocean circulation patterns or large volcanic activity at critical places and times, or just very large.
Now, I think the more cold ocean warmed [heat lost to ocean] the warmer the world gets. More warmed ocean waters is mixed, the warmer world gets.
So of the range of 22.1 to 24.5 which mixes the best?
Anyone noticed that Sun feels somewhat hotter the past few years? gbaikie pointed out that during solar minima, there is more UV radiation.
Guess what the Sun absorbs best? UV radiation?
The average luminance of the Sun at TOA may be close to the same, but the UV portion is more intense and a little bit more can make the Sun feel hotter to human skin. It can cause skin to inflame.
Don’t tell that to David Appell, he still thinks heat flows through space and heats the skin.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3709783/
Kristian,
Fairly simple question based on the sun, blue plate, green plate set-up;
If the newly introduced green plate received radiation from the blue plate, but emitted no radiation towards the blue plate…
Would the blue plate warm or not?
I would be very interested in the most straightforward answer you could give to that.
barry says, June 18, 2018 at 8:12 AM:
What a weird question. Of course it wouldn’t warm. Because that would mean the green plate’s at zero Kelvin. And so the blue plate’s radiative heat loss to its surroundings would depend on its own temperature and emissivity only.
But, barry, no matter how you want to spin this, you can’t escape the basic physical fact:
Thermal effects are only ever the result of variations in the NET exchange between objects/regions, never from the absorp-tion or emission of photons.
You need to understand and accept this fundamental truth before we can move on …
Of course it wouldnt warm. Because that would mean the green plates at zero Kelvin. And so the blue plates radiative heat loss to its surroundings would depend on its own temperature and emissivity only.
How does the blue plate experience the green plate’s temperature and emissivity?
Barry, please stop trolling.
barry says, June 18, 2018 at 4:43 PM:
Through its NET exchange of energy with it.
If the green plate’s at absolute zero (and/or has an emissivity equal to 0), the blue plate WON’T experience its temperature/emissivity. Because then there would be no net exchange of energy between the two. The green plate wouldn’t thermally radiate. It might still reflect radiation, though.
No experiment could start the green plate at absolute zero, the lowest T ever achieved would be around 20nano K.
As the green plate is put into position at 20nK its emitted radiation absorbed by blue will be feeble but nonzero and increase as the radiation from blue is absorbed.
Yes, the reflectivity and transmissivity of the green plate would be interesting to vary in E. Swanson’s experiment. Materials should be easily available. Reasonably close calculations ought to be ~predictive of final steady state temperatures same as they are for the opaque situation.
… during solar minima, there is more UV radiation…
*
For people interested in science:
Multiple measurements and analyses indicate that high solar activity produces high solar UV irradiance, with shorter UV wavelengths increasing more…
https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/full/10.1175/JCLI-D-11-00571.1
Judith Lean is, together with Leif Svalgaard, one of the best Sun irradiance specialists.
And the following might be of interest too, as it underlines that UV is during Grand Solar Minima even less than at the bottommost 11 year cycle Earth experiences since quite long a time:
A periodic solar event called a “grand minimum” could overtake the sun perhaps as soon as 2020 and lasting through 2070, resulting in diminished magnetism, infrequent sunspot production and less ultraviolet (UV) radiation reaching Earth all bringing a cooler period to the planet that may span 50 years.
https://weather.com/science/space/news/2018-02-06-sun-grand-minimum-cooling-less-energy
Unfortunately behind paywall:
http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.3847/2041-8213/aaa124/meta
Exactly correct UV light during minimum solar activity is much less.
He must have made a mistake because it is so clear cut.
A copy/paste of gbaikie’s comment
gbaikie says:
June 16, 2018 at 3:25 PM
…
To elaborate on the above, when the sun enters a prolonged solar minimum condition an overall reduction takes place in solar spectral irradiance, namely in UV light (wavelengths less then 400 nm)…
…
What does this site’s dumbest commenter understand?
gbaikie pointed out that during solar minima, there is more UV radiation.
From upthread.
barry says, June 18, 2018 at 8:03 AM:
Of course you can. However, that doesn’t MAKE them separate thermodyncamic entities/quantities.
* * *
The dime analogy (of MICRO vs. MACRO):
Imagine you have your hand stretched out with the open palm facing up. In your palm lie two dimes. A person is standing right in front of your outstretched hand, holding a single dime. In this situation, you represent the surface, the person in front of you represents the atmosphere, and the dimes represent photons.
Now here’s what happens: The person holding the single dime places it in your palm with his one hand at the very same moment as he grabs the two dimes that were there already with the other, removing them from your hand. That is, he performs these two separate operations simultaneously.
The question then becomes: Did you ever have THREE dimes in your hand during this exchange?
The answer is of course “No”. First you had TWO. Then you had ONE. And that’s it. The first of the original two was simply exchanged with another one, while the second was lost.
People, however, have this instinctive, almost monomaniacal tendency – I would almost call it an ‘urge’ – to look at and interpret ONE of these operations (‘events’) at a time, and to just adamantly stick to that approach, an approach that is fundamentally mathematical rather than physical in both origin and application. It basically derives from how our human mind works. It always seeks order and simplicity even when and where there is none to be found. And it does so for a very simple reason: To get a grasp of how things really work. You need to pick the clock apart in order to understand what makes it tick. That is, start by breaking things down into their most basic, irreducible constituents and then work your way up from there. And this has of course turned out to be an exceedingly successful method for gaining knowledge. It has served us well. And still does. However, it CAN also be misapplied. We should be careful not to follow it blindly. Sometimes our mental compartmentalisation process goes too far. We end up “seeing” things (and/or potential connections between things) that aren’t really … real; or meaningful, or relevant to what we’re actually trying to get a grasp of. And so we end up confusing ourselves instead. Mostly regarding “cause and effect”.
In this case, conflating specific phenomena of the MICRO and MACRO realms is the pitfall to beware. Invoking a distinctly QUANTUM MECHANICAL quantity and/or process to justify or explain an inherently THERMODYNAMIC effect is simply profoundly misunderstood … And people just don’t seem to get exactly HOW misunderstood it really is.
What most people do is simply analysing the effect of each operation (‘event’) in the analogy above IN ISOLATION from the other one, in fact from everything else. They estimate its effect AS IF the other (opposing) one didn’t happen at the exact same time. They only regard the photon absorp-tion and “forget” or “ignore” the simultaneous (and larger) photon emission. Such a narrow scope doesn’t work if you want to discuss THERMODYNAMIC effects. Then you will only fool yourself into thinking that we’re dealing with two SEPARATE thermodynamic processes in one. We’re not. There aren’t. There is just the one. The one instantaneous exchange.
There are two distinct ways of seeing this exchange, two ‘perspectives’, so to say:
#1 The MICROscopic (quantum mechanical) perspective, and
#2 the MACROscopic (thermodynamical) perspective.
Both are in a sense ‘real’, but they address very different aspects of ‘reality’.
What people tend to do is mix them up, or rather somehow merge them into one and the same perspective. And that’s where the confusion arises.
It is claimed (or at least very much implied) that the atmosphere (the person originally holding the single dime) ADDS energy to the surface (the palm of your outstreched hand). However, this is only correct in the MICROscopic perspective, that is, IF – and only if – we choose to follow ONE particular photon (dime) through the exchange and ignore the other two; that is, the photon/dime originally held by the person in front of you, coming IN from ‘the atmosphere’.
THAT individual photon (and the energy it carries) is indeed ADDED to the surface in this exchange. But as I pointed out above, this circumstance isn’t “meaningful, or relevant to what we’re actually trying to get a grasp of”. Which is whether or not ‘energy’ (in the generic sense, not one particular quantum of energy) was added from the atmosphere to the surface during the exchange. The MACROscopic perspective.
What they do is “Invoking a distinctly QUANTUM MECHANICAL quantity and/or process to justify or explain an inherently THERMODYNAMIC (thermal) effect”.
Did the atmosphere ADD energy equivalent to the energy of a single photon to the surface during the exchange? No. It added one PARTICULAR photon, yes, but it removed two OTHER photons at the exact same time. From the very same surface. Your hand.
So what ACTUALLY happened? The energy associated with one of the two photons/dimes that you held in your hand originally was simply EXCHANGED with the energy associated with the one photon/dime originally held by the ‘atmosphere’ person in front of you. The other one was lost (removed by the ‘atmosphere’ person), without compensation.
And so, the NET effect – the THERMODYNAMIC (macroscopic) effect – of the thermal radiative exchange between sfc and atm is that the atmosphere doesn’t add ANY energy at all to the surface (zero dimes), while the surface gives IT some energy (one dime), but LESS energy than it would’ve handed to space in the same situation (two dimes).
* * *
And THIS is where the THERMAL effect arises. ONLY here. Not in each single photon absorp-tion/emission event, barry.
It is only in changing the NET that you might cause a change in TEMPERATURE.
To make it even plainer:
The warmer object doesn’t and can’t get warmer simply from its molecules absorbing photons. Those are individual quantum events and have, in themselves, nothing at all to do with the temperature of the whole object. Molecule & photon: MICRO; object: MACRO.
The warmer object will and can only get warmer as its NET LOSS of photons (its ‘net energy exchange surplus’) is reduced.
So when and how is this net loss reduced? When the cooler object becomes warmer, hence radiating more photons towards the warmer object.
So, yes, it IS because the cooler object, now being warmer than before, happens to radiate more photons towards the warmer object. But it is NOT a direct result of the actual extra photon absorp-tions from the cooler object. It is ONLY because the higher temperature of the cooler object ends up making the NET radiative exchange between it and the warmer object smaller than before:
σ(T_h^4 – T_c^4) => σ(333^4 – 300^4) = 238 W/m^2
σ(T_h^4 – T_c^4) => σ(333^4 – 310^4) = 173.5 W/m^2
The radiative heat transfer from h to c (effectively h‘s radiative heat LOSS) decreases from 238 to 173.5 W/m^2 as c warms from 300 to 310 K.
Sure, but as you’ll notice, the two operations are always brought together in the end as ONE process. They never pretend that each one is itself an actually separate, independent thermodynamic process. The thermodynamic/thermal effect is always to be found only in the NET of the two.
Mathematics vs. physics. Method/model vs. reality. Feynman: “Physics is not mathematics, and mathematics is not physics. One helps the other.”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MZZPF9rXzes
Kristian, your dime analogy is still a bad analogy! Bad on so many levels.
1) At a simple level, the dimes should represent *energy*, not photons. The atmosphere and the surface don’t hold photons, waiting to release them.
2) There is no law of physics that says the surface must release exactly two photons at exactly the moment that it receives one. These events happen at random. The surface might release one or two photons before the one arrives from the atmosphere. Or it might not release a photon until after the new one has been absorbed. So the surface could have anywhere from 0-3 units of energy (0-3 dimes).
3) The analogy should really have numerous ‘hands’ on both sides. Thousands of hands tossing dimes at random moments to random hands on the other side. A hand could actually have MORE than 3 ‘dimes’ at one time!
“People, however, have this instinctive, almost monomaniacal tendency – I would almost call it an ‘urge’ – to look at and interpret ONE of these operations (‘events’) at a time, and to just adamantly stick to that approach, an approach that is fundamentally mathematical rather than physical in both origin and application. “
The two processes are, of course linked, but not in the simultaneous way you imagine. The are linked by probabilities related to thermodynamics. It is your “forced simultaneity” that is fundamentally mathematical and fundamentally unphysical in origin and in application.
If you wanted to rescue this analogy, there should be some sort of rule like “each second, there is a fixed chance (say 10%) that any hand that is holding a dime will transfer that dime to a random hand on the other side”. You could add a chance that any hand will transfer a dime to any adjacent hand on its own side (conduction).
These childish objections of yours, Tim, based on, I’d have to assume, deliberate misconstrual of what is being said, are STILL just petty, nitpicky and irrelevant, and absurdly so. (We’ve had this exact discussion before, and not just once:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/05/uah-global-temperature-update-for-april-2017-0-27-deg-c/#comment-247512 )
It is almost as if you 1) don’t understand the concept of an “analogy”, and 2) don’t recognise (or want to realise) the purpose of this particular one.
“It is almost as if you don’t recognise (or want to realise) the purpose of this particular one”
You are right there — I don’t understand the purpose of this analogy.
You say “the dimes represent photons” and “the two photons/dimes that you held in your hand” and “THAT individual photon” — this clearly equates one photon to one dime in your analogy. Dimes are MACROscopic, quantum, non-thermodynamic quantities (individual photons).
Until later, when suddenly they represent MACROscopic, thermodynamic, non-quantum quantities.
If you want to present a clearer, then an analogy of *streams* of dime would be much more intuitive and obvious. Each dime is a quantum effect; the overall streams are the thermodynamic effect.
*********************************************
Imagine you have your hand stretched out with the open palm facing up. In your palm lie two *hundred* dimes. A person is standing right in front of your outstretched hand, holding a *hundred* dimes. In this situation, you represent the surface, the person in front of you represents the atmosphere, and the dimes represent photons.
Now here’s what happens: The person holding the 100 dimes starts handing his 100 dimes across to you. At the very same moment, you start handing your dimes across to him (at twice the rate since you have twice as many). That is, both of you perform these two separate operations simultaneously.
The question then becomes: Did you ever have THREE *hundred* dimes in your hand during this exchange?
This seems to much more clearly make your point … that these billions of photons are continuously and simultaneously exchanged. The result is always a net, macroscopic flow from “rich to poor” (from warm to cold). You can’t separate out “first 330 J went from the atmosphere to the surface and then later independently 356 J went from the surface to the atmosphere”. (Not that anyone actually thinks this way, but if you think it is important, you are welcome to highlight this point.)
Specifically — handing the dimes across ONE AT A TIME.
(Or a few at a time. Or 10% each time. As long as it is not the whole bundle at once; and as long as the person with more hands them across at a faster rate.)
Tim Folkerts says, June 19, 2018 at 10:01 AM:
So how, then, would you know whether it’s a “bad analogy” or not!!??
Then why are you even commenting on it!? Without even ASKING me what it’s about. Rather than just summarily discarding it and making up your own version instead, that “seems to much more clearly make [my] point” …!
Its purpose is stated in the heading, Tim: The dime analogy (of MICRO vs. MACRO).
It’s sole purpose is to try and make people get a sense of the fundamental distinction between the MICROscopic perspective on a radiative energy exchange and the MACROscopic perspective on the same. I don’t need more than three photons to do that.
And I explain this distinction quite thoroughly and quite explicitly in the analogy, Tim. You just need to READ it and discover its essence, what it’s actually there to convey.
From one of our earlier discussions on this EXACT topic:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/04/uah-global-temperature-update-for-march-2017-0-19-deg-c/#comment-244797
“Single photon absorp-tion and emission events are NOT thermodynamic phenomena. There’s no direct link between either of them and a change in a system’s U (which is specifically a thermodynamic (macroscopic) function of an object or region). Why? Because when you look at and analyse individual photon absorp-tion/emission events, you are viewing them IN ISOLATION. You have the narrowest scope possible. If you focus on a photon being absorbed and ignore everything else that happens at the same time, then you might very well conclude that the absorp-tion does indeed increase the total amount of energy contained inside the system absorbing the photon. All else being equal. You might assume that the system’s U is higher by a tiny amount after the absorp-tion event than it was before.”
But this is mixing things up, Tim! To see each individual event in isolation vs. seeing them all in one.
Furthermore, from that same string:
YOU: ‘Suppose I look close enough and figure out with actually happened first – then I could say if I ever had 3 or 1. [Not even getting into the relativistic idea that simultaneity is relative, and different observers could see the events happening in different orders!]’
“[…] Yes, Tim, it’s all fundamentally random. It’s the quantum realm, after all. So you could never really tell for sure. Not in each individual case. But you KNOW that’s not what I’m talking about.
If you were to find out, then the photon coming in COULD indeed arrive before the two outgoing photons left. But it COULD just as well be the other way around too. OR, the incoming photon could arrive before the second outgoing photon left, but after the first one.
However, statistically/probabilistically, when averaging over ALL (or just a great number of) instances, the exchange is – plain and simple – simultaneous.
And you know this is what I was referring to.”
– – –
You seem desperate to maintain the general state of confusion on this subject, Tim.
Why so adamant about keeping up this charade? Why do you insist on trying so hard to ‘misunderstand’ what I’m saying? It’s only puerile and silly, and ultimately serves no purpose other than creating an artificial impression of disagreement.
I’m the one trying to promote some clarity here. You, on the other hand, appear to be doing your utmost to feed and further people’s seriously muddled thinking on this subject …
I wonder, to what end?
I know it is a poor analogy because it is not even self-consistent! As I pointed out, the dimes *initially* represent individual photons (MICROscopic). Later the photons represent thermodynamic flows (MACROscopic). If an analogy designed to explain MICRO vs MACRO doesn’t even stay consistent about whether the dime represent MICRO vs MACRO, then the analogy is fatally flawed.
Perhaps this most clear in two statements you make.
“I dont need more than three photons to do that.”
“However, statistically/probabilistically, when averaging over ALL (or just a great number of) instances, the exchange is plain and simple simultaneous.”
One the one hand, you claim that individual photons show the effect you are illustrating even on this microscopic scale. On the other hand, you say that the effect really only shows up for large numbers photons averaged together to cause a macroscopic flow.
“Im the one trying to promote some clarity here.”
Then I respectfully suggest that you are not doing as good a job as you hoped. Your analogy is inconsistent enough and confusing enough to leave readers confused.
Tim,
I have to agree that your objection to the dime analogy is out of bounds. Kristian is trying to explain the actual energy exchange phenomenon to people who are stuck in the oversimplified GHE energy diagram model mentality. Regardless of what your opinion is about CO2 warming, I would think you would want everyone to get the physics right.
Until free from the limitations of that simple model, one way cold-to-hot flows will be considered valid. How else can you explain comments like “how does the blue plate experience the green plate’s temperature and emissivity?”
Can you express Kristian’s point with a better analogy that an open-minded unindoctrinated person can understand?
Your 3) doesn’t cut it.
Kristian,
‘just petty, nitpicky and irrelevant, and absurdly so’
Couldn’t be more wrong. Tim was pointing out (as I did above) that your idea of simultaneous photon exchange is just plain false, and misleading.
In contrast, your many, extremely lengthy commentaries are nitpicky, and absurdly so.
I asked, and you still havent answered: what is the consequence, when in the end we all arrive at the same heat flow?
It should be apparent that a time interval must pass between photon absorp-tion and emission by any gas molecule. If that time interval were zero there would be no evidence that the photon had been absorbed and no ghg effect. The amount of time that passes between absorp-tion and emission is called relaxation time and is very brief but simple logic mandates it must be more than zero.
Relaxation time has temperature dependency as shown in Figure 0.3 in http://globalclimatedrivers2.blogspot.com
Kristian,
Sure, but as youll notice, the two operations are always brought together in the end as ONE process. [MIT] never pretend that each one is itself an actually separate, independent thermodynamic process.
They speak of each directional ‘flux’ as individual quantities.
“We want a general expression for energy interchange between two surfaces at different temperatures…. The energy leaving body 1 and arriving (and being absorbed) at body 2 is [equation]. The energy leaving body 2 and being absorbed at body 1 is [equation] The net energy interchange from body 1 to body 2 is [equation].”
Kristian, the two different energy vectors they are describing here: what do YOU call them?
They’re not talking about individual photons, so your objecting to that doesn’t apply. But they are talking about 2 individual quantities before (and after) they are summed to get a NET result.
What is the name of this quantity? I really want to know, because you are concerned with correctness on this.
When people talk about energy from the atmosphere providing more warmth to the surface, it’s a simple expression of a more complex idea. It doesn’t matter that it is not the perfect language within the strict – and limited – definitions of thermodynamics. It doesn’t necessarily matter that they do not contextualize that the one-way exchange within the larger framework of mutual (multi) exchange.
Thermodynamics doesn’t deal with time.
Thermodynamics gives you the amount of heat transfer, but not the time it takes to occur.
Thermodynamics isn’t going to be able to account for how and when dimes get swapped, so it is the wrong tool to begin investigating that notion. It’s only going to tell you the difference between the start and final state, once all the dime-swapping has finished.
Your problem seems to be that you need the language of classical thermodynamics to be the only mouth through which through which people speak of the enhanced GH effect.
There’s no reason for them to do so.
Any more than you need to take anyone to task for saying that a jumper makes them warmer.
No 2nd Law is broken when people talk about back radiation or the atmosphere getting warmer and warming the surface.
Because the 2nd Law is limited. It only
only
ONLY
deals with bulk states and NET flow, not discrete exchange.
I understand that your objection is to do with people getting it wrong conceptually. But apart from maybe Ball4, I just don’t see that happening. People here are aware that thermodynamics is about NET flow of heat, but also aware that – as in the MIT page – one can also talk about vectors of energy arriving and leaving the surface of two bodies at different temperature.
If everyone qualified every remark concerning energy leaving a cold body and affecting a warmer body with the statement that mirrored the language in the MIT doc, would that be sufficient for you?
Barry, please stop trolling.
Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team, please stop trolling.
To The Team: just don’t call me late for dinner.
barry sez: “Because the 2nd Law is limited. It only only ONLY
deals with bulk states and NET flow, not discrete exchange.”
I would argue that this is incorrect, 2LOT must be satisifed by DWIR process alone as well as net UW-DW IR. Both processes MUST increase universe entropy to be real processes – and both do so.
Gordon gets it wrong when he writes what happens to the photon from earth emitted toward sun: “nothing”. Gordon’s professed process violates 2LOT as universe entropy is left thereby unchanged hence Gordon describes a nonreal, imaginary process.
Same as Kristian’s dime analogy is imaginary only since with dimes masquerading as photons there are no dimes in the hand at any time. Dimes are not photons, photons are absorbed and annihilated unlike dimes with mass.
Impersonator, please stop trolling.
Barry,
“When people talk about energy from the atmosphere providing more warmth to the surface, it’s a simple expression of a more complex idea.”
But this oversimplification hinders, not helps people understand the more complex reality. You seem to be affected by the simple GHE model disease as well.
“Thermodynamics doesn’t deal with time.”
Of course it does. Watts are Joules per second. Thermodynamic laws involving heat flux in and out of systems are subject to time constraints. Look no farther than the basic equations describing heat transfer through solids and radiative heat transfer. These processes happen in real time 24/7. Like the sun coming up and down each day. The average over time distorts what is actually happening.
“Thermodynamics isn’t going to be able to account for how and when dimes get swapped, so it is the wrong tool to begin investigating that notion. It’s only going to tell you the difference between the start and final state, once all the dime-swapping has finished.”
That is like saying you can’t tell how long it takes to warm an object, only how much heat it takes to warm it. The warming time is a function of heat diffusivity and surface area. You can actually track the temperature change to measure the diffusivity.
“No 2nd Law is broken when people talk about back radiation or the atmosphere getting warmer and warming the surface.”
Honest communication is broken when the atmosphere is assumed to be warmed by addition IR active gases. The surface might be getting warmer or cooler from solar INSOLATION. It might be getting warmer or cooler if the atmosphere’s INSULATION is getting stronger or weaker. This is the physics that needs to be explained, not that backradiation is an independent source of heat to the surface.
Chic B wrote:
Honest communication is broken when the atmosphere is assumed to be warmed by addition IR active gases.
It’s not an “assumption,” it’s a hypothesis with an enormous amount of evidence behind it.
The surface might be getting warmer or cooler from solar INSOLATION.
Chic, are you aware that scientists monitor solar irradiance regularly (all the time, now), and have used this data to rule out solar irradiance as a cause of modern warming? (In fact, solar insolation has been slowly lower since the 1960s.)
If you ask questions, at least make an attempt to see what science has said about them first.
David Appell,
About the warming of the atmosphere by greenhouse gases, you say:
It’s not an “assumption,” it’s a hypothesis with an enormous amount of evidence behind it.
Not at all. Your mistake is very common but also easy to disprove: GHGs are net emitters of IR at all levels. GHGs therefore cool the atmosphere. Convection provides the warming.
“GHGs therefore cool the atmosphere.”
Not the entire atm. Or explain what is their power source to do so. You know like A/C and refrigerators need to be plugged in to cool stuff.
Actually, GHGs warm the lower atm. regions and equally cool the upper atm. regions as they have no power source they consume no power to cool an entire atm., thus energy in the system is conserved in the added GHG effects. See Manabe 1964 for details.
Chic: “Of course it does.Honest communication is broken when the atmosphere is assumed to be warmed by addition IR active gases.”
Chic is correct that one is able to write time derivatives of thermo. variables without fear or apology: witness dU/dt.
But when Chic writes the entire atm. is assumed to be warmed by addition of IR active gases – that can’t be so as these gases are not powered to change the entire atm. T like the sun.
IR active gases can only achieve warming in the lower atm. to the extent they can achieve equal cooling in the upper atm. As I wrote to phi, see Manabe 1964 for the basic details along the lapse rate from surface to 40km.
Ball4,
My answer is not accepted. Never mind.
Think of pressure and temperature gradients.
phi, Chic,
‘GHGs therefore cool the atmosphere.’
Consider a house warmed only by passive solar thru the windows.
If I add insulation to the attic, you could say its cooling the attic. Sure.
But its also warming the living space of the house.
Just as GHGs are warming the lower atmosphere.
Nate,
My comment went to a new thread.
I wasn’t referring to solar irradiance. Try to keep up.
Solar insolation is a measure of solar radiation energy received on a given surface area in a given time. It is commonly expressed as average irradiance in watts per square meter (W/m2) or kilowatt-hours per square meter per day (kWh/(m2day)) (or hours/day).
Go away son, you bother me.
Idi,, up thread at http://www.drroyspencer.com/2018/06/uah-global-temperature-update-for-may-2018-0-18-deg-c/#comment-307610 you said ,,Optical depth is a concept that remains to be learned and grasped by DP before he may ever correct his overall nonsense,,.
The concept of optical depth as usually applied involves logarithmic decline of flux intensity with distance in an environment where the entity that absorbs the flux, emits broad spectrum. Molecules do not emit broad spectrum.
Within the first meter or two above the surface, Hitran says much of the energy absorbed by gas molecules at some wavelengths is thermalized and the energy emitted by other molecules at different wavelengths. Specifically, photons absorbed by CO2 and WV in the wavenumber range 600-740/cm is thermalized and the energy emitted by WV molecules in the 25-425/cm range.
Mother Nature will determine which, if any, of my findings are nonsense.
I still see no reason for you to self-identify as an idiot and am at a loss as to what you are tracking.
The concept of optical depth as usually applied involves logarithmic decline of flux intensity with distance in an environment where the entity that absorbs the flux, emits broad spectrum. Molecules do not emit broad spectrum.
It’s funny that with this nonsense you once more naively and nicely confirm that you have no clue. I told you repeatedly you have yet to learn and grasp a lot of physics. Till you’ve done it you got not the slightest chance to “correct” the GHE theory and professional physicists, as you ridiculously believe and claim you do. Up to now in this respect the idiot is still nobody else but yourself and real scientists rightly may just laugh at you.
The optical depth is the thickness of a material measured in units of attenuation length L, a quantity that characterizes indeed the logarithmic decline of radiation with distance.
Yet the fundamental point is precisely that this concept is usually strongly dependent on the wavelength, lambda of the radiation
For instance over a distance L (lambda) radiation intensity is reduced to 10 %, over 2 L to 1 %, 3 L to 0.1 % etc.
Attenuation length L(lambda) is then essentially both the thickness of material that absorbs all the relevant incident radiation at this wavelength or the thickness that contributes essentially all of the emission at this wavelength whenever observed from this material.
.
Attenuation length L (lambda) is inversely proportional to the absorp-tivity or emissivity, that is, the function epsilon( lambda) of the material in question. If the material is a blackbody it is independent on wavelength lambda. If it’s a gas the emissivity depends strongly on wavelength and is largest in the center of absorp-tion band or line and declines rapidly in its wings as one move away from center, becoming eventually negligible.
Thus attenuation length for IR in atmosphere because of the CO2 is only about one meter around lambda= 15 micrometers, the band center, and increases rapidly as one moves away in spectrum becoming for instance a few km at 13-14 micrometers and eventually larger than 10 km or the whole atmosphere at 10-11 micrometers where CO2 practically no more absorbs anything.
Relevant optical depths of troposphere are thus about 1000-10000 in center of band at 15 micrometers, 2 or 3 at 13-14 micrometers and much less than 1 at 10 micrometers.
Optical depths much smaller (larger) than 1 correspond to an “optically thin (thick)” atmosphere at relevant wavelength.
By the way as said upthread this strong dependance of optical depth is precisely what is exploited in satellite temperature measurement with microwaves from O2 band to either probe emission from whole atmosphere ( channels with low optical depth away from band center) or progressively higher layers and stratosphere only (by increasing optical depth upon measuring in channels or wavelengths closer to the band center).
Within the first meter or two above the surface, Hitran says much of the energy absorbed by gas molecules at some wavelengths is thermalized
What Hitran says is just that gas molecules absorb essentially all the radiation within a few meters at some wavelength, see above.
Absorp-tion implies ipso facto thermalization, namely conversion of radiation into internal energy of the gas. When will you finally grasp that simple thing ?
It’s just hilarious to see you keeping idiotically throw around this concept of thermalization.
Mother Nature will determine which, if any, of my findings are nonsense.
Nope.
The nonsense of your “findings” is already an absolute certitude. As is the rotundity of the Earth.
What Mother Nature will determine is just the precise amplitude of the CO2 warming effect. That’s not precisely known yet because of complexity and feedbacks. No “negligible” CO2 GHE.
Idi,, Apparently you reject all of these scientific findings.
1. In the late Ordovician Period, the planet plunged into and warmed up from the Andean/Saharan ice age, all at about 10 times the current CO2 level [3].
2. Over the Phanerozoic eon (last 542 million years) there is no correlation between CO2 level and AGT [3, 4].
3. During the last and previous glaciations AGT trend changed directions before CO2 trend [2].
4. Since AGT has been directly and accurately measured world wide (about 1895), AGT has exhibited up and down trends while CO2 trend has been only up. [2]
5. Since 2001, average uptrend calculated by GCMs which assume CO2 causes AGW is about twice measured.
6. Analysis of CO2 and Temperature data 2002-2008 shows a close correlation between d-CO2/dT and lower tropospheric temperature. This demonstrates that CO2 follows temperature and not the reverse. [30]
DP,
The issue in discussion was the mere existence of the CO2 GHE. Is this a real thing ? The answer is a definitive yes from the point of view of physics and any physicist. You are the one in a position (with little more effort) to convince yourself that this is indeed true because you certainly know already more physics than many other deniers posting here.
That said CO2 is only one among the factors that influence climate and science cannot predict precisely how much warming is in store because of anthropic CO2 GHE, not because GHE is wrong or uncertain, but because climate system is a complex system with many feedbacks. There are unfortunately fundamental limitations in what science can or cannot predict in complex systems. As I find the green activist hysteria about Catastrophic AGW as irritating as other skeptics since it is not real science.
And by the way I do not reject any scientific finding, actually none of your 6 points is a valid argument against CO2 GHE or AGW. A few brief remarks:
1/ Sun was also fainter 450 million years ago.
2/ No scientist claims that CO2 is the only factor, as said above.
3/ It’s merely grossly false logic to invoke this against AGW. These things are not mutually exclusive.
4/ No scientist ever claimed that temperatures have to increase monotonically with AGW.
5/ Yes, the climate models are not very reliable and much too much confidence is put in them. But again, as said above, this is because of fundamental limitations and by no means implies that CO2 has no or negligible warming potential.
6/ Again as 3/ just a logical fallacy. The fact that temperature fluctuations reflect in CO2 evolution curve or influence CO2 content in atmosphere does not imply that the reverse cannot take place. No mutual exclusion, once more.
Idi,, Apparently you missed this http://www.drroyspencer.com/2018/06/uah-global-temperature-update-for-may-2018-0-18-deg-c/#comment-307574
and also missed that it warmed up again after the Andean/Saharan ice age.
Not sure what your point is.
I missed the post you linked to, as many others, sure, but I quite agree that MF, GR etc lack any serious background in physics and are not willing to learn anything. Their blather is just idiocy and, maybe, you missed yourself the fact that i do not engage in any discussion with them. Useless, hopeless.
As to the Andean/Saharan ice age, again CO2 is certainly only one among the many factors that are possibly involved in these major past glaciation and deglaciation events and the actual causes are still a topic of intense research. I can’t see how these events might refute the existence of a sizable CO2 GHE.
DP
Here is a paper on GHE from 1931 by E.O. halbert. No IPCC by then, no horse in the race.
It’s behind paywall, buy it or get at the full version nowadays by means of Russian Science Hub, look it up.
Everything is already explained in a physically lucid way in this paper, no digital computers by then.
https://journals.aps.org/pr/abstract/10.1103/PhysRev.38.1876
Sorry, name of physicist is E.O. Hulburt.
Idi,, My point is that CO2, in spite of being a ghg, has no significant (IMO <1%) effect on climate.
In support of this, I discovered how this can be true and have shared my findings at http://energyredirect3.blogspot.com
Further, I discovered (actually Willis E did at https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/07/25/precipitable-water/comment-page-1 but it is unclear that he realized it) that water vapor has been increasing (8% since 1960) and is a substantial positive forcing on average global temperature (AGT).
Both WV (NASA/RSS measurements) and AGT (UAH) are below their long-term (30+ year) linear trends and have been in down trend since the el Nino peak of two years ago but IMO it is too soon to be sure the long-term temperature uptrend has ended.
My point is that CO2, in spite of being a ghg, has no significant (IMO <1%) effect on climate.
Yeah, we know that, already.
And you are just plain wrong and were amply told why by now and definitely unable to respond to.
Period.
The amplitude of CO2 warming is zero. It is already answered.
SdP, please stop trolling
Impersonator, PST.
“The amplitude of CO2 warming is zero.”
Salvatore is correct for the entire atm. “big picture” as any IR active gas warming in the lower regions must be offset by equal cooling in the atm. upper regions to conserve energy in the entire system as IR active gas consumes no power. See Manabe 1964 for details surface to 40km.
You want to know what is needed opposite of what AGW is predicting?
I do not really understand the question.
I say what would be needed is for the global temperatures to go down from here moving forward for several years.
Is that what you wanted to hear.
I have said all the premises AGW theory is based on have not materialized.. I have listed those many times.
According to the chart top of page global lower atm. temperatures have already gone down from some dates moving forward for several years. I was curious why going forward there would be some new conclusion about basic AGW theory if that same circumstance happens again.
It seems if you do not understand my question then you do not understand why you wrote the quote which triggered my curiousity to ask the question in the first place.
My argument would be as follows:
The jig is up this year for AGW, as I have been saying. AGW has hi jacked natural variations within a climatic regime to attribute the recent warming to mankind. That being ENSO,( look at the MEI index over the past 3 or 4 years), lack of explosive major volcanic activity and the sun itself which I say had a warming effect on the climate up until the end of year 2005. Thereafter a cooling effect but lag times have to be taken into consideration.
Year 2018 is a key year because this is the first year my two solar conditions are present in order for solar to have a significant cooling impact on the climate.
They are 10+ years of sub solar activity in general (post 2005-present) and following that a period of very low average solar parameters (which commenced in year 2018) which are equal to or greater in magnitude change and duration of time of that associated with typical solar minimums within sunspot cycles.
All solar influence moderated by the geo magnetic field. Sometimes in concert ,sometimes in opposition.
Overall sea surface temperatures one of the keys and the trend is down. It has been down for a year.
Albedo being the other ,which I say are both tied to very low prolonged solar conditions.
I have talked about this so much but to get to the chase I see year 2018 as a transitional year to a climatic shift as occurred in 1977 if not perhaps a different climatic regime ,one similar to what was present during the Dalton.
What is prevalent is more often then not when the climate transitions to another regime it usually does it at the top of the previous climatic regime.
Post 1850-2017 the climate has been in the same climatic regime with variations +/- 1C due to ENSO and volcanic activity, which is in no way unique.
The test is on and I like what I see but this is the top of the 1st inning(cooling has scored).
Even the oceanic surface cooling to date is now enough to halt any further global warming and I think overall surface oceanic cooling has more to go on the down side.
The jig is up this year for AGW, as I have been saying.
Indeed, you have been saying this already 10 years ago.
And ever since, every year.
Hilarious.
Keep it up.
Man lives by hope.
ALL THE FACTORS ARE IN NOW UNLIKE 8 NOT 10 YEARS AGO.
I thought all the factors were in 8 years ago, but I was wrong the solar factor which is the whole ballgame turned out not to be in.
However in year 2018 the solar factor is in, my two solar conditions have finally been meant, and the climate test is on.
8 years later but it has arrived. The test has started this year not last year or year 2016,2015 etc.
We will know moving forward from here.
Salvatore, you are a one-trick pony. This from 2013:
“I think the start of the temperature decline will commence within six months of the end of the solar cycle maximum and should last for at least 30+ years.”
– Salvatore Del Prete, 7/13/2013
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2013/07/uah-v5-6-global-temperature-update-for-june-2013-0-30-deg-c/#comment-84963
And from 2015:
“2016 will not be s warm as 2015….”
– 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
David until year 2018 the solar factors to CAUSE cooling were not present.
Simple answer to your assertion.
Idiot tracker, please stop trolling.
Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team, please stop trolling.
Impersonator, PST.
So we have “Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team (#1)” complaining that “Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team (#2)” is impersonating “Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team (#1)”. Meanwhile, “Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team (#1)” is themselves impersonating an actual moderation team. ☺
Tim, please stop trolling.
Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team, please stop trolling
Impersonator, get your own idea. Stop being so lazy.
Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team, PST
Impersonator, get your own idea, and stop being so lazy.
Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team, PST.
MIT Climate Scientist on ‘global warming’: ‘Ordinary people realize that this is a phony issue.
SO TRUE!
–I asked, and you still havent answered: what is the consequence, when in the end we all arrive at the same heat flow?–
Well, I Don’t think many here think Earth could become like Venus, due to greenhouse gases, but a few think CO2 can make Earth hotter, and that is due to a misunderstanding.
Kristian
Now I think you have been right all along………it’s incorrect to add a one way, contributory flux to a net flux (i.e. “heat flux”). Basic math.
Sorry for calling you a nitwit.
Exchange a)
Downwelling = 4 w/m^2
Upwelling = 3 w/m^2
Net flux: 1 w/m^2 (downwelling)
Exchange b)
Downwelling = 5 w/m^2
Upwelling = 2 w/m^2
Net flux: 3 w/m^2 (downwelling)
We can add the net fluxes: 4 w/m^2
But we cannot add the net flux in a), to the one way, downwelling contributor in b)
(4 – 3) + (5 – 2) does not equal 6
*******
Here’s an exception to the rule:
Suppose the upwelling in example b) equaled 0. In that case:
Net flux in a) + net flux in b) = 6
Net flux in a) + downwelling in b) = 6
(4 = 3) + (5 – 0) = 6
Look at the exchange between sun and earth surface. It represents an exception to the rule, where the downwelling, one way contributor and the net (heat flux) are the same number:
Downwelling from sun: 161 w/m^2
Upwelling from surface: ~ 0 w/m^2
Net (heat flux): ~ 161 downwelling from sun
https://scied.ucar.edu/sites/default/files/images/large_image_for_image_content/radiation_budget_kiehl_trenberth_2011_900x645.jpg
*******
Hypothetical exchange:
– Downwelling solar to surface: 161 w/m^2
– Upwelling surface to sun: 10 w/m^2
Heat flux: 151 w/m^2
Now If we added the 333 w/m^2 to the solar heat flux (151 w/m^2), and considered that the total input to the surface, it would be like adding apples and oranges. The surface energy budget would be out of balance, i.e.
Down:
333 + 151 = 484
Up:
396 + 10 + 17 + 80 = 503
Bottom line, Kristian is right. Ordinarily you can not add a one way contribution to a true heat flux (heat flux defined as net energy exchanged).
Sun/earth heat flux is an exception, because earth’s energy contribution to the sun rounds to zero.
snape…”…heat flux defined as net energy exchanged…”
Maybe in home economics, anthropology, or political science, not in thermodynamics or physics.
In a solid, you could talk about a heat flux as heat flowing through an iron bar (conduction) but there is no net energy exchange. In a fluid like water, or in an air mass, you could talk about a heat flux as a mass flow of atoms (convection), but there would be no net energy exchange.
Heat ‘flows’ (for lack of a better word…I prefer transfer) must involve mass transfer of matter. In radiation, there is no heat flowing since no matter is flowing, it is EM, and if you persist in mixing EM and heat you will be forever stuck in a quandary.
Energy can be converted from one form to another, and back, but it is never exchanged as a net flow. If you think so, show me the equation covering that net flow.
The Fourier equation for heat transfer in a solid does not cover a net flow and neither does the Stefan-Boltzmann equation for radiation density. Kircheoff talks about it AT THERMAL EQUILIBRIUM but nowhere else.
Blackbody advocates have gotten themselves seriously confused by taking the BB definition too seriously. A BB is an idealized entity that is defined as a body that MUST absorb all electromagnetic energy incident upon it. It’s silly to talk about two such bodies radiating against each other, other than at thermal equilibrium.
Tim….” you CAN add the 500W/m^2 flux of sunlight to the 300 W/m^2 flux of “icelight” to get 800 W/m^2 of total flux hitting the surface…”
You can only add frequencies whose same frequency is in phase. The disparity between EM from ice and EM from sunlight, in both frequency and intensity, is so great you could not add them.
Furthermore, a surface heated by solar energy would have a temperature far too great for EM from the colder ice to have any effect on it.
2nd law.
Two light bulbs emit light that is not in phase, and yet two bulbs add to be brighter than one bulb.
The surface of Pluto is heated by solar energy, yet it could be heated by 270 K ice.
Sorry, Gordon, but basically nothing you said here is correct. Go visit your local university and ask any physics prof — they will all tell you this is nuts.
Tim…”Two light bulbs emit light that is not in phase, and yet two bulbs add to be brighter than one bulb”.
Two light bulbs, presumably with tungsten filaments would have enough incoherent frequencies in common to add. Even with one tungsten filament and one LED of comparable luminance, they would still add in overlapping frequency ranges.
Solar energy in general will have enough over-lapping frequencies to add. It doesn’t matter what source the light comes from, as long as the frequency and the intensity are comparable, the emissions will add.
The fact that light from light bulbs is near-white, albeit with some favouring the blue end of the spectrum and some the lower mid-visible range, suggests a broad-band of visible EM wavelengths. White in the additive sense as found with light is a combination of red, green and blue frequencies.
For example, a colour TV has 3 guns emitting electron beams that are focused on red, green, and blue dots on the screen. A basic adjustment with colour TVs is to adjust the RGB beam intensities till white is produced. You start by mixing red and green to get yellow, then bring up the blue till white is produced.
EM from ice is off the end of the visible spectrum. It has little in common with visible solar EM, certainly not frequencies in common nor intensity.
Maybe you should take your own advice and visit your local physics department. Ask them about superposition and adding frequencies.
“You can only add frequencies whose same frequency is in phase.”
“enough incoherent frequencies in common to add.”
So you can only add in phase, coherent light, but you can add incoherent, out of phase light!
“EM from ice is off the end of the visible spectrum. It has little in common with visible solar EM, certainly not frequencies in common nor intensity.”
“they would still add in overlapping frequency ranges.”
So you need overlapping frequencies in order to add. Thus microwaves — which are even lower frequency than IR — would be even less able to add, and would be completely unable to warm things near room tempeature.
Gordon, your understanding is wrong. Your hypotheses are self-contradictory and lead to absurd results.
tim…”So you can only add in phase, coherent light, but you can add incoherent, out of phase light! ”
I implied that incoherent light from 2 light bulbs had enough in-phase frequencies to add together. You claimed you could add the frequencies radiated from ice to the much higher frequencies and intensities found in the visible light spectrum.
********
“So you need overlapping frequencies in order to add. Thus microwaves which are even lower frequency than IR would be even less able to add, and would be completely unable to warm things near room tempeature”.
You would add microwaves in the same range of frequencies, you would not try adding microwaves to radio frequency waves or to infrared or ultraviolet frequency waves.
Microwaves generated in a microwave oven bounce off the metal oven walls and combine as standing waves. They can do that because they are all generated by a magnetron with a specific frequency. The standing waves offer power nodes and maxima which are stationary. That’s why you need a rotating table in the oven so it can contact as many nodes as possible.
*********
“Gordon, your understanding is wrong”.
When you talk about adding frequencies you are directly into my field of expertise. I have been doing this for decades.
I have used oscilloscopes extensively and have seen the addition of different frequencies directly. I know for a fact that adding the lower frequency, lower intensity EM from ice to the much higher frequency/intensity of visible radiation does not work.
“I know for a fact that adding the lower frequency, lower intensity EM from ice to the much higher frequency/intensity of visible radiation does not work.”
Then you know for a fact the 1LOT is wrong. Good luck with that Gordon because it is you that is wrong. As often happens when you misquote the masters.
Tim…”The surface of Pluto is heated by solar energy, yet it could be heated by 270 K ice”.
Strange argument, Tim. If you turn off solar energy, are you claiming the ice on Pluto would warm it? Where would you get 300K ice to test your hypothesis?
I would think a loss of solar energy would reduce any ice on Pluto to roughly 0K.
Gordon must be thinking of waves of matching frequency adding to produce a larger amplitude wave. OK.
But Tim is talking about adding the energy of different waves. The energy (heat) adds, no matter the frequency or phase. Just as the integrated BB spectrum, all of it adds to the total radiated heat.
I could heat my coffee with a 200 W beam of microwaves plus 200 W from an IR heat lamp. It would surely heat twice as fast.
nate…”But Tim is talking about adding the energy of different waves. The energy (heat) adds, no matter the frequency or phase”
Once again, you are confusing EM with heat, which has no frequency. Heat is the kinetic energy of atoms and there’s no way to increase it without adding heat or doing work.
The energy of a wave is in the voltage under the curve. Think of one cycle of EM as bazillions of instantaneous voltages stacked side by side.
If you want to add those voltages, think how you’d do it and why it won’t work very well with frequencies of different periods and amplitudes.
Nate,
The first thing that must be done is to forget about analogies that don’t involve intermittent heat input like the diurnal sun. Second thing is convection. The atmosphere cools during the day because after the IR gases absorb radiation, that energy warms the bulk air which expands and rises. Meanwhile up above the IR gases are cooling 24/7. There is no ceiling preventing the heat from escaping. The heat isn’t trapped. The net effect is much less extreme temperatures than if there were no IR gases.
chic…”The atmosphere cools during the day because after the IR gases absorb radiation, that energy warms the bulk air which expands and rises”.
Why do you think IR absorbent gases have anything to do with atmospheric warming? All GHGs in the atmosphere account for roughly 0.3% of the entire atmosphere.
Test that 0.3% with the 99% of nitrogen and oxygen using the Ideal Gas Law. I don’t care about lapse rates, overall, the IGL should apply.
Don’t you think it’s like the tail wagging the dog?
Gordon,
I will agree to discuss this with you if you can stay on point and not go into diatribes about photons being absorbed or interpretations of the 2LoT you don’t agree with. The IGLs apply to every point in the atmosphere no matter what the lapse rate is under any circumstance.
“Why do you think IR absorbent gases have anything to do with atmospheric warming?”
Here are the steps involved with warming the atmosphere. Which one(s) do you have problems with?
1. When the sun rises, radiation warms the surface.
2. The near equilibrium or quasi-steady state heat flow through the atmosphere is disturbed as the radiation from the surface increases both directly to space and into the atmosphere.
3. Some of the radiation into the atmosphere will be absorbed by IR active gases.
4. Any radiation absorbed by an IR active gas molecule will be either subsequently emitted or shared by collisions with other molecules of air.
5. The density of the atmosphere close to the surface is so dense, thermalization (absorbed energy shared by collision) is vastly predominant over emissions.
6. The air warmed by thermalization expands and rises being replaced by cooler air above (convection).
7. This convection continues up through the atmosphere where the density decreases to the point where an emission is more likely than a collision.
8. The atmosphere is cooled by the radiation to space.
If you’re still with me at this point, ask yourself what just happened. Wasn’t the atmosphere warmed at the surface? Was the atmosphere cooled at the TOA? Was the surface warmed by the sun? Was the surface cooled faster by the presence of IR gases or warmed further by at least a few absorp-tions by IR-active gases that resulted in emissions back toward the surface? Or is it all of the above?
“Dont you think its like the tail wagging the dog?”
I think the dog is chasing its tail.
chic…”If you’re still with me at this point, ask yourself what just happened”.
First of all, my reply to you was not aimed at getting a discussion going with you, my aim was to give people reading this stuff a different perspective. If you want to offer an intelligent reply I am totally open to that but if you want to sulk and ignore me fill your boots. You seem to be content to ignore me because you cannot refute what I am claiming.
I don’t give a hoot whether you or any one else replies to me.
With regard to your spiel about how the atmosphere warms/cool it’s nothing more than philosophical bs. I talk science based on the physics I studied at university and what I have read from the pioneers who developed the science. What I have said about the 2nd law is confirmed science. If you have a problem with that then stay lost in your philosophical bs.
In other words, you have no idea what the 2nd law means because you have followed a philosophical idea of what it means. It means that heat can NEVER be transferred from cold to hot without compensation, and if your philosophy contradicts that definition, your philosophy is wrong.
“It means that heat can NEVER be transferred from cold to hot without compensation, and if your philosophy contradicts that definition, your philosophy is wrong.”
Since you mean heat as the KE of molecules and atoms Gordon, Maxwell and Boltzmann showed this is wrong statistically thereby improving on Clausius’ work. See the M-B distribution of velocity.
Gordon,
“I dont give a hoot whether you or any one else replies to me.”
Sorry you feel that way. I was looking forward to finding some common ground. Seems that is not likely.
Chic,
‘There is no ceiling preventing the heat from escaping. The heat isnt trapped. The net effect is much less extreme temperatures than if there were no IR gases.’
Less extreme, but not higher.
Roy showed a while back that with no IR gases there can be no vertical temp gradient in the atmosphere. All heat flow will be from surface to space direct via radiation. So surface radiation will = absorbed solar.
Meant Less extreme, but not lower.
Nate,
“Less extreme, but not lower.”
That’s correct. Theoretically less extreme surface temperatures result in more heat radiated due to Holder’s inequality.
Roy’s position is his theoretical opinion. Is there data on the temperature gradient in an IR-gas-free atmosphere? Even if the controversial all-heat-flow-would-be-from-the-surface meme were correct, what would prevent the atmosphere from being warmed? If it warms, there will be some convection. Some warming during the day, some cooling at night.
Furthermore, assuming some IR gases are needed to suppress the extreme temperatures of an IR-gas-free atmosphere, what proof is there that we haven’t reached a maximum where no further increase in CO2 will have any further effect. That is why I keep asking for the data that proves this.
I reject the idea that I have to agree with AGW just because so many others are buying into the hype.
Furthermore, assuming some IR gases are needed to suppress the extreme temperatures of an IR-gas-free atmosphere, what proof is there that we havent reached a maximum where no further increase in CO2 will have any further effect. That is why I keep asking for the data that proves this.
Are you really asking for “proof”?
What, apart from another Earth with a higher CO2 concentration and everything else the same, would a satisfactory proof even look like to your mind?
Barry,
Your point is well taken. Proof is subjective, like beauty maybe?
I normally write definitive or conclusive evidence. One element of evidence lacking in every response I get is temperature measurement corresponding to a response to increased CO2. What is usually presented as evidence is spectra taken years apart and then HITRAN or Modtran calculations assumed to represent some degree of forcing or warming.
There may not be any hope of comparing actual temperatures in the past with identical conditions now or in the future. But without better evidence than models, claims of AGW are essentially faith-based. That’s the way I see it at the moment.
The physical basis is the absor.p.t.ive propertes of ‘greenhouse gases.’ I don’t see that as fantastical in the least, nor the rather straightforward conclusion that more of this action should slow down the rate at which radiative energy leaves the surface to space. If we slow down the rate of cooling of a thing, and it is receiving energy externally, then the thing will warm up. No thermodynamic laws broken. The postulate may be unverified to your mind, but fantastical?
The GHG water vapour brings with it hot temperatures when in atmospheric abundance, and specifically at night, when solar energy sinks out of the equation. Not corroboration?
At a basic level we see that over the long term global temperatures have risen as GHGs have increased in the atmosphere. So before straying into the weeds, the most basic proposition is met.
I believe the current tectonic arrangement is sufficient to compare apples to apples, so the last few million years.
The physical basis is the a.b.s.o.r.p.t.i.v.e properties of ‘greenhouse gases.’ I don’t see that as fantastical, nor the rather straightforward conclusion that more of this action should slow down the rate at which radiative energy leaves the surface to space. If we slow down the rate of cooling of a thing, and it is receiving a fairly steady rate of energy externally, then the thing will warm up. No thermodynamic laws broken. The postulate re AGW may be unverified to your mind, but faith-based?
At a basic level we see that over the long term global temperatures have risen as GHGs have increased in the atmosphere. So before straying into the weeds, the most basic proposition is met.
I believe the current tectonic arrangement is sufficient to compare apples to apples, so the last few million years.
Barry,
Fantastical? I didn’t even know that word until now. Faith based only means belief in something that can’t be proved, like religion.
“The postulate re AGW may be unverified to your mind, but faith-based?”
Yes. AGW is just an unverified hypothesis. We are at the same temperatures now as twenty years ago. How is that possible if AGW is real?
“At a basic level we see that over the long term global temperatures have risen as GHGs have increased in the atmosphere. So before straying into the weeds, the most basic proposition is met.”
Correlation, especially a poor one, does not prove causation. Otherwise you could say the US national debt causes global warming.
“How is that possible if AGW is real?”
1) By cherry picking start, stop, offset to suit a view
2) There are 9+ unnatural T forcings both +/- acting independently at the same time, other natural forcings, and huge natural cycles acting on lower troposphere temperatures as evidenced by chart at the top of this page. Not to even mention possible feedbacks.
Chic, I don’t consider it hype, just physics.
As far as evidence here is what I posted to Mike Flynn re: GHE and enhanced GHE.
Tell me what you think.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2018/06/antarctic-ice-sheet-collapses-nobel-prizes-and-the-psychology-of-catastrophism/#comment-307952
The paper made remarkable predictions, well before much was observed.
Nate,
I don’t know what else I can add to what Mike Flynn has already commented.
I think you would do well to learn to express the GHE in the way you understand it and propose how you would go about testing it.
Hansen’s equations and the more complex models evolving from them have not been able to correctly predict a temperature response as a function of CO2. They probably never will for the various reasons I and many skeptics have detailed. I await further evidence before agreeing that temperature correlates with CO2 any better than the USA’s national debt.
Chic,
Hansen expressed the GHE in a brief, straightforward way that agrees with physics. I understand it, as do most other scientists who’ve looked at it. If you don’t, that doesn’t make it wrong, that means you need to learn more.
Testing GHE. We don’t have another Earth, but we do other planets to test the equations. If they work (they do) that is good evidence.
‘Hansens equations and the more complex models evolving from them have not been able to correctly predict a temperature response as a function of CO2. ‘
You missed somehow, but actually this paper predicted what actually unfolded in the next 38 y extremely well, considering what was known then.
He boldly predicted the temperature would rise out of the bkd noise of the previous 40 y of ~ flat temps. It did. He predicted the magnitude of the rise, within uncertainty. He predicted the melting of arctic sea ice and enhanced arctic warming. He predicted enhanced warming in W Antarctica, and some other things that have happened.
When any scientist predicts things in some detail, in advance, and then is correct, as did Einstein w relativity and the solar eclipse, that is more convincing.
I sincerely hope you don”t agree with clueless Mike that its ok to violate 1st law or that TOA energy should be ~ in balance.
arghhh —that TOA energy should’nt be ~ in balance.
Nate,
If Hansen expressed the GHE in a straightforward way, it should be easy for you to explain your understanding of the GHE. I have explained my view on how IR active gases affect the atmosphere many times. Frankly I think I understand the atmosphere better than you, because I don’t associate it with a greenhouse as you apparently do. Maybe you need to learn more?
Please explain how the other planets can test or have tested your GHE.
On the backside of the El Nino in 1998, the average global temperature as measured by UAH was arguably so close to the AGT reported this month on another backside of an El Nino. Are you saying that Hansen’s or any other climate model predicted this 20 year period of approximately flat temperatures?
“He boldly predicted the temperature would rise out of the bkd noise of the previous 40 y of ~ flat temps. It did. He predicted the magnitude of the rise, within uncertainty.”
I agree it was a bold prediction considering the “background noise” included a dogleg of temperature rise equal to the rise occurring during his prediction and the cooling period between. Huge corrections from volcanic and aerosol parameters are required to get anywhere near fitting the data.
“He predicted the melting of arctic sea ice and enhanced arctic warming. He predicted enhanced warming in W Antarctica, and some other things that have happened.”
The effects of global warming will occur regardless of the cause. If something other than CO2 or other gases caused the warming, Hansens’s predictions are meaningless.
Comparing Hansen’s hypothesis and predictions to Einstein’s is a stretch. Try that on Roy’s latest post where relativity was being discussed.
Calling someone clueless and accusing someone of things they haven’t said doesn’t sit well with me. Please be specific and support your assertions.
Chic,
I explained GHE to you in a simple analogy of the house. But you didnt like that.
I showed you how the professionals describe the GHE. But you don’t like that.
So, I’m not sure what you’re looking for. There are plenty of descriptions available, which I’m sure you’ve seen.
I am unclear what part(s) you object to. Or whether you think there is no GHE.
The point of the several planets, is as he said, providing a test of the theory under different conditions. IMO, that is just what you want.
You’re not impressed by the paper, well I think its a fine wine, but of course thats an acquired taste.
I suspect you are not looking at it objectively.
You seemed to be agreeing with Mike. Were you? If you just look at a bunch of Mike’s posts, you can see he is not a serious person, he is a troll.
He asks over and over for testable GHE. When people give him one, many times, he just brushes it off with nonsense, and repeats strawmen. His point seems to be to waste peoples time.
Nate,
I’m not looking to win an argument with you or side with you against Mike. If you are happy describing the atmosphere as a greenhouse, knock yourself out by continuing to promote the GHE.
This is my position. The simple model of a GHE causes people to assume that additional CO2 in the atmosphere will warm the planet. It may be insignificant when all other factors are considered. We have a 20 trillion dollar debt in the USA. There are too many other more pressing issues than to piss away dollars or any other nation’s currency on a non-problem.
Chic,
My impression was you were interested in understand the science and discussing it with a (somewhat) open mind.
But when I discuss science with you, show you objectively impressive evidence, you dismiss it as inadequate. When I ask for your specific objections, you don’t offer anything substantive.
Instead you offer ideological/policy concerns.
So it seems you have been misrepresenting yourself. It is really for ideological reasons that you are deciding the science must be wrong.
I just don’t get it. Why do you guys think that a good way to judge science is through an ideological lens?
Nate,
“But when I discuss science with you, show you objectively impressive evidence, you dismiss it as inadequate.”
So if I don’t agree with your evidence or don’t think it makes a strong case, that means I am closed minded?
“When I ask for your specific objections, you dont offer anything substantive.”
I don’t recall anytime purposely avoiding a substantive answer to any of your objections. Maybe I was agreeing with you or I didn’t notice or didn’t understand. I’m sorry about it and if you want to revisit anything, please do.
Alco, I am not aware that I’ve asserting things that aren’t scientifically possible or accurate. So bring it on. What science have I proposed that you decided is wrong?
“Instead you offer ideological/policy concerns. … Why do [I (who are those guys?)] think that a good way to judge science is through an ideological lens?”
Now you’ve moved into wild speculation. I’m sure there are many of the “97%” who regurgitate bad science for ideological or other reasons. I do the opposite. I carefully studied the basic science to the point where I am convinced we are debating a non-problem. My “ideological/policy concern” opinions are based on my scientific convictions and skepticism.
BTW, ‘If you are happy describing the atmosphere as a greenhouse’
Obviously GHE is not exactly like a greenhouse, nor is the scientific description of the effect I showed you.
But let me just mention one more piece of strong evidence for GHE.
The GHE is tested every time a numerical weather model is used to predict the weather, because the GHE is incorporated into those models. It must be included to correctly model energy content of parcels of air, and hence temperature, pressure, etc.
I think we can all agree that weather prediction has improved dramatically over the last 50 y. It works well.
‘I dont recall anytime purposely avoiding a substantive answer to any of your objections.’
I asked this? ‘
‘I am unclear what part(s) you object to. Or whether you think there is no GHE.’
No real answer given. I was asking what part(s) of the GHE theory you object to, such as the description in the paper.
Evidence in the paper:
“The point of the several planets, is as he said, providing a test of the theory under different conditions. IMO, that is just what you want.”
You offer up no real reason to reject this as evidence.
The prediction of temp rise made in the paper. I cannot show it to you but I overlayed Had*crut temp record on top of Fig 7. The agreement is remarkably good. He predicts a rise of 0.6 plus minus 0.15 C between 1980 and 2020. Had*crut shows a rise of ~ 0.7 C.
What reason for rejecting that as a piece of evidence?
The sea dramatic sea ice melting and opening of arctic- was not something that had happened historically, so that in itself is bold prediction.
‘On the backside of the El Nino in 1998, the average global temperature as measured by UAH was arguably so close to the AGT reported this month on another backside of an El Nino. Are you saying that Hansens or any other climate model predicted this 20 year period of approximately flat temperatures?’
Not a good way of looking at things to pick out single months, and pick out the one temp record (UAH) with by far the lowest trend.
Look at the big picture of long term trends in most data sets
https://tinyurl.com/y9wq6ek8
Nate,
“Obviously GHE is not exactly like a greenhouse, nor is the scientific description of the effect I showed you.”
If you go back through our discussion, I don’t think you will find that you have done much better than describe the atmosphere as a greenhouse or as just a house with a heater inside and an attic. Start here:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2018/06/uah-global-temperature-update-for-may-2018-0-18-deg-c/#comment-308482
You linked to Hansen’s paper as if that automatically tells me what you understand by a GHE or an enhanced GHE. I’m not going to debate Hansen or his paper. I don’t want to discuss a GHE with you unless I understand what you mean by it.
You besmirch Mike for asking you to define a GHE. He doesn’t do that just to make fun. Well, I have to admit enjoying the reactions he gets. Seriously, I can’t discuss any specific science regarding your position if you can’t tell me what it is. I think that is why Mike keeps asking.
Usually what people claim is that IR active gases make the planet warmer. Compared to what? A black body? An Earth-sized globe covered with 30% mirrors and 70% of a non-volatile liquid of unknown heat capacity? With or without an inert atmosphere? I have no idea how you would test an “IR active gases make the planet warmer” hypothesis.
“The GHE is tested every time a numerical weather model is used to predict the weather….”
The science you want to propose is that weather predictions, which are good for maybe three days if we’re lucky, are tests of the GHE (whatever you think it is)?
Nate,
You asked “I am unclear what part(s) you object to. Or whether you think there is no GHE.” This followed your putting off describing your version of the GHE and wanted me to debunk Hansen’s version and some other unnamed versions. I already explained model weaknesses and failure to measure a temperature response directly due to an increase in CO2.
“You offer up no real reason to reject [several planets providing a test of the theory] as evidence.”
Again, what is he talking about? You have to make his case. I have other things to do than read papers and explain them to you.
“What reason for rejecting [correlating model output with data] as a piece of evidence?”
Without seeing the data, I would say a prediction in 1988 of data from 1980 to 2020 is lucky at best considering you already have eight years in the bank. Have you done any experiments? Your model doesn’t prove your hypothesis. It only helps you fine tune more experiments to continue to challenge it. The climate models fail. No support for the GHE (whatever it is) hypothesis there.
Sea ice? Arctic ice melt has happened before when fossil fuel emissions could have little to do with it. It is now warmer than in the past. More ice melt should not be a surprise whatever the cause.
I cherry picked data for the most recent temperatures because it shows that the planet now is just as cold as it was early in 1999. That is only 19 years, not 20, my bad. I’m not evaluating a trend. You cannot argue that today is warmer than then just because the trend is headed that way if you go back another 20 years. It is what it is, not what you want it to be.
Chic,
The paper is 1981, not 1988. Apparently you didnt really look at it. Not sure how you were able to critique it.
“I cherry picked data for the most recent temperatures because it shows that the planet now is just as cold as it was early in 1999. That is only 19 years, not 20, my bad. Im not evaluating a trend. You cannot argue that today is warmer than then just because the trend is headed that way if you go back another 20 years. It is what it is, not what you want it to be.”
Climate is defined to be average of weather over 20 or 30 years. If you truly interested in testing climate change (are you?), then cherry picking single months, in single data sets, is not telling you anything. There is just too much weather noise.
If you pick a single month, or even a single year, and compare to another one, thats ignoring information over many years in between. We want to use all the information we have.
Please take a look at this surface temp data from 3 different groups. Is current year matching 1999? Now, how would you describe what you see happening over decades? Don’t focus on wiggles. Do you see 2 decades of flat trend? Where?
https://tinyurl.com/y9wq6ek8
Chic,
‘You besmirch Mike for asking you to define a GHE. He doesnt do that just to make fun. Well, I have to admit enjoying the reactions he gets. Seriously, I cant discuss any specific science regarding your position if you cant tell me what it is.’
You havent experienced Mike in his full glory. Recently he spent several weeks calling people ‘stupid and ignorant’ in just about every post.
His pleas to define GHE have been answered by me and many others many times. He mostly ignores the answers. Instead, he reposts strawmen: a thermometer, CO2, and sun; use ice to bake a turkey; the Earth has been cooling for 4.5 billion years, not warming. These have been debunked as irrelevant to AGW many many many times. But he just keeps repeating them as if he only has short term memory.
If you think that sort of thing has a purpose, or you enjoy it, well, there’s no accounting for taste.
‘Again, what is he talking about? You have to make his case. I have other things to do than read papers and explain them to you.’
You stated that what was in the paper was not convincing evidence. So, naturally I asked what specifically.
I did quote the paper in my post, re: other planets. If you don’t read it, then no point in discussing further. I have other things to do as well.
But I will repost it ‘Second page: Test of the hypothesis is described.
‘The greenhouse theory can be tested by examination of several planets, which provide an ensemble of experiments over a wide range of conditions. The atmospheric composition of Mars,Earth, and Venus lead to mean radiating levels of about 1, 6, and 70 km, and lapse rates of 5, 5.50, and 7C km^-1, respectively. Observed surface temperatures of these planets confirm the existence
and order of magnitude of the predicted greenhouse effect (Eq. 3)”
And I will put the brief description of the theory as well, if you care to read it:
‘The effective radiating temperature of
the earth, Te, is determined by the need
for infrared emission from the planet to
balance absorbed solar radiation:
‘piR^2(1 – A)So = 4piR^2sigmaTe, (1)
or
Te = [So(1 -A)/4sigma]^0.25 ” (2)
where R is the radius of the earth, A the
albedo of the earth, S0 the flux of solar
radiation, and a the Stefan-Boltzmann
constant. For A – 0.3 and So = 1367
watts per square meter, this yields
Te – 255 K.
The mean surface temperature is
T– 288 K. The excess, Ts – Te, is the
greenhouse effect of gases and clouds,
which cause the mean radiating level to
be above the surface. An estimate of the
greenhouse warming is
Ts ~ Te + Gamma H (3)
where H is the flux-weighted mean altitude
of the emission to space and Gamma is the
mean temperature gradient (lapse rate)
between the surface and H. ”
It is further discussed that the mean radiating level H, rises as the atmosphere becomes more opaque to IR with the addition of more GHG.
Nate,
Yes, it was 1981. I confused it with the date of his Senate appearance which has been getting so much play lately.
What is a trend? Mirriam-webster gives the scientific definition as “the general movement over time of a statistically detectable change. How far back do you have to go to get a statistic that pleases you? I’m not going to spend any more time on that because I have done it in the past. If you do that, you will find periods of statistically significant negative, positive, and no trend. I concede that a century long trend is positive. So what? It won’t guarantee the next century, decade, or even one more year as warmer than today.
“We want to use all the information we have.”
Don’t kid yourself. You only want to use the information you need to win an argument. I want to see the big and true picture regardless of how little or how much information it takes.
Satellite vs. surface measurements is an ongoing dispute. That’s for you to argue with someone else. This is the UAH post of temperatures through May 31 of this year taken from measurements over the whole planet. Assuming the measurement methodology is correct, we are at roughly the same temperature as 19 years ago. Both times were cherry-picked on purpose in periods on the downward slope of an El Nino so that it was at least a “fair” comparison. Are we going to be cooler or warmer next month? Who knows?
Tell me, honestly, why did you change the goal posts from UAH to the other measurement methodologies?
At least tell me you understand that a steadily growing investment portfolio could go south at any time?
Nate,
“[Mike Flynn’s] pleas to define GHE have been answered by me and many others many times.”
If you mean answered by citing Hansen’s paper, I’m not surprised he ignored it. I did too, because you won’t explain what you think Hansen’s GHE is.
Mike has a shtick. If you don’t like it, ignore it.
But CO2 between the thermometer and the sun is not just schtick. Look at the energy diagrams that show solar energy heating the atmosphere. Is CO2 picking up any of that energy? Some goes back to space, right? Unless you can quantify more CO2 heating the planet than cooling it, you don’t have a good argument for Mike Flynn.
Nate,
Regarding the GHE you cut and pasted, does the 255K radiation temperature correspond to 240 W/m2? Without IR gases in the atmosphere wouldn’t Ts be more like 278K?
“It is further discussed that the mean radiating level H, rises as the atmosphere becomes more opaque to IR with the addition of more GHG.”
This is the enhance GHE, is it not? Were is the data to support this hypothesis. No model projections, please.
Chic,
This is your statement,
‘ Are you saying that Hansens or any other climate model predicted this 20 year period of approximately flat temperatures?’
I showed you data from three surface data sets. I asked you to identify the 20 y flat trend.
You didnt answer the question. You’re being evasive. What I see in those sets is an ongoing upward trend over the last 45 y, with some wiggles on top.
If you ask a statistician to evaluate whether the data better fits to a model with a 20 y flat included, they would not be able to demonstrate it.
You go on to talk single months temps, comparing to other single 20 y ago, and only UAH data, which arguably unreliable ( the two TLT sets disagree completely).
Why should we only look at UAH? And only look at selected months? No respectable scientist seeking out evidence for or against long term climate change would do that. They would look at ALL available data.
The only reason to cherry pick is confirmation bias. If one is looking not to test their beliefs, but only to confirm their beliefs.
‘You linked to Hansens paper as if that automatically tells me what you understand by a GHE or an enhanced GHE. Im not going to debate Hansen or his paper. I dont want to discuss a GHE with you unless I understand what you mean by it.’
IMO, the discussion is about the science, not personal. That is why I post the description from a legit the paper, that explains it, IMO, just fine.
You seem to make it for some reason, a test of my understanding, as some sort of dig. Pointless ad hom.
‘But CO2 between the thermometer and the sun is not just schtick. Look at the energy diagrams that show solar energy heating the atmosphere. Is CO2 picking up any of that energy? Some goes back to space, right? Unless you can quantify more CO2 heating the planet than cooling’
I’m sorry it is a schtick. I have pointed to him, as have others, many times, that this is a caricature of the GHE, that leaves out inconvenient ingredients.
Yes CO2 is between the sun and a thermometer. But..
1. We dont put thermometers in the sun, we put them in the shade to accurately measure air temps.
2. CO2 is also between the Earth surface and space. Space which is extremely cold.
3. The spectrum of CO2 is such that it absorbs a greater percentage of mid Ir than near IR (in sunlight).
4. The absorbed energy of sunlight in the atmosphere by CO2 is still an input to the system, warming the atmosphere and some of it thereby warming the surface.
‘does the 255K radiation temperature correspond to 240 W/m2? Without IR gases in the atmosphere wouldnt Ts be more like 278K?’
No why?
240 = 5.67e-8 (255)^4
So when we look at another planet (Venus) we look its planetary albedo that we measure from space with its many clouds. We can’t take away the clouds.
Same for Earth, we take its albedo of 0.3 as it is, with clouds. So we use solar input S0*0.7/4 = 240
Nate,
This is going on too long. I responded on a new thread, if you want to continue.
nate…”Roy showed a while back that with no IR gases there can be no vertical temp gradient in the atmosphere”.
Would you agree that any thought experiment has to be based on sound science? I am not talking about scientific opinion, I am talking about established laws of science like the Ideal Gas Law and the 2nd law.
Someone recently claimed that the IGL only applies in a lab and others have claimed the 2nd law is satisfied by various conditions like a mysterious net balance of energy. I have read intimately on both laws and neither specify anything about location, environment, or net energy flows.
Wherever you have a gas, the IGL has to apply in principle. The environment may be exceedingly complex but you have to at least try to respect the law.
The atmosphere is a gas and pressure, temperature, volume, and the number of molecules come into play.
Try a negative approach to this. Remove solar energy. Would there still be a pressure gradient?
Without solar energy, the molecules of air lose energy as the atmosphere drops to around 0K. What would that mean? Would the atmosphere completely collapse into a mass of solid nitrogen, oxygen, argon, ice crystals and solid CO2 due to gravity?
Don’t know, all I know is that heat is required to give air molecules the energy to resist gravity and thin out as the effect of gravity reduces with altitude.
Restore solar and remove gravity. The air molecules all fly off, right?
We need heat from the Sun and gravity to have a gaseous atmosphere. How do they interact?
There’s truth to what Kristian claims that the atmosphere acts as an insulator, a buffer between the surface heat and the 0K of space. Without solar energy there would be no buffer and no temperature gradient. However, without gravity there would be no pressure gradient hence no gradient over which temperature could apply.
Heat cannot by itself form a temperature gradient. It needs atoms/molecules to transfer the heat. In a solid iron bar, the atomic lattice is uniform and heat can be transferred atom to atom. Not so in the atmosphere since the molecules are not in contact on average.
If the pressure gradient is in place, it means molecules of air are stratified due to gravity. That also means the temperature of a ‘static’ air mass (no convection) MUST form a gradient to match the pressure gradient.
Solar energy gives atmospheric molecules kinetic energy so they can have a temperature. That temperature, or heat, translates to molecules having the energy to flit about the atmospheric space.
However, as they flit about, gravitational forces drags them back to the surface. In doing so, decreasing strengths of gravity allow lesser densities of air to exist at different layers of altitude.
Pressure, temperature and volume are always interacting and the IGL must apply. Heat can only be transferred from colder regions to warmer region a la 2nd law.
I have tried to approach this from the POV that the volume is close enough to constant as is the number of molecules. The real variables then have to be pressure and temperature.
Lapse rate advocates have claimed the temperature gradient is due a heat transfer from the warmer surface to space at nearly 0K. That makes sense but it does not provide an explanation for the pressure gradient that is known to be related to gravity.
In the IGL, there are provisions for considering gases as partial gases as in partial pressures. The contribution of each gas to the overall temperature is based on it’s mass percent.
It seems to me that removing GHGs from the atmosphere won’t affect the vertical temperature profile for the simple reason that a pressure gradient in our atmosphere cannot act independently of an associated temperature gradient.
Makes no sense, as pressure decreases with altitude, the molecules thin out and lose kinetic energy. That is a proved fact with gases. A loss of kinetic energy translates to lower heat levels hence lower temperature.
An atmospheric adiabatic heat transfer suggests no heat enters or leaves the system, nor matter, which I regard as a pretty ludicrous statement given the nature of the atmosphere. Furthermore, they claim only work can transfer energy.
Even if the adiabatic concept applies in places it can only be over a local area. What happens on the dark side of the planet after sundown, when the surface cools. Does it suddenly become warmer at the top of Mt. Everest?
p*ss me off. I have this crap about heat flowing cold to hot in my head and I am now writing it.
I said, “Heat can only be transferred from colder regions to warmer region a la 2nd law”.
Obviously it should be, “Heat can only be transferred from hotter regions to cooler region a la 2nd law”.
Chic,
But this oversimplification hinders, not helps people understand the more complex reality.
Are you in disagreement with the enhanced GHE? That, all else remaining equal, if GHG increase in the atmos, temperatures near the surface should rise in the long term?
This years-long conversation here digressed into this non-earth system explanation. We got the atmosphere and GHGs out of the way and considered a particular claim.
What do you think of this explanation?
http://rabett.blogspot.com/2017/10/an-evergreen-of-denial-is-that-colder.html
I should have clarified every time – instead of saying it once and assuming it would remain in the mind – that I am referring to classical thermodynamics, which does not deal with time (or the process of transition, or why heat flows).
I refer to it as Kristian appears to be speaking almost entirely through that paradigm.
Statstical mechanics (statistical thermodynamics) does, of course, deal with time and rates of change.
Statistical mechanics also recognizes two discrete energy vectors that are interchanged between cold and warm objects. That lay people speak of half that action is not, in my view, a significant problem.
Barry,
“Are you in disagreement with the enhanced GHE? That, all else remaining equal, if GHG increase in the atmos, temperatures near the surface should rise in the long term?”
I can’t give you a definite yes or no on that. What are the ways that more CO2 could make average temperatures warmer? Possibly by blocking IR through the window. CO2 doesn’t increase solar insolation. So if 100% of surface radiation is already absorbed, how can more CO2 cause any more surface radiation to be absorbed. Otherwise what does 100% mean? At the TOA, more CO2 means more potential for emission to space. Convection and wind move the majority of the thermalized radiation upward and poleward. There isn’t much room in the middle troposphere for CO2 to do anything because of the limitations of the mean free paths of the photons.
One way that I think more IR-active gases will increase global temperatures is by reducing extreme temperatures a bit.
Eli’s model is the exact oversimplified GHE model I am referring to when I say people are stuck in it. It leaves out the dynamic elements of an alternating heat source and convection at the surface, and models the atmosphere as solid plates separated by vacuum instead of gases. In other words, is there anything right about the model?
I don’t think there is any violation of the 2LoT with regard to “backradiation” unless one claims the it refers to a distinctly separate flow of heat as some are doing on this blog. Only when the atmosphere is warmer than the surface can any heat flow from the atmosphere to the surface.
“At the TOA, more CO2 means more potential for emission to space.”
Or it means LESS potential for emission to space! CO2 at the TOA is at the coldest part of the atmosphere. As such, more CO2 there means more emissions from the coldest areas, which me LESS emission to space!
Tim,
I’m sorry but more of anything at the same temperature doesn’t make its temperature any colder. CO2 is the only significant gas at those altitudes that can emit at whatever temperature it is at. So explain again why more emission is not possible.
Chic, you must be misunderstanding what i was tryign to say.
The tropopause is *already* cold, due to the lapse rate that naturally forms. Adding more CO2 makes CO2 a better absorber/emitter. Specifically, more CO2 at the top means this CO2 topmost CO2 ABSORBS strong thermal IR from warmer CO2 lower in the atmosphere, and EMITS weaker thermal IR to space.
Tim,
Good point. That would be end of story if the atmosphere was static, heat was only transferred by radiation, temperature only decreased with altitude, and absorp-tions and emissions occurred at equal rates. Is the frequency of absorp-tions always equal to that of emissions?
There are several other phenomenon at play at altitudes between clouds and above the tropopause where the lapse rate reverses sign. Warmer IR also comes from above in the tropopause.
Some radiation from the sun will be absorbed by the atmosphere and may result in emissions that didn’t result from absorp-tions from photons coming from below.
Convection brings heat from below so that is another reason emission doesn’t need to have resulted from an absorp-tion below.
What is the temperature of a photon? Is a photon emitted from colder air less energetic than the one emitted from warmer air?
This is just Tim once again regurgitating theory as implied fact, while conveniently ‘forgetting’ that convection makes the excess energy down at the surface readily bypass any impedance (from stronger IR absorp-tion) to radiative transfer down low and deposits it up high, where the radiative transfer (now out of the system) is rather made more effective (from stronger IR emission).
He’s actually one of the more disingenuous commenters here, having a habit of pretending that previous (and often quite recent) discussions on a particular topic never happened, and then just showing up somewhere else a bit later, as he does here, with the exact same talking point restated.
The recent discussion apparently erased from Tim’s memory in this case is to be found here:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2018/05/in-defense-of-the-term-greenouse-effect/#comment-304521
Chic,
Yes, the radiative effects in the atmosphere are part of the story.
Are you proposing that the other effects work against the radiative effect when the concentration of GHGs change?
That convection somehow mitigates (to extinction??) the radiative effects of increasing GHGs?
I see it as pretty straightforward – more GHGs absorb more infrared radiation. If 100% is absorbed in the first metre, then that layer is still warm and emitting radiation to the next layer of atmosphere, which is absorbing the radiation. And so on.
There is no saturation for the whole atmospheric column, so more GHGs means more absorbing and re-emission through the layers of the atmos, more reduction of the overall flow of heat to space, and, because there is an external source of heat to this system, warming of the surface as a result of the reduced rate of heat loss.
Water vapour is a GHG, too. Warmer air holds more of it. WV concentration isn’t going to mitigate warming, it should enhance it – whatever the cause.
Are you familiar with Richard Lindzen’s IRIS effect?
I can’t think of a mitigating factor to surface warming that would also explain the large surface temp changes of the most recent ice age transitions. Why did the suppressing factors fail here? Seems evident to me that the system IS sensitive to perturbations, yet not susceptible to runaway scenarios. There is ‘gain’, but < 1
Barry,
“Are you proposing that the other effects work against the radiative effect when the concentration of GHGs change?”
Yes and no. Convection is what makes the atmosphere NOT like a greenhouse. Solar radiation warms the surface and the atmosphere. Convection cools the surface and moves heat to higher altitudes so LWIR can cool the atmosphere. It’s symbiotic.
I understand the hypothesis you have outlined. I just don’t see the temperature changes that the hypothesis predicts.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2018/06/antarctic-ice-sheet-collapses-nobel-prizes-and-the-psychology-of-catastrophism/#comment-308275
I understand the hypothesis you have outlined. I just don’t see the temperature changes that the hypothesis predicts.
The prediction is that over the long term global averaged temp should rise.
This has happened.
Where critics seem to try and say something else is by impinging on either the italicised or the bolded.
Equilibrium climate sensitivity is to a doubling of CO2 – so you can’t yet see the temp changes we should get over the long term if the hypothesis holds, and even if we try to temporally fractionalize the values, we still have to account for lags to the forcing. I haven’t sen serious criticism tackling that.
We can examine the values for transient climate sensitivity, and we do see somewhat serous criticism here, but even then the assumptions aren’t treated carefully and the error bars should be carefully attended to.
If ECS is 1.5 to 4 C per doubling CO2, AFTER the system achieves equilibrium with that change (which takes a few decades after the doubling) what sort of global temps should we have seen by now?
I read your linked post where you quote Lindzen and the IRIS effect. I’m not sure what you intend by linking to it. Couldn’t gather from your comments.
Barry,
You’ve covered several topics and after a marathon discussion with Nate on some of the same ground, please forgive me if I don’t get your points. To make matters worse, there is something blocking my post.
“The prediction…that over the long term global averaged temp should rise…has happened.”
I think critics are justified in challenging the long term part. You don’t have to go too far back to observe warming that was not caused by fossil fuel emissions. I wasn’t aware of how steep the Hadley Centre and Giss temperatures have gone up of late compared to UAH. If you favor those methodologies over UAH, then I can see why you would claim the predictions have happened.
I really can’t relate to the sensitivity business. It just seem absurd to make up a forcing equation and try to make a prediction from it. There are too many factors not well understood.
“…what sort of global temps should we have seen by now?”
I don’t know. I’m still in null hypothesis mode. Which leads to your question about linking to Lindzen’s Iris effect. You asked me in a previous post if I knew about it. I was impressed that you connected it with my view of the atmosphere which is so much more than what is depicted by the simple GHE model.
Going back a couple comments, I saw this paragraph from you:
“There is no saturation for the whole atmospheric column, so more GHGs means more absorbing and re-emission through the layers of the atmos, more reduction of the overall flow of heat to space, and, because there is an external source of heat to this system, warming of the surface as a result of the reduced rate of heat loss.”
There is gradually less saturation as density decreases toward the TOA. However, I don’t think this means more reduction in heat flow with more CO2 than there already is. In other words, once enough CO2 is in the air, that degree of saturation is enough to fuel convection near the surface and facilitate emissions at the TOA. Water vapor is too prevalent to allow CO2 to have much influence on temperatures.
The null for temps is no change. We’ve seen statistically significant rise. Critics have to get selective about time periods to construct ‘arguments’ against.
CO2 is well-mixed through the atmosphere. Even if the bottom layer is ‘saturated’ what prevents a.b.s.o.r.p.t.i.o.n by CO2 in higher layers? That saturated layer is still radiating infrared radiation. Have you yourself not made the point that most action is molecular collisions? Then why should saturation at 1 meter altitude prevent abs/re-emission by CO2 at 10 or 10 thousand meters?
I understand you’ve been having at it with others. It’s exhausting trying to get traction here, so no worries. Chat if you feel like it.
barry says, June 27, 2018 at 2:27 AM:
barry, we’re not trying to establish whether the temps have gone up or not. That we can see. We are trying to establish what MADE the temps go up.
The null hypothesis in this regard, and specifically concerning the CO2/temp relationship, is that the temps will not change as a result of a change in atmospheric CO2 concentration. Your alternative hypothesis, then, says that temps WILL change as a result of a change in atmospheric CO2 concentration. +CO2 => +T, -CO2 => -T.
But we already know from before that you believe this to be more or less the same thing. If you only posit a hypothetical cause of temperature rise and then observe a temperature rise, you automatically see this as evidence for YOUR hypothetical cause actually being the/a CAUSE of that rise …
And if that’s NOT what you’re saying, barry, then in what way is a temperature rise IN AND OF ITSELF evidence of what caused it? A temperature plot moving in an upward direction is evidence of a temperature rise. It is not in any way evidence of what CAUSED the temperature rise.
Temperature rise alone is NOT the evidence we’re asking for, barry! We need evidence of attribution.
Barry,
I don’t need to add anything to what Kristian wrote.
Then you may have the same false assumptions about my views as Kristian.
I’m still trying to find out what your position is. You said:
I just don’t see the temperature changes that the hypothesis predicts.
So I connected that to your comment about null hypotheses. Also because you said this in reply to me.
“…what sort of global temps should we have seen by now?”
I don’t know. I’m still in null hypothesis mode.
That was a little cryptic, don’t you think?
Still don’t know quite why you linked to Lindzen’s quote.
I haven’t been reading everything you wrote. I’m not that obsessive. I start fresh with you. Your welcome to do that with me. (Kristian is not a good guide for how I think).
once enough CO2 is in the air, that degree of saturation is enough to fuel convection near the surface and facilitate emissions at the TOA. Water vapor is too prevalent to allow CO2 to have much influence on temperatures.
Still not clear. It seems you’re suggesting the CO2 abs/re-emission stops at the level of saturation – because convection completely takes over… except for water vapour GHG emission, which overwhelms CO2 action?
That’s my best crack at your vision.
Water vapour peters out more rapidly with altitude, while CO2 concentration continues to much higher up. Convection stops at the tropopause, CO2 doesn’t.
And radiative transfer happens alongside convection. One does not replace the other.
I expect I’m not getting your view right, but not for lack of trying.
Barry,
“I havent been reading everything you wrote. Im not that obsessive. I start fresh with you.”
Have you read any of the discussions I had with Norman and Nate? I think that covers most of everything I know on the GHE subject. If you want to start from scratch, respond to what I wrote to Gordon here:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2018/06/uah-global-temperature-update-for-may-2018-0-18-deg-c/#comment-308662
From that post I see only one point new from what I’ve gathered of you so far.
This convection continues up through the atmosphere where the density decreases to the point where an emission is more likely than a collision.
Collision and emission is happening constantly. It’s not just GHGs that emit radiation, it’s any molecule that has been excited by a.b.s.o.r.p.t.i.o.n or collision.
The molecules in the layer of atmosphere that may be called saturated (I don’t think complete saturation occurs, but I’m assuming it for argument’s sake) are energetic. This layer has a temperature (various temperatures). Anything warmer than absolute zero emits radiation, including the ‘saturated’ layer of the atmosphere.
A parcel of air ascending via convection is also radiating. Both processes happen, One does not cancel out the other.
I’m not sure what significance it has that at some altitude there are more emissions than collisions. This seems like an arbitrary delineation. I would have thought that most emission is a result of molecular collisions throughout the atmosphere, not just nearer the surface.
I still get the impression that you think convection somehow puts radiative transfer on hold, or limits it in some way.
It doesn’t. Objects – molecules – continue to radiate while convection happens. Which is one way warm parcels of air cool as they rise, eventually equilibrating with the surrounding air.
I’ve read Lindzen’s IRIS hypothesis. Your view may be different, because Lindzen at no time disagrees with the fact of enhanced greenhouse warming. In fact, he worked out for himself that a doubling of CO2 should cause an eventual surface response of about +1C – without any feedbacks.
His IRIS theory is about a negative feedback, not a rejection of the basic physics of the greenhouse effect and its enhancement as a purely radiative phenomenon. Lindzen propses that cirrus clouds diminish with rising CO2 (and temps), offsetting the GHG warming.
Already articulated my main issue with that hypothesis – significant, periodic changes in the global climate: ice ages. We know that the climate can change significantly, with just a little bit of difference in the focus of insolation. Feedbacks are not negative enough to prevent global temp changes of 5 – 6 C.
I’m not sure what your view is, so I’m trying to articulate what I’m getting from you (the bolded bit) so you can clarify.
Barry,
My compliments on your comment. It’s a pleasure to respond.
“Collision and emission is happening constantly. It’s not just GHGs that emit radiation, it’s any molecule that has been excited by a.b.s.o.r.p.t.i.o.n or collision.”
There are two issues here. 1) Do you agree that absorp-tion and emission rates are not always the same and 2) all molecules emit radiation, but not at the same wavelengths and intensities (I’m not sure that is the right word for what I mean).
I am very interested in comparing the relative contributions of various gases to the insulation properties of the atmosphere. It never occurred to me that N2 and O2 could have an active role in the net energy balance. But if they absorb and emit solar radiation, then that must be taken into consideration in all atmospheric energy transfer processes.
I understand saturation mainly in the context of CO2 absorbing IR radiated from the surface. My understanding is that all the available UWIR around the CO2 absorp-tion band will be absorbed by the 400 ppm of CO2 within a relatively short distance from the surface. As the altitude increases, that distance would only gradually widen. Therefore while air parcels are rising via convection, there won’t be much net change in IR up or down.
“I’m not sure what significance it has that at some altitude there are more emissions than collisions.”
Near the surface where molecular density is maximal, absorp-tions are more likely to result in thermalization rather than emission. Thermalization leads to convective cooling. In the upper atmosphere, the air is much less dense and emissions are more likely to occur. Those photons are increasingly more likely to go to space the higher up they are emitted from.
I agree with your “bold” statement and description of the way warm parcels cool as they rise.
I don’t have to agree with Lindzen’s calculation of a 1 deg rise for a doubling of CO2 for me to agree with his iris effect. Maybe I don’t even understand it totally right. But one thing seems obvious. The wind currents move a lot of hot air from the tropics to the poles. This has to be significant and extremely difficult to quantify. It wouldn’t surprise me to see more papers like Lindzen’s doing that analysis.
barry…”What do you think of this explanation?”
**********
Barry…Eli Rabbett had it explained to him by two experts in thermodynamics that the 2nd law applies to heat and heat transfer (as does entropy) yet Rabbett carries on with this dumb argument that colder objects can cause warmer objects to warm.
In this article he is only playing with that principle. He claims:
“An evergreen of denial is that a colder object can never make a warmer object hotter. That’s the Second Law of Thermodynamics, so according to the Agendaists, the Greenhouse Effect, with greenhouse gases playing the role of the colder object, is rubbish. They neglect the fact that heating and cooling are dynamic processes and thermodynamics is not”.
This is the kind of pseudo-science Rabbett likes to espouse, as if it means something. What exactly is meant by the fiction that heating and cooling are dynamic processes and thermodynamics is not?
Thermodynamics is all about dynamic processes at the macro level. It is the study of heat, particularly heat that is dynamically changing. Rabbett got his butt kicked by two experts in thermodynamics and he is still spewing the same propaganda.
Furthermore, the fact that a colder object cannot make a hotter object even hotter is not denial, it is scientific fact. Rabbett fails to understand the difference between heat dissipation, which is a process internal to a body, and the fiction he is presenting that an external, cooler body can somehow cause a warmer body to warm more.
If you have an electrically heated body drawing 100 watts of power from an electrical source, and it is prevented from radiating, conducting, or convecting heat away from itself, it will warm to a maximum temperature. Say for argument’s sake that the temperature is 80C. The body cannot warm further unless an external source of heat which is hotter than 80C comes in contact with it, or in the case of a gas or liquid, envelops it.
Now allow it to radiate, conduct, and convect freely to air in a room at 20C. The maximal temperature of 80C will begin to drop and it will reach an equilibrium temperature that is in-between 20C and 80C, say 60C. That’s because it can now dissipate heat. That is a process internal to the body.
On my computer, I can drop the processor core temperature on a hot day from around 80C to 40C simply by blowing air on it from a good sized room fan. The air being blown on the processor is around 15C. It does not cause the processor to warm, it causes it to cool.
So we have a body at 60C and a room temperature of 20 C. Drop the room temperature to 15C and the body will cool further, below it’s 60C equilibrium with the 20C room. Now increase the room temperature to 25C. The body will warm above 60C.
Is the body warming because it it receiving energy from the room? No. The room is still cooler than the body and it cannot add energy as heat or anything else to the body. The body warms only because the temperature gradient controlling its heat dissipation is being affected.
Eli Rabbett and the rest of you alarmist have yourselves bent into mental knots because you are trying to manipulate basic physics using thought experiments that do not apply.
The 2nd law stands and it will always stand, no matter how much you move the goalposts and try to affect it using philosophy.
Since Folkerts et al. apparently find it SOOOO inconceivably hard to catch the essence of my dime analogy and rather keep insisting on ‘misunderstanding’ it as a basis for redressing it in ways that better suit their own take on reality, I will try to get my central point across a little bit differently (although the gist of it all remains exactly the same). And remember now, both this one and the dime analogy are meant as mere abstractions of something real, in order to simplify and thus highlight certain aspects of that something (from the dictionary: “2. the act of considering something in terms of general qualities, apart from concrete realities, specific objects, or actual instances; 3. an idea or concept formulated in this way”).
Imagine two small parallel blackbody slabs thermally radiating directly at each other across some distance of evacuated space. Their radiation is neatly packaged into distinct quanta of energy called ‘photons’.
Both slabs are dented by 400 tiny hollows, tightly packed and evenly distributed across their surfaces. The bottom slab is warmer than the top one. Every single instant it emits – directly upwards – one photon from each of its 400 hollows, while the top slab does the same, only directly downwards, and – being somewhat cooler – emitting one photon from each of just 350 of its 400 tiny, evenly spaced depressions.
This process is repeated every single successive time unit, so that there’s basically a continuous line of photons making up the fastest-moving queue in the universe stretching all the way from all 400 bottom-slab hollows to all 400 top-slab hollows, and, simultaneously and naturally (they’re photons, after all) occupying the exact same space, an equally continuous line of photons from all top-slab hollows to all bottom-slab hollows, save 50.
What, then, in this situation, happens at each single instant in each single ‘photon hollow’ of both slabs?
# Warmer (bottom) slab first:
In 350 of its 400 emitting hollows, the energy lost through a photon emitted is always synchronously and fully replaced by energy gained through a photon absorbed. These are two separate and opposite processes whose potential (isolated) effects all the time exactly cancel each other out – they play a zero-sum game. The loss of every quantum of energy from the hollow is always perfectly compensated for by the simultaneous gain of another. There is always a photon available to take the place of a lost one.
In other words, the energy (as in ‘energy at any time contained‘) within these hollows remains unchanged from instant to instant, due to the fact that said energy is never really added to or subtracted from, only dynamically (and all the time evenly) exchanged. The full content of hollow energy is never – from one time unit to the next – made up of the exact same individual energy packets. But it is made up of the exact same amount of individual energy packets.
In the last 50 of the 400 emitting hollows, there are no compensating photons coming in from the cooler slab, and so there is only ever a LOSS of energy; no exchange.
THIS is where the warmer slab’s ‘net energy exchange SURPLUS’* is to be found. Only here.
*In the sense that it emits more photons in total per unit time than it absorbs.
# Cooler (top) slab:
For its 350 emitting hollows, the situation is exactly as described for the warmer slab in the first two paragraphs above – a continuous zero-sum exchange of energy.
For its last 50 (non-emitting) hollows, however, the situation is opposite to the one at the warmer slab: There are no compensating photons going out to the warmer slab, and so there is only ever a GAIN of energy, no exchange. And this is consequently where the cooler slab’s ‘net energy exchange DEFICIT’** is to be found.
**In the sense that it emits less photons in total per unit time than it absorbs.
– – –
This was all a QUANTUM MECHANICALLY derived description dressed up as a THERMODYNAMIC process.
All talk of energy exchange, energy coming in and going out, ultimately refers back to QUANTUM principles and models, to the MICROscopic realm. The absorp-tion and emission of photons are intrinsically quantum – hence, NON-thermodynamic – processes.
But, you might ask, isn’t there still clearly a two-way transfer of energy going on in this description?
Well, yes and no. It very much depends on how you view the very concept of an “energy transfer”. On your ‘mental model’. What is the ‘energy’ you’re talking about? Keep in mind, we are all the time referring to photons queuing up. (Also, I have specifically premised that they move in two directions only.) There is nothing MACROscopic about this. The macroscopic aspect comes later.
But do try in your mind to zoom in on each individual hollow. What happens? At each single unit of time, there is just an instantaneous substitution of one energy packet with another, resulting in a non-change in hollow energy. No loss, no gain. Just an exchange. It’s like a magic trick. A snap of the finger and the swop is made. No discernible difference. Everything’s precisely the way it was.
The energy is just constantly THERE. Always available. Always ready to be swopped. A continuous loop or cycle of exchanges always cancelling out potential individual effects, the result always being ‘no change’.
Except for at those surplus/deficit hollows. This is where the energy moves one way and one way only. And THIS is where the entire difference between our two slabs manifests itself. The TEMPERATURE difference. It is the only transfer of energy between the two that will ever be able to CHANGE anything – it drains the hollows of the warmer slab of energy while simultaneously – and in equal measure – filling up the hollows of the cooler one with energy. It SUBTRACTS energy [U] from the warmer and ADDS it to the cooler. Potentially (!) reducing the temperature [T] of the warmer and increasing that of the cooler.
And it is thus the only thermal transfer of energy between the two slabs that we will ever be able to physically detect …
THIS is the macroscopic aspect. The THERMALLY relevant one.
Say have a room in hotel in space.
The room is 5 meter cube with one side of cube facing outside [into space, stars, etc] which has 4 meter square window.
You want to warm the room so the air is 15 C.
How much heating is needed?
Or as compared to hotel in NYC which has a room which 5 meter cube with one side with 4 meter square window with view of skyline, at the 20th floor. And also want air temperature at 15 C
Also with room in Space or NYC, you want to reduce heating and/or cooling costs, and what do you in regards to window to reduce the costs. But first want to know heating cooling cost and compare that cost to any choices to with any changes to window.
It would be interesting to see you use the ‘hollows’ explication for the green plate set-up.
From moment to moment after introduction of the green plate, what is happening at the ‘hollows’ level? What’s the change at the ‘hollows’ level that sees both plates warm up over time?
The energy is just constantly THERE. Always available. Always ready to be swopped. A continuous loop or cycle of exchanges always cancelling out potential individual effects, the result always being ‘no change’.
This was the statement that caught my attention re the query I’ve just made.
Kristian
Upthread I defended your idea that you can’t add a one way contributor to a heat flux. I meant well, but realize the reasoning was flawed. Perhaps I needed more coffee.
We could take into account the one way contributions to a surface budget, for example:
5 w/m^2 down
2 w/m^2 up
Or we could just add the net:
3 w/m^2 down. (Heat flux)
********
Makes no difference other than semantics.
Snape says, June 22, 2018 at 7:47 AM:
It’s not “my idea”, Snape. It’s just the way it IS. A ‘one-way contributor’ simply will not ADD to a heat flux. A similarly directed heat flux adds to a heat flux. Nothing else. A ‘one-way contributor’ is PART OF a heat flux. It is nothing BY ITSELF.
You are free to add ‘one-way contributors’ to heat fluxes MATHEMATICALLY, Snape, but NOT physically. You are not doing physics if you do:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MZZPF9rXzes
“A ‘one-way contributor’ simply will not ADD to a heat flux.”
That’s not physical. The incoherent photon glow physics in math for 1w/m^2 more of them shining down:
6w/m^2down
2w/m^2 up
Or we could just add the net:
4 w/m^2 down. (Heat flux)
K, its fine to change the details of a problem to make it simpler or more explanatory. But not if those changes distort the final conclusions about reality.
That is what is happening here. You conclude with words like ‘simultaneously’. No it wasnt-only simultaneous because you put that in at the start.
As Roy has said, you are just tying yourself in knots.
And for what goal?
Nate says, June 22, 2018 at 9:50 AM:
The exchange is not simultaneous!? What is it then? Lead-lag? In what way is it NOT simultaneous, Nate?
It is a random statistical process.
Yeeees. And your point is …? How does this change the overall content of my description?
Again, is there a consistent lead-lag going on here, between absorp-tion and emission? No. It’s all random. And when you apply statistics (probabilities) to the randomness, you get non-randomness – order. And, when ordering the exchange, it is found to be … SIMULTANEOUS.
You objection is pointless and irrelevant. You’re objecting solely for the sake of objecting, Nate. No substance whatsoever.
Macroscopic flows of energy, the exchange of energy, is simultaneous. So what? You were talking photons and microscopic flows. Difficult to follow.
And you still have addressed my question of what is this consequence or purpose of your very long, hard to follow, arguments? What difference does it make to the analysis of the GHE or AGW? I think you have long ago lost sight of what that is.
Nate says, June 25, 2018 at 8:35 AM:
It’s only difficult to follow if you don’t really want to follow it, because you have this preconception that since it’s ME writing this stuff, it MUST somehow be wrong anyway, so rather than actually making the (slight) effort to try and understand where I’m coming from and what I’m trying to put across, my POINT, much better to just skim over it in search of any detail that you can conceivably build an objection around, and ignore the rest. It is such an ageless debate tactic, Nate.
If you wanted to understand my point of view, you would. It’s that simple …
It makes ALL the difference, Nate. It’s the ONLY reason I’m still on about this. You can’t say that the cool atmosphere warms the warmer surface by adding extra energy to it, via “back radiation”. That’s NOT how the world works. And it is NOT how and why our atmosphere forces Earth’s average global surface temperature to be higher than that of the Moon.
People – like yourself – simply do not seem to comprehend the significance of this distinction. Because you fundamentally lack a grasp of THERMODYNAMICS, what it IS and what it is NOT; thus you keep on conflating quantum and thermo processes and mix them all into ONE big mess. MICRO vs. MACRO. You are unable to keep these two aspects of reality distinctly apart.
A photon does NOT constitute a thermal transfer of energy between two thermodynamic systems. Nor do a trillion.
Read and learn the highlighted text above, Nate.
N: what is this consequence or purpose of your very long, hard to follow, arguments? What difference does it make to the analysis of the GHE or AGW?
K: ‘It makes ALL the difference, Nate. Its the ONLY reason Im still on about this. You cant say that the cool atmosphere warms the warmer surface by adding extra energy to it, via back radiation. Thats NOT how the world works. And it is NOT how and why our atmosphere forces Earths average global surface temperature to be higher than that of the Moon.’
I see that you said it makes all the difference. And thats not how the world works.
But as I said, meteorologists, and climatologists, and teachers of thermo, all think its ok to model and measure the separate flows of energy, because it works well to do so. They measure DWLWR, what you call back radiation. They are not neglecting UWLWR.
Therefore they can get the correct answer for temperatures and heat flows.
‘You cant say that the cool atmosphere warms the warmer surface by adding extra energy to it, via back radiation.
So the consequence seems to be, not that people get a wrong answer, but just how they talk about it. It is, in the end, just semantics.
Kristian
“A one-way contributor is PART OF a heat flux. It is nothing BY ITSELF.”
That’s true. If these are the two components of a heat flux……..
5 w/m^2 down
2 w/m^2 up”
………then if we ADD the 5 w/m^2 downward component, we also need to SUBTRACT the 2 w/m^2 upward component. Isn’t that totally obvious?
Again, your argument is just semantics.
Snape says, June 22, 2018 at 10:52 AM:
Yes, Snape. In ONE operation. And only THEN you add or subtract the resulting NET value to/from a real heat flux, like the solar one.
No. You’re not paying attention. Mathematics vs. physics. Watch the Feynman video, Snape. Take his words to heart.
One way sun to surface: ~ 161 w/m^2
One way surface to sun: ~ 0 w/m^2
Net (heat flux): ~ 161 w/m^2
Snape says, June 22, 2018 at 11:17 AM:
Yes. The (one-way) solar HEAT flux to the surface of the Earth is about 165 W/m^2. The total heat loss of the surface balances this input: Q_lw (53 W/m^2) + Q_cond (24 W/m^2) + Q_evap (88 W/m^2). But its heat loss goes to the atmosphere and space, not to the Sun.
IOW, Earth’s surface is involved in TWO separate heat transfers at the same time, one incoming and one outgoing. Its NET HEAT is ~0.
Kristian
The heat flux from sun to surface is 165 w/m^2, but so is one of the NON HEAT components. The other (surface to sun) is negligible, but more than Zero.
Yes. 232K vs. 0K gives the following S-B result: σ(232^4 – 0^4) = 165 W/m^2, where σ*232^4 is your MATHEMATICALLY defined ‘non-heat component’ from the Sun to the Earth, and σ*0^4 is your MATHEMATICALLY defined ‘non-heat component’ from the Earth to the Sun. So, mathematically, the solar HEAT to the Earth and the ‘non-heat component’ from the Sun to the Earth are equal! Amazing, right?
Kristian
As defined mathematically and conceptually. Do you understand the 0 and 165 are only approximations? The real values have been rounded.
The sun and earth are bodies in space with a clear view of each other. Both have a temperature and therefore radiate. As such, they exchange energy.
There are two, non heat components to every exchange. Nothing amazing about it.
Snape says, June 23, 2018 at 7:09 AM:
Mmm, yeees …
Sure.
Of course.
What is your point, Snape?
But its heat loss goes to the atmosphere and space, not to the Sun.
If we apply your linguistic rigour to this, there can be no ‘heat’ loss to space, because the temperature of space does not change from this action, and neither does the temperature of the Earth.
‘Heat’ as a purely thermodynamic concept requires a change in temperature, doesn’t it? So in a steady state or at equilibrium there is no heat flow, gain, or loss.
The correct terminology would be ‘energy loss’, wouldn’t it?
That’s Kristian I’m quoting. My reply jumped down.
barry says, June 23, 2018 at 4:01 PM:
What!? Of course there is heat loss from Earth to space. barry, you need to read a book at some point.
No.
barry, you are not paying attention. And that’s why your such a nuisance.
I explained this simple situation quite recently. Steady state and equilibrium are not the same thing. The Earth is in a steady state, not in an equilibrium.
In a steady state the heats balance. That’s why the U and T don’t change. But there is of course still both INCOMING heat [Q_in, ASR] and OUTGOING heat [Q_out, OLR]. They simply balance out:
Q_out = Q_in => Q_in – Q_out = Q_net = 0
The NET HEAT is zero. The net heat is not a flux of energy. It’s a balance. Between the incoming and outgoing heats. Which ARE fluxes of energy.
No, that would be the muddled “climate science” terminology. When you use it, you’re led to believe that all those energy fluxes in those earth energy budget diagrams are equivalents. Which they most certainly are not. And THAT’S where the confused state that we’re in has its origin.
Kristian,
Just to clarify, Earth averages a steady state, but not all the time, correct?
Also, isn’t equilibrium possible when there is a temperature gradient as long as the gradient is fixed. IOW, a slab with heat passing between surfaces with constant temperatures T1 greater than T2 is in equilibrium.
Chic Bowdrie says, June 24, 2018 at 7:42 AM:
Yes, that is technically true, but it’s really making this fairly simple situation more complicated than it needs to be.
Well, you could call it a “dynamic equilibrium”, but that would merely serve as an alternative term for a steady state. It wouldn’t physically constitute a different kind of state …
The thermodynamic definition of heat flow is thermal energy transferred from one object/system to another – from hotter to colder. When two systems are in thermodynamic equilibrium there is no heat flow at all.
The transfer of energy from one body to another as a result of a difference in temperature or a change in phase.
I was suggesting that the same applies for system/s in steady state, with a thermal gradient, but no changes in temperature or the gradient.
barry says, June 24, 2018 at 6:22 PM:
I know that’s what you suggested, barry. But it is incorrect. In a state of thermodynamic equilibrium, yes, there are no heat flows. As there are no thermal gradients. In a steady state, however, there ARE. This is one of the crucial differences between the two states.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NlSKAbefDTA
The (all-sky) ASR (Net SW) at the ToA is the heat input to the Earth system, barry. From the Sun. It is about +240 W/m^2, as seen from Earth’s perspective.
The (all-sky) OLR (Net LW) at the ToA is the heat output of the Earth system. To space. It is about -240 W/m^2.
The two heat fluxes balance each other: Q_in – Q_out = Q_net = ~0.
The NET HEAT is more or less zero. Which is why Earth’s U and T are so stable.
We’re in a (relative) steady state.
barry…”The transfer of energy from one body to another as a result of a difference in temperature or a change in phase”.
What kind of energy is being transferred, Barry? What causes the temperature difference?
If you agree that it’s thermal energy, then why would heat be defined as the transfer of thermal energy? It it’s not thermal energy then what energy is it?
Do you agree that temperature is a relative measure of heat? It’s defined as the average kinetic energy but we want to know specifically what kind of energy is represented by the kinetic energy.
For example if we push a boulder off a cliff, as it falls, it gains kinetic energy. However, the process also represents work, which is mechanical energy in this case.
Alternately, if I have a 12 volt lead acid battery, the 12 volts represents potential energy until I turn the starter in a car. The 12 volts in the electrical trade is even called a potential difference. When I crank the car, the starter turns and the battery can supply up to 600 amps of current. That represents kinetic energy but its form is now electrical energy.
Clausius and many others have defined heat as the kinetic energy of atoms/molecules and kinetic energy is defined as energy in motion. That energy can apply to different forms of energy. We have to give the energy a name, and a visitor from Mars (Norman???) is confused with our use of KE for different forms of energy.
What do we tell him is being transferred from a hotter body to a colder body? I’d say thermal energy and explain that we also call it heat.
In a system where two bodies of different temperatures are transferring energy between them, you can call it kinetic energy but that is a generic energy. Name the energy.
I call it heat.
Kristian asks, “What is your point, Snape?” Same point I tried to make about a week ago. When rounded, the same number is both a heat flux and not a heat flux:
Me (Using Trenberth’s number): “The ONE WAY, micro contribution from sun to surface (not the net, and therefore not a heat flux)equals ~ 161 w/m^2”
You: “Mmmm, no.”
*******
Mmmm, yes.
Oh, gee. Sorry for misunderstanding what you meant back then. How am I supposed to read your mind, Snape? Using Trenberth’s number, you say. Well, THAT’S THE SOLAR HEAT, Snape. Trenberth’s 161 W/m^2 is the Net SW to the surface, the ASR_s. It is one-way. Heat happens to be unidirectional.
Yes, it is a heat flux. You’re stuck on the math. Again, watch the Feynman video!
Kristian
I agree the 161 w/m^2 is the net. A one way heat flux. Never claimed otherwise!
Does the sun receive more than ~ 0 w/m^2 from an exchange with the earth’s surface? If not, then the ~161 is ALSO one of the two NON HEAT components.
Your point being …!?
Nate,
“I showed you data from three surface data sets. I asked you to identify the 20 y flat trend.
You didn’t answer the question. You’re being evasive. What I see in those sets is an ongoing upward trend over the last 45 y, with some wiggles on top.”
Stop with the histrionics. I explained that you moved the goal post by shifting to the Wood for Trees data. I never said anything about 20 year’s of flat temperatures there. You are being evasive by moving the goal post.
I’m not going down the rabbit hole after your bait and switch, so forget the surface vs. satellite argument. If you do not think UAH data is valid, then I would have cherry picked Hadley Centre data points to explain that today’s temperatures are not unprecedented and you don’t know if tomorrow’s will be warmer. If you can’t concede that small point, I’m wasting my time with you. You are not telling me anything I don’t know and nothing I write brings us closer to finding common ground.
Something is preventing me posting more….
If you consider that histrionics, then you must be a snowflake.
We were talking about the predictions of global temperature increase predicted by Hansen in 1981 due AGW. You make claims of global temps NOT agreeing with the predictions, and 20 y pauses.
Bait and switch, moving the goal posts, rabbit holes? Oh puleez.
Hansen’s predictions were not exclusive to UAH data, and certainly not selected months. C’mon that’s just ridiculous to exclude all other data.
We weren’t talking about the 20 the century record prior to 1980. Did you move the goal posts?
I have no problem discussing the 1940-1980 flat trend. The point is that there are reasons for the temp record we have-and they are not all CO2.
The bait and switch is me referring to the UAH data above showing the same temperature in 1999 as last month and then you linking to Wood for Trees’ plots asking me to find a similar comparison. Moving the goal posts occurred when I claim there is no net temperature change in 19 years and you counter with the trend is positive. You are right about the trend. But apparently you remain oblivious to the fact that so am I about the equality of the temperatures then and now! Unbelievable that you are too stubborn to admit that what I wrote about the blatantly obvious data at the top of this post is true. It’s one thing to interpret the data differently. Denying the data makes you, well…I always regret it when I revert to calling people names.
The rabbit hole would be me trying to convince you satellite data is more accurate than other methods. That would conflict too much with your confirmation bias.
If you are satisfied that Hansen’s predictions don’t apply to UAH data, then end of story.
I don’t recall mentioning data prior to 1980.
‘I don’t recall mentioning data prior to 1980.’
‘How far back do you have to go to get a statistic that pleases you? I’m not going to spend any more time on that because I have done it in the past. If you do that, you will find periods of statistically significant negative, positive, and no trend. I concede that a century long trend is positive.’
And yes that’s true, and the goal of science is to explain the record we have, not the one we want. The models incorporate natural forcings, but appears to require more to explain the record we have, including CO2 and anthro aerosols.
The evidence for anthro aerosols in the post ww2 period, producing global dimming (as measured), seems decent. See Wild papers.
‘ You are right about the trend. But apparently you remain oblivious to the fact that so am I about the equality of the temperatures then and now!’
In my work I analyze time series like this regularly. Analyzing like you are with single months or years, rather than looking at all 20-30 y of data, makes little sense if you are trying to test a theory or a model.
Even averages over 5 or 10 y periods make more sense statistically to look at.
In UAH the most recent 5 y period has an average of 0.297. That is a new record by far. The previous high was 0.166 in 2001-2006.
Right now there is huge discrepancy between the LT data sets. At least one of them is doing something wrong, and they are looking at the same data.
Where does that leave researchers who need know what the trends are? You cannot blame them for trusting more in the surface sets right now.
If there ever was a good example of “you can lead a horse to water, but you can’t make him drink” this is it.
What would the UAH trend in January of 1999 predicted the UAH global temperatures to be today?
‘What would the UAH trend in January of 1999 predicted the UAH global temperatures to be today?’
Knowing the trend in climate cannot predict an individual months temperature 20 y in the future. It could predict most months will be warmer.
In my town I know it is warmer in July than in May. But it could well be that July 15 turns out to be cooler than May 15.
Significant? On that cool July 15 should I conclude summer is all over?
BTW,
You said this,
‘Both times were cherry-picked on purpose in periods on the downward slope of an El Nino so that it was at least a fair comparison.
If you were really trying to be “fair”, Jan 1999, after the 98 El Nino should be compared to Jan 2017 after the 2016 El Nino.
Yes?
1/99 ~ 0.05
1/2017 ~ 0.32
But again, change the months a bit, get a wildly different result.
And the ENSO histories are not identical.
“Analyzing like you are with single months or years, rather than looking at all 20-30 y of data, makes little sense if you are trying to test a theory or a model.”
I was not trying to test the theory or model. That is your job. I was simply pointing out the penetrating insight into the intuitively obvious that if you just look at the last roughly 19 years, we are back to where we started from absolute UAH temperatures wise.
I don’t think there is any way we will agree on the conditions of a fair comparison. No matter what terms I suggest, you will find a way to avoid acknowledging my point and/or having to agree with it.
To reiterate for the record, yes the last 20 year trend is positive yet it does not in my mind constitute confirmation that more CO2 will increase global temperatures. You need data for that, not models. And correlation is not causation.
Ha. OK, maybe.
But it seems no matter what way I say it, that noise is not signal, you will find a way to avoid acknowledging this point or having to agree with it.
‘ the last 20 year trend is positive yet it does not in my mind constitute confirmation that more CO2 will increase global temperatures.’
Agreed. It was predicted ~ 40 y ago, and it has proven correct. But just one piece of evidence.
“that noise is not signal”
I wanted to agree with that, but it makes too good of an analogy to let it go. Draw a line through the data points at 0.2 deg C above the 1981-2010 average. From 1999 on, temperatures have been below the line (green light) much more than above (red light). Right now the signal is green.
Nate says, June 26, 2018 at 9:20 PM:
WHAT has been “proven correct”, Nate? That temps have gone up? Or that CO2 caused them to go up?
You still don’t understand what evidence we are asking for. The evidence of a temperature rise is NOT itself evidence of the CAUSE of that temperature rise.
You religious people have such a hard time grasping (or accepting) this simple, logical concept.
K: your joining in the middle of the conversation.
It started with Hansen et al in 1981 making bold predictions of what global temps, and spatial pattern of temps, would do over the next 40 y, using physics based modeling with reasonable guesses about increasing GHG levels.
https://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/1981/1981_Hansen_ha04600x.pdf
The predictions have proven remarkably accurate (within error), especially given that there was no way to do this by mere extrapolation.
I consider this a piece of good evidence, just as it would be in any other field of science. But not definitive. We have since added many other pieces of evidence.
I get it that you guys are not satisfied.
‘Draw a line through the data points at 0.2 deg C above the 1981-2010 average. From 1999 on, temperatures have been below the line (green light) much more than above (red light). Right now the signal is green.’
Ok, a better way of looking at it, IMO. I downloaded the data.
If I look at your criteria for each of the 4 decades of UAH, we see
Decade % of months > 0.2
78-88 0.8
88-98 13
98-08 22
08-18 50
13-18 70 last 5 y
“Pointless ad hom.”
Sorry that you take it that way. You cut and pasted from the Hansen paper. That does not mean you understand it, but it’s a start.
If you put Hansen’s description into words, it comes out something like this: The estimated average global temperature minus a theoretical un-measurable emission temperature at some altitude in the atmosphere is the greenhouse effect. An estimate of it is an average lapse rate times the average altitude of the un-measurable emission temperature. Do I have that about right or do you prefer to put it in your own words?
Ok, finally we get back to the science. It wasnt that hard was it?
The description in the paper was better with actual equations, IMO, but in any case:
‘minus a theoretical un-measurable emission temperature at some altitude in the atmosphere is the greenhouse effect.’
You can call it that, but it is a requirement of basic physics (optics) that the altitiude of emission must increase. It is unavoidable. You see a way to avoid it?
The temperature at higher altitude IS colder, due to the lapse rate. You see a way to get around this?
Again the GHE model has been tested by looking at various conditions, Mars, Venus, Earth, by comparing the magnitude of the GHE measured on these planets.
You reject Venus for no apparent reason. Why?
“You see a way to avoid [an increase in the altitude of emission]?”
From the surface or from the un-measurable emission temperature altitude?
“The temperature at higher altitude IS colder, due to the lapse rate.”
So what?
“You reject Venus for no apparent reason. Why?”
There are peer-reviewed and online explanations if you want to look. I touched on the answer two years ago here:
http://climateconsensarian.blogspot.com/2016/02/on-competing-mechanisms-for-observed.html?showComment=1456805020624#c7824443133101218972
I am Anonymous. For some reason, Brandon replaced my name in the headers but addresses Chic in the replies?
You: “That makes the lapse rate 8.2 K/km. This is pretty close to a value of 7.4 K/km calculated from g/Cp using 8.87 g/sec2 for the gravity on Venus and 1.2 J/g-K for the heat capacity of CO2. Radiative forcing is not required to explain the temperature profile of Venus.”
OK so you are agreeing with Hansen on the lapse rate on Venus, which BTW, he first understood.
Again, to achieve energy balance at the TOA, which is very high for Venus, 70 km, radiation from that height must balance incoming solar.
Again, why outgoing radiation must come from that height? Because the high content of GHG makes the atmosphere opaque to IR until a height of 70 Km is reached. At that height the remaining atmosphere above is transparent to IR.
Very little sunlight reaches the surface of Venus. Very little convection. The weight of the atmosphere heats the planet’s surface. isn’t trapping any heat. It’s a totally different situation than what’s happening on earth.
If you could substitute CO2 for some other inert gas of the same MW, do you think Venus would be any cooler?
CO2 isn’t trapping any heat.
‘Co2 insnt trapping any heat.’
Argument by assertion. I’ve explained it. Hansen explained it a long time ago. You haven’t shown the flaws.
‘The weight of the atmosphere heats the planets surface.’
How so?
I can imagine that eons ago, gravity did work to bring the atmosphere to the surface, compressing and heating it.
But that was a one off. That heat is long since dissipated.
“How so?”
dT/dh = -g/Cp
“That heat is long since dissipated.”
How much hotter could it have been and where did the heat go, Nate?
Just as the heat generated by bringing Earth into existence is now mostly dissipated. The Earth cooled, except for residual radioactivity.
Compress a gas, it heats, but then it cools back down.
On Venus, unless the gas is repeatedly compressed, as in a cycle, it will cool down.
“The Earth cooled, except for residual radioactivity.”
I don’t understand that. Do you mean UV and IR activity? How does cooling down affect the atmospheric composition?
Regarding Venus, how did the gas get compressed in the first place if it was hotter before than now? The pressure and temperature are a natural result of the density resulting from the weight of the atmosphere.
Chic Bowdrie says, June 25, 2018 at 8:34 PM:
This is incorrect. ONLY the sunlight is capable of heating the surface, even on Venus. Heat in nature only ever moves from hot to cold.
But you ARE on to something. The immense weight and density of the Venusian atmosphere is indeed what forces the average surface temperature to be so incredibly high on Venus. But it doesn’t do it by way of HEATING, but by way of INSULATION.
What most distinguishes the situation on Venus from that on Earth is the former planet’s thick global cloud layer around its tropopause, 50-70 km above the surface.
‘temperature to be so incredibly high on Venus. But it doesnt do it by way of HEATING, but by way of INSULATION.’
Yes, and this insulation, in part, is coming from pressure-broadened CO2 lines, and their GHE.
“You see a way to avoid [an increase in the altitude of emission]?”
‘From the surface or from the un-measurable emission temperature altitude?’
The height should increase with more GHG. It does on different planets
“The temperature at higher altitude IS colder, due to the lapse rate.”
‘So what?’
So the temperature of emission from the GHG is reduced, thus producing a net imbalance at the TOA. More energy is coming in than going out. There will be warming in response.
“The height should increase with more GHG. It does on different planets.”
An increase in the un-measurable emission altitude was measured on what planets?
“So the temperature of emission from the GHG is reduced, thus producing a net imbalance at the TOA. More energy is coming in than going out. There will be warming in response.”
That is darn close to a good description of what I think you think the GHE is. Now all you have to do is find some data that shows emissions are being reduced by IR active gas producing a direct temperature response and control for all other factors that might be confounding your results. Piece of cake, right?
‘An increase in the un-measurable emission altitude was measured on what planets?’
I don’t think it is correct to say it is un-measurable.
Lots of measurements have been made on Earth, some on other planets.
The outgoing IR (OLR) is measured by satellite. They see values of OLR consistent with the models which have the emissions coming from high altitude. They see dips in the OLR due to the GHG. It is all modeled.
Balloons (radiosonde) are used to measure troposphere and stratosphere temperature profile. Again radiation physics can be used to account for these measurements.
I am not aware of any measurements finding glaring errors in our basic model of the atmosphere. Are you?
Nate,
You are wondering off into fantasyland. Remember the 1LoH: “if you find yourself in a hole, stop digging.”
The emission altitude that would correspond to the SB temperature of a black body emitting 240 W/m2 is conceptual. “It IS all modeled.” There are no actual measurements of it because the radiation that comprises the 240 W/m2 comes from all altitudes of the atmosphere plus the surface radiation directly to space. Think about it. Explain how you would measure the exact altitude that represents the average emission height which you would need in order to come back sometime later to measure your hypothetical rise. Feel free to use whatever imaginary instruments you would need to collect the data.
Fantasyland? Hardly.
Of course some comes from the surface, thru atm window portion of the spectrum. The portion that is in the CO2 bands comes from the emission height I discussed.
Here is the rub, do you really believe that the spectra of the Earth seen from space is not very well understood?
Which parts of atmospheric physics do you think are wrong?
And your evidence it is wrong is what?
‘Explain how you would measure the exact altitude that represents the average emission height which you would need in order to come back sometime’
Why would I ever need to do that? You think the temperature/pressure profile of the atmosphere hasn’t been thoroughly measured? Balloons?
The radiative properties of the gases are well known.
You then look at the OLR spectra and, you could use all this information, and physics, to model it and explain it.
I just don’t see how this is supposed to be an avenue for disproving the GHE.
“…do you really believe that the spectra of the Earth seen from space is not very well understood?”
Some people understand it well, others not so well.
“Which parts of atmospheric physics do you think are wrong?”
You and I have different interpretations of much of the physics that applies to the atmosphere.
“And your evidence it is wrong is what?”
The discussions here show we have different interpretations.
“Why would I ever need to do that?”
Because you believe in an emission altitude which will prove your enhanced GHE hypothesis correct. That emission altitude is only a concept. It can only be estimated by models, not actually measured. If you do believe it can be measured, then explain how.
“I just dont see how this is supposed to be an avenue for disproving the GHE.”
It isn’t. I tried to end this earlier by explaining what my concerns are. I don’t think more CO2 will increase temperatures significantly. Thus I don’t want my tax dollars spent on a non-problem.
I think your version of the GHE constrains you to believe that more CO2 will increase global temperatures and that compels you to disagree with me.
I will not be able to provide you with any more information to shake your belief in your opinions. If you think you will convince others of your opinions, go on ahead. May the forcings be with you.
Chic Bowdrie says, June 26, 2018 at 5:29 PM:
This is actually quite easy to do, but no one in “Mainstream Climate Science” seems willing to do the test and publish the result, it seems. Most likely because they already know what the data will tell them.
http://www.climatetheory.net/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/greenhouse-effect-held-soden-2000.png
https://okulaer.wordpress.com/2018/03/24/the-data-sun-not-man-is-what-caused-and-causes-global-warming/
https://okulaer.wordpress.com/2018/06/26/verifying-my-near-global-1985-2017-olr-record/
Which parts of atmospheric physics do you think are wrong?
You and I have different interpretations of much of the physics that applies to the atmosphere.
And your evidence it is wrong is what?
The discussions here show we have different interpretations.
‘ I dont think more CO2 will increase temperatures significantly. Thus I dont want my tax dollars spent on a non-problem.’
OK, fine. Science is not about beliefs, or impressions, or gut instincts, that you may be using.
I hope you’ll base your opinions, in the end, on the actual science.
Chic,
I mentioned weather prediction, as testing GHE every day.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2018/06/uah-global-temperature-update-for-may-2018-0-18-deg-c/#comment-309064
It is hard to understand how the GHE model can be incorrect, when it is such a key part of our general understanding of the atmosphere, which in turn has allowed us to build such accurate weather models.
Are you doubling down on the suggestion that weather predictions, which are good for maybe three days if were lucky, are tests of the GHE (whatever you think it is)?
Huh? How is it doubling down?
It is simply an undeniable fact that numerical weather prediction models work extremely well, and are only getting better. They are now able to predict roughly out to nearly 7 days. It is a chaotic system, and yet they do remarkably well.
Much of the improvement since I was a kid has to do with computing power, of course. But having a correct model for the atmospheric physics is essential.
If you look into how it is done, it incorporates GHE in order to quantify the radiant heat flowing into and absorbed by parcels of air at various heights. If they don’t do that right, the predicted temperature of the parcels will be wrong in a few hours, and horribly wrong in 3 days.
So yes, this is a test of the GHE that is done every day. And it passes.
“How is it doubling down?”
You said it once, I responded with something like you’ve got to be kidding, and you repeated the claim.
If you are claiming weather predictions test the GHE, then just how much do net CO2 and water vapor change in seven days?
You need to review your description of what I thought you thought your GHE was.
‘ then just how much do net CO2 and water vapor change in seven days?’
Oh boy. I think you are very confused and missing the point. You seem to be mixing up the GHE, which we have always had, and AGW which is an increasing GHE.
“I think you are very confused and missing the point.”
Pot calling the kettle black? I patiently waited for a statement from you of your version of a GHE and an enhanced GHE. Rather than provide a clear consistent explanation of your positions, you asserted Hansen’s and I did my best to explain the inadequacies of his GHE model and projected temperature rise due to CO2. I know exactly what these hypotheses are and I have been addressing the related issues from the first day of Dr. Spencer’s recent post on the GHE and continued to explain my views during the bulk of this thread.
Clearly, I’m not going to moderate your religious views on AGW. Good luck to you, Nate.
Chic,
The whole time I have been defending mainstream science, while you have been attacking it, seeking flaws in it, but not able to really find any.
Yet you call my views ‘religious’? Weird
You misunderstood a perfectly valid point of mine about weather prediction testing the greenhouse effect, three times.
You then try to twist my words into saying something absurd-that CO2 growth in 7 days has something to do with poor weather forecasts?
Then you get upset with me for pointing out your confusion??
‘ I patiently waited for a statement from you of your version of a GHE and an enhanced GHE. Rather than provide a clear consistent explanation of your positions, you asserted Hansens’
Why you spend so much time harping on this, and belittling me for this? It is the ideas that matter, not who says them. If presently clearly by a climate scientist, all the better.
“I did my best to explain the inadequacies of his GHE model and projected temperature rise due to CO2.”
Your explanations were mostly conjecture and not convincing. Sorry they just weren’t. I have counterarguments.
That is the nature of this forum. Get over it.
Moving on to your next comment from http://www.drroyspencer.com/2018/06/uah-global-temperature-update-for-may-2018-0-18-deg-c/#comment-309224 .
1. Irrelevant.
2. Get to the point.
3, Percentages are one thing, absolute values are quite another.
4. Possibly true. Your mission Nate, should you choose to accept it, is to determine whether adding CO2 reduces or increases the net contributions to the surface. After all, it’s the surface temperature being used as the reference, is it not?
Moving on….
“No why?”
No why to what? 255K –> 240 W/m2 or an inert atmosphere on Earth would not have an average surface temperature around 278K?
You wrote “240 = 5.67e-8 (255)^4” which means 255K corresponds to 240 W/m2.
“Same for Earth, we take its albedo of 0.3 as it is, with clouds. So we use solar input S0*0.7/4 = 240”
An IR free inert atmosphere will not have clouds, so yes we can take away clouds and oceans too while we are at it.
Forget Venus. Totally apples and oranges.
An inert atmosphere on Earth would receive So/4 = 341 W/m2 corresponding to a radiation temperature of 278K.
‘Get to the point’
The point is you don’t seem to know what a strawman is. In this instance it is proposing a recipe for the GHE, that is easily proven false (put CO2 between sun and thermometer will not raise its temp), but is actually a misrepresentation of the GHE.
That is what MiKe does, repeatedly. The intent is only to mislead people.
I already have a well-informed opinion of Mike, as do most other posters here.
There is really no point in discussing him anymore.
You wrote “2. CO2 is also between the Earth surface and space. Space which is extremely cold.”
What does my “2. Get to the point” or Mike Flynn have to do with cold Space?
C’mon if you know anything at all about this, surely you must know that the atmosphere is acting as an insulator between the Earth @ 288K and space which is @ 3K.
The point was originally that speaking only of the insulation effect of the atmosphere on the incoming solar is leaving out most of the story.
To be honest, at first I didn’t think Mike knew what he was talking about. Then it dawned on me that the IR absorp-tion that occurs prior to the sun’s rays warming the surface has a greater role in cooling the planet than backradiation has in keeping it a bit warmer.
No, Mike does not particularly know what he is talking about.
Yes, gases between the earth and the sun absorbs/scatters some energy before it reaches the ground.
No, this is not a bigger effect. Everyone who has studied this concludes that the warming effect is greater. There are text books that explain the concepts. There are literally 1000’s of research papers that accept this conclusion. Thus the burden of proof is on YOU to back up your extraordinary claim that the cooling is indeed larger, despite what the textbooks tell us.
Tim,
Please provide a link to at least one of the references showing the data proving that heat received from the sun absorbed by the atmosphere is less than the heat received from backradiation.
Chic,
“Then it dawned on me…yada yada”
Now you are demanding people do work to disprove your obviously completely made-up fact.
No, just no.
Evidence for this is what?
You show me your evidence that more CO2 will warm the planet and I’ll show you mine that it won’t.
You seem quite determined to lose all credibility.
Clouds or not, is debated. But IMO, the clouds are producing the albedo that we have, and the absorbed solar that we receive.
Therefore we need to understand how the Earth surface, given that input of solar, 240W/m^2, achieves the temperature that it does. Same for other planets. The GHE accounts for that difference.
I see no good reason to forget Venus, unless its inconvenient for your narrative.
“The GHE accounts for that difference.”
What difference? With or without clouds? 240 W/m2 or 341 W/m2?
Don’t you see how stuck you are? You can’t even put two coherent sentences together explaining your version of the GHE.
If you want to use Venus as a test of a GHE, explain how the h*ll it works.
“Dont you see how stuck you are? You cant even put two coherent sentences together explaining your version of the GHE.”
Ouch. How am I stuck? If you are misunderstanding, ask, but be specific.
‘Therefore we need to understand how the Earth surface, given that input of solar, 240W/m^2, achieves the temperature that it does. Same for other planets. The GHE accounts for that difference.’
What I am saying is we are comparing the temp at the surface, TS, to the emission temp at the TOA, which is a temperature that produces 240 W/m2 of outgoing IR. That temp is 255 K. The difference Ts-255K is 33 C. The 33 C difference must be explained. GHE does that.
Why 240 W/m^2? Because that is the amount absorbed in the Earth system, ie not reflected off the Earth including its ice sheets, and its clouds.
Venus. Hansen’s initial work was in space science, where he studied and explained the atmosphere of Venus, and its GHE.
Nate says, June 25, 2018 at 9:38 AM:
That’s quite ironic, considering how this is a rule (a good rule) that you have a seriously hard time abiding by yourself, Nate.
Current case in point: Your ridiculously misunderstood ‘objection’ to my analogies (which are, by definition, to be seen as mere abstractions of real processes), claiming that the thermal exchange of radiation between objects somehow cannot possibly be seen or described as “simultaneous” just because individual photon emission/absorp-tion events happen to occur at random …!!?
You miss the entire point of the analogy, but instead of asking for guidance, you assert that it’s false, based solely on a misguided idea on your part that some minor aspect concerning the analogy setup description isn’t “precise” or “realistic” enough, thus disqualifying the analogy as a whole, an analogy whose purpose you evidently never understood to begin with …
PS: I have finally published my post on the Allan et al., 2014, paper and its presumed “challenge” to my results. You should go have a look, Nate. You’re in it:
https://okulaer.wordpress.com/2018/06/26/verifying-my-near-global-1985-2017-olr-record/
Nice work, Kristian.
Two questions.
1) If the net flux is zero, how come temperatures increased since 1985?
2) Isn’t data from > 60 latitudes needed to draw conclusions about the net flux?
K,
“Its only difficult to follow if you dont really want to follow it, because you have this preconception that since its ME writing this stuff, it MUST somehow be wrong anyway, so rather than actually making the (slight) effort to try and understand where Im coming from and what Im trying to put across, my POINT, much better to just skim over it in search of any detail that you can conceivably build an objection around, and ignore the rest. It is such an ageless debate tactic, Nate.”
First, I and we have experience with you and your posts and that indeed impacts how we respond to them.
Your posts are, as judged by all who read them, hard to understand. You are constantly misunderstood, and blaming other people for that.
You have a hard time being concise and getting to the point. your posts are extremely long and rambling, and yet you seem think people will hang on every detail and work hard to decipher them. You don’t seem to understand humans, and how they operate.
‘If you are misunderstanding, ask, but be specific.’
I have asked you several times, what is the consequence of all this, if any. And I get no answer.
The only time I get answers from you is when you want to pass judgement
If in the end we all agree on the heat flows that are occurring, what bloody difference do your arguments make? Certainly no 2LOT violation is happening.
If the practitioners and the teachers are measuring and modeling the energy flows as independent, and that works better, then what is the problem?
“Your posts are, as judged by all who read them, hard to understand.”
That is not true, Nate. You have no way to judge that. I, for one, find no difficulty understanding the bulk of Kristian’s comments. When I don’t understand, I ask for clarification and readily receive it.
IMO, the people who don’t understand Kristian have not matured in one way or another to either agree to disagree or they remain stuck in the simple GHE model mindset that impedes their ability to comprehend a more complex view.
Chic,
Given your unquestioning defense of the indefensible Mike, and your new carefree attitude about the need for evidence, I don’t see how this helps. Maybe Gordon will hire you next?
Nate, good point, many commenters here need to hire an experimentalist to show where their belief systems are unnatural relative to meteorology & other fields they write about.
Or they can DIY to back their stuff or read up on the experiments Dr. Spencer or others have already performed that demonstrate where some of what they write is unnatural. It’s easy to identify which commenters – the ones that don’t refer to experiments to back their assertions or ignore experiments proving their assertions wrong. It is easy to understand why that is the case.
nate…”If in the end we all agree on the heat flows that are occurring, what bloody difference do your arguments make? Certainly no 2LOT violation is happening”.
Who is ‘we’?
I think most people would agree that the Earth’s surface is warmer than space and Kristian feels the atmosphere acts as an insulator with a thermal gradient, with the surface end being hotter. That has to mean the atmosphere cools from the surface out.
So far, no contradiction of the 2nd law. However, an important part of climate model-based AGW theory is that GHGs in the cooler part of the atmosphere can back-radiate heat to the surface in such a manner as to heat the surface to a temperature warmer than it is heated by solar energy.
That back-radiation in climate models is regarded as a positive feedback but it is a clear contravention of the 2nd law. Same with the GHE.
The surface must be in some kind of thermal equilibrium with the air immediately above it. That means there can be no heat transfer between that air and the surface. As altitude increases, the atmosphere becomes progressively cooler and the 2nd law is clear that heat can NEVER by its own means be transferred from that cooler atmosphere to the warmer surface.
The arguments presented by alarmists here are based on alterations of the 2nd law by which a mysterious net energy balance satisfies the 2nd law, even though it is clearly violated. That is pulled off in general by freely regarding EM as heat, and vice-versa.
Heat and EM have nothing in common, they are separate forms of energy. The 2nd law applies to heat only, not to EM. You cannot sum EM quantities and claim they satisfy the 2nd law, which specifies a direction for heat transfer.
ball4…”commenters here need to hire an experimentalist to show where their belief systems are unnatural relative to meteorology & other fields they write about”.
The experiments were done more than a century and a half ago. Do you want us to repeat them every time we state a fact?
You should go back and read the intricate analysis Clausius did with heat engines to prove that heat can only be transferred from hot to cold by ordinary means. Maybe you should read his definition and description of heat as he applied it to U in the 1st law. The U part comes from Clausius.
“Maybe you should read his definition and description of heat as he applied it to U in the 1st law. The U part comes from Clausius.”
I have. You remain confused over Clausius’ meaning, Gordon, by using your own words. If you used Clausius words, then you would know Clausius did not call U heat; for Clausius enthalpy is internal energy change from a temperature difference (no net work) so he gave enthalpy the symbol H for heat’s first letter.
Oh and as to your “GHGs in the cooler part of the atmosphere can back-radiate heat”
No, EMR is not heat Gordon. Per Clausius’ words I’ve quoted here, heat is only a measure of hot or cold. Enthalpy is the correct term, symbol H also quoted around here.
ball4…”If you used Clausius words, then you would know Clausius did not call U heat; for Clausius enthalpy is internal energy change from a temperature difference (no net work) so he gave enthalpy the symbol H for heat’s first letter”.
Have read through the works of Clausius and have not seen any reference to H meaning enthalpy. Enthalpy is a word that came into being in the early 20th century long after Clausius was dead. It’s a term more closely associated with Gibbs.
But nice try with the obfuscation.
Nice try Gordon, but all you succeed in is being wrong yet again.
Gordon claims to have read Clausius, but his 4:43PM comment proves Gordon hasn’t really done so as is very obvious in so many of Gordon’s comments misquoting all the masters for Gordon’s gain vs. their loss.
Clausius’ Mechanical Theory of Heat, p225: “Let the quantity of heat contained in (the body) be expressed by H, and the change of this quantity by dH.”
To this day H remains the symbol for enthalpy sometimes written in atm. thermodynamics as H = U + pV
Enthalpy becomes a means to purge heat from one’s science vocabulary. Doing so might allow Gordon to actually be correct about atmosphere physics at times. Not going to happen.
Gordon,
You are correct to say that heat and EMR are not synonymous for the obvious reason that radiation from a cold object is not transferring any net energy to a warmer one. The thermodynamic term for heat is Q. dU = dQ – pdV and dQ = dU only when no work is done on a system.
The troll is correct that enthalpy is H = U + pV, but dQ = dH and Q = delta H only for constant pressure systems. Furthermore the term, enthalpy, originated in 1909 when it was coined by Kamerlingh-Onnes: http://www.eoht.info/page/Heike+Kamerlingh-Onnes
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2018/05/in-defense-of-the-term-greenouse-effect/#comment-306378
You cannot tell what time of day it is from a temperature reading.
You cannot discern what season you are in from a single day’s temperature.
You cannot estimate a trend or not in global temperatures from a single month or year.
Otherwise you may think it is morning when it is evening.
Otherwise you may think it is Spring when it is Autumn.
Otherwise you may think global warming/cooling is finished.
You need more information. If you want to know the season, you need at least a year’s worth of data. Then you can see the changing climate clearly enough to know what season it is.
If you want to know if the globe has been warming or cooling, then there is a minimum requirement for information, like the seasons, that will give you at least a credible estimate.
If you don’t know what that requirement/s is, then you need to investigate that question.
Was this directed at anyone in particular?
See you next month!
Kristian,
PS: I have finally published my post on the Allan et al., 2014, paper and its presumed challenge to my results. You should go have a look, Nate. Youre in it:
https://okulaer.wordpress.com/2018/06/26/verifying-my-near-global-1985-2017-olr-record/
Ok, I looked this, and these are my impressions, so far.
I think you and I agree that the main difference in your 30 y record and Allan’s, is at the gap in 1993.
They believe an offset in the data happens during this gap, and make an adjustment. You belive no offset adjustment is needed.
Both of you make a similar offset in 2000.
How they determined the adjustment to make in 1993. They say:
“To bridge these [data] gaps, the reconstructed…are adjusted such that the 20002001 minus 19981999 global mean changes agree with UPSCALE simulations; fluxes prior to 1994 are similarly adjusted based upon simulated 19941995 minus 19921993 global mean changes.
You say “In short:
The observational DATA is brought into compliance with the MODELS. Or, put differently:
The real world is forced to agree with the enhanced GHE hypothesis, not the other way around ! ”
Heres where I first disagree with you. That is an over-the-top spin on what they have done.
The have only used simulated data over the very short gap-to bridge the gap, saying “‘so we consider that simulated flux changes are likely to be realistic over these relatively short periods of the record’
That is NOT what you say, ‘real world is forced to agree with the enhanced GHE hypothesis’
Because the GHE hypothesis has to do with the long term trend in the record. They are not substituting model data for long-term data, only over a few months of the record.
So whatever the model data is doing in terms of long-term-trend is not incorporated into the reconstruction.
You spend a long time discussing various arguments in the literature as to whether there is a need to make an adjustment at all in 1993. And you conclude that the last word (of some papers) is that none is needed. Well , assuming you didnt cherry pick the literature to your liking..
Looking at the data, especially the ASR data, there is a glaring step-up in the data right after the gap. It looks suspiciously like an artefact.
Another interpretation of the literature is that the data from this period is just not reliable enough to really be certain of anything regarding offsets. Try as they might to determine what really happened, there is still uncertainty.
The Allan 2014 paper has been cited 61 times. I scanned these to see if any of the people you mentioned wrote papers disagreeing or complaining about their interpretation. There did not seem to be any.
“Consequently, we have exhaustively, comprehensively and thoroughly shot down and buried Allan et al.s Trenberth excuse.
Again you have strong opinions, and I suspect confirmation bias is playing a big role in your appraisal of the situation.
Loeb of CERES worked on the Allan paper. Kristian seems to pit the ‘teams’ against each other, that Allan et al contradict CERES, the true, original rightest record, when in fact they collaborate.
There are also caveats that CERES apply about the long-term record, and particularly about the uncertainty with the data gaps. These notes could do with some honest airing, too.
Kristian
“What is your point, Snape?”
https://scied.ucar.edu/sites/default/files/images/large_image_for_image_content/radiation_budget_kiehl_trenberth_2011_900x645.jpg
As previously mentioned, you could create a surface radiation budget without having to add a heat flux to a non heat flux. Yeah!
Space to surface: 0 w/m^2
Sun to surface: 161 w/m^2
Atmosphere to surface 333w/m^2
Total downwelling: 494 w/m^2
Surface to space: 22 w/m^2
Surface to sun: 0 w/m^2
Surface to atmosphere: 374 w/m^2
Total upwelling: 396 w/m^2
This should be 3,000.
I’ve seen this <a href=https://tamino.wordpress.com/2018/06/30/weak-sauce-from-climate-deniers/visual analysis of trends and pauses before, but it’s worth a look using UAHv6 data.
Here’s a before and after: if you open these 2 links to 2 tabs side by side and click from one tab to the other, it will have a similar effect to a ‘blink’ gif.
UAH trend to 1998 (incl.)
UAH trend to 2018 (incl.)
Like the linked analysis, the notion of a ‘pause’ seems a little far-fetched with this visual analysis. And I haven’t used proper uncertainty bounds – that would only buttress the point – only a rough guideline for the variability to 95%.
When looked at in context of the longer record, the pause is not valid – and this by the old eyecrometer, which seems to be much favoured, by certain interests, over rigorous statistical analysis.
Of course, rigorous statistical analysis demolished the notion of a ‘pause’ some time ago.
[You may notice that I’ve used the 1979 to 2018 trend for both. That’s because the difference in trend was 2 thousandths of a degree C per decade, so it is not noticeable. This made the construction of the graphs easier, and with less steps (and less text in the corner getting in the way)]
Didn’t format the hyperlink link properly.
Here it is.
Great write-up, I’m regular visitor of one’s
blog, maintain up Keto BHB Now – Slim Down NOW With The #1 Keto! | SpecialOffer nice operate, and It is going to be a regular visitor for a lengthy time.
Best Fiber Optic Stripper at Low Price in India – Fiber Optic Stripper CF3, Stainless Steel Fiber Stripper, Fijukura Fiber Stripper, Proskit Fiber Stripper, Mx Fiber Stripper 1686A.