Summers in the U.S. are hot. They always have been. Some are hotter than others.
Speaking as a PhD meteorologist with 40 years experience, this week’s heat wave is nothing special.
But judging from the memo released on June 22 by Public Citizen (a $17 million per year liberal/progressive consumer rights advocacy group originally formed by Ralph Nader in 1971 and heavily funded by Leftwing billionaire George Soros’s Open Society Foundations), every heat wave must now be viewed as a reminder of human-caused climate change. The memo opines that (believe it or not) the news media have not been very good about linking weather events to climate change, which is leading to complacency among the public.
The June 22 memo focus was on the excessive heat in New York state, so let’s begin our journey down Hysteria Lane there. The official NOAA average maximum temperatures for every June since 1895 in New York looks like this:
The long term trend is not statistically different from zero. June 2018 is not yet available at the NOAA website, but from what I’ve seen for the global June Climate Forecast System map at WeatherBell.com, it looks like it was near the long-term (20th Century) average.
The memo also made mention of the widespread record warmth the U.S. experienced in May, 2018. New York had it’s 7th warmest May on record this year, and the long-term linear warming trend there since 1895 is weak (0.22 F/decade) and not statistically different from zero at the 95% confidence level. The May warmth in the U.S. was regional, as expected for weather variations, with much of Canada being exceedingly cold:
When do you suppose the hottest temperature ever recorded in New York was? Clearly, with global warming, it must be in the last 20 or 30 years, right?
Wrong.
It was 109 deg. F. on July 22, 1926 in Troy, New York. In contrast, the state record for the coldest temperature was much more recent: -52 deg. F on Feb 18, 1979, at Old Forge, New York.
What about this week’s heat wave? Let’s look at NOAA’s GFS forecast model 5-day average temperatures for this week (Monday through Friday, July 2-6, 2018, graphic from WeatherBell.com):
As you can see, the excessive heat is (again) regionally isolated, which is exactly what we expect for weather… not for climate change. See those colder than average areas? Why aren’t those being blamed on climate change, too? They look like they approximately cancel out the warm area over the Northeast U.S., which is often the case for weather (not climate change) variations.
That was a 5-day forecast for this week. Next let’s look at what was actually observed over the last couple days (July 1-2), which were very hot in the Great Lakes and Northeast:
What we see is that there were unseasonably cool temperatures in the western U.S., again an indication of a temporary and localized weather pattern… not “global warming”, which would be warm everywhere.
How about extreme high temperatures in the U.S in general? Here are the yearly total number of days above 100 and 105 deg. F, again for the years 1895 through 2017, based upon official NOAA data:
We see no trend in the number of days with excessive heat.
So, what do we make of the claims in the Public Citizen memo? Well, they mention that we have seen 1.1 deg. C of warming since the Industrial Revolution. Think about that. Less than 2 deg. F warming in about 200 years, part of which is likely to be natural, based upon temperature proxy estimates over the last 2,000 years for the Northern Hemisphere:
Am I claiming that there is no such thing as human-caused warming? No. I’m claiming that it is overblown. The Public Citizen memo makes much of recent record warm years clustering together, which sounds alarming — if one doesn’t mention the small fractions of a degree involved. If there was no natural year-to-year variability, and the temperature was increasing at 0.01 or 0.02 deg. F every year, then every successive year would be a record warm year…but who would care? The rate of ‘global warming’ is too weak for any one person to notice in their lifetime.
Furthermore, we already know the climate models (which are the basis for proposed changes in energy policy to get us away from fossil fuels) are producing generally twice as much warming of the atmosphere-ocean system as has been observed. The most recent energy budget analysis of surface and deep-ocean warming suggests that the climate system is only half as sensitive to our CO2 emissions as you are being told…. maybe 1.5 deg. C of eventual warming from a doubling of atmospheric CO2. At 410 ppm, We are currently half way to doubling.
And even THAT reduced estimate of future warming assumes ALL of the warming is human-caused! If a portion of recent warming is natural, the less the human-caused global warming problem becomes.
Finally, the Public Citizen memo claims that today’s technology would already allow 80% to 100% of our energy to come from renewable sources. This is patently false. Solar and wind are relatively diffuse (and thus expensive) sources of energy which are intermittent, requiring fossil fuel (or nuclear) backup. It would be exceedingly expensive to get even 50% of our energy from such sources. Maybe someday we will have such technologies, but until that day arrives, the massive amount of money that would be required to achieve such a goal would worsen poverty, which historically has been the leading cause of premature death in the world.
Thank you, Dr. Spencer.
I rely on your work. It is invaluable.
+1
Invaluable?
That adjective could be be queried. For example:
Fig 1. Only goes to 2017. Only refers to average maximums
Fig 2. Only refers to May. Only refers to model-diagnosed (not observed) temperatures. (Why do we suddenly trust models? )
Fig. 3. Again just a model product.
Fig.4. Note that the maximum anomaly is greater than +16 while the minimum anomaly is no cooler than -13.
Fig. 5 Incorrectly refers to hottest years instead of years with highest number of..
Fig. 6. Time series only extends to about 2000.
Summary: Not up to publishable standard.
Maybe not up to your “pal review” standard.
But definitely above “moronic standard”.
Please provide links to a just few AGW blog posts where you criticize their content as “Summary: Not up to publishable standard.”
Laura,
Please provide links to a just a few skeptic blog posts where you criticize their content.
Please provide links to you suggesting some skeptics are Nazi sympathizers.
So, is it your point that Dr. Spencer’s work is only above “moronic standard?”
I’m glad someone like Dr Spencer is willing to slow the train. In year 2100, had I to choose between 11.2 billion people or 1 billion (denier or alarmist), I choose the former.
As expected, “Myki” has no standards.
One more anti-human climate alarmists to completely ignore.
Figure 6 refers to Ljungqvist (2010) and that paper may be repeating some typical errors. For example, Ljungqvist references Loehle (E&E, 2007), which was a deeply flawed work, as noted in a post on Real Climate. The Loehle (E&E, 2007) paper was rapidly “corrected”, but still contained several flaws, which led me to write a letter to the Editor in reply.
Loehle’s main failure was in his dating of the proxy records, many of which do not continue into the 20th century, especially as the radiocarbon dating used to build date models ends in 1950. The graph in Figure 6 appears to end in the year 2000, but one can’t know whether these data are correct without checking each proxy record for dates. One such example is the Kegwin (1996) results, which include a reservoir correction to the radio carbon ages which is dubious. And, of course, Figure 6 is a NH extra tropical compilation, not global result, so one must be careful with the interpretation of these combinations.
“Fig 1. Only goes to 2017. Only refers to average maximums”
Wow.. 1 year short of being current. AGW is supposed to have been happening since way before 2017, and the trend is what is important. If runaway warming was happening, the averages would be increasingly higher, significantly – they are not, at all.
“Fig. 5 Incorrectly refers to hottest years instead of years with highest number of..”
Speaking of incorrect: you are. Fig 5 *correctly* shows the *number of days* above 100 and 105 for *each year*. Again, if there was out of control warming, the numbers would be becoming significantly higher. Again, they are not.
Summary: Your review isn’t up to standard.
Dave N,
re: Fig 5
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2018/07/summer-causes-climate-change-hysteria/#comment-310437
That adjective could be be queried. For example:
Answer: Queried perhaps, but not wrong.
Fig 1. Only goes to 2017. Only refers to average maximums
Answer: 2018 is not finished yet so average not yet available.
Fig 2. Only refers to May. Only refers to model-diagnosed (not observed) temperatures. (Why do we suddenly trust models? )
Answer: Global observations stations are not evenly spaced around the world. All global temp calculated maps from major climate centres use model initalization gridpoint analysis values to get a smooth cover of the globe or use homogenization.
Fig. 3. Again just a model product.
Answer: Same as above. Normal practice from Climate monitoring centres. e.g. GISS https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/maps/ Try to plot obs stations on this map and work out how they came up with the temp anomaly contours https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/warm_stations/used_stations.gif
Fig.4. Note that the maximum anomaly is greater than +16 while the minimum anomaly is no cooler than -13.
Answer: Irrelevant and false. It has <-16 cold anomaly range.
Fig. 5 Incorrectly refers to hottest years instead of years with highest number of..
Answer: The graph clearly states it is the average number of days per station in the hottest range. More average hotter days = some years hotter than others therefore using hottest years is a valid statement
Fig. 6. Time series only extends to about 2000.
Answer: Ljungvist proxies only run to 1999. It is common for proxy temps to finish years if not decades prior to current temps due to the nature of the proxies. The paper was published in 2010
Summary: Not up to publishable standard.
Answer: It is a blog post and never designed for journal publication so why compare it? However, if you ever bothered to take off your blinkered pro AGW glasses you might look at the data and what is shows….rather than blindly attacking the author.
Confirmed! Myki Mouse gave a “pal review” assessment of Dr. Spencer’s blog post!
“Fig 1. Only goes to 2017. Only refers to average maximums
Answer: 2018 is not finished yet so average not yet available.”
FOCUS! The graph refers to JUNE temperatures, NOT annual average temperatures.
“Fig 2. (and Fig. 3) Only refers to May. Only refers to model-diagnosed (not observed) temperatures. (Why do we suddenly trust models? )
Answer: Global observations stations are not evenly spaced around the world. All global temp calculated maps from major climate centres use model initalization gridpoint analysis values to get a smooth cover of the globe or use homogenization.”
FOCUS! The topic is summer, and specifically last week.
Secondly, you are now telling me that you trust models over observations! Why not simply show the observational-based map for May? They are available.
“Fig.4. Note that the maximum anomaly is greater than +16 while the minimum anomaly is no cooler than -13.
Answer: Irrelevant and false. It has +16). There are NO blue regions shown (<-13).
"Fig. 5 Incorrectly refers to hottest years instead of years with highest number of..
Answer: The graph clearly states it is the average number of days per station in the hottest range. More average hotter days = some years hotter than others therefore using hottest years is a valid statement"
FOCUS FOCUS! The legend refers to:
"11 of 12 hottest years occurred before 1960"
It does not follow that the year with the largest number of hot days corresponds to the "hottest" year. A simple, but significant error.
"Fig. 6. Time series only extends to about 2000.
Answer: Ljungvist proxies only run to 1999. It is common for proxy temps to finish years if not decades prior to current temps due to the nature of the proxies. The paper was published in 2010"
THEN WHY SHOW IT? There are plenty of more up-to-date (hockey-stick) graphs which could have been shown.
"It is a blog post and never designed for journal publication so why compare it? However, if you ever bothered to take off your blinkered pro AGW glasses you might look at the data and what is shows….rather than blindly attacking the author."
I am glad you agree that it the post is not publication standard. That is all I did. Where did I "blindly attack the author".
Summary: you are an idiot.
Myki now you are blindly attacking me by calling me stupid so setting out your stall on behaviour.
Re 2018 data ….June data has not yet been collated so he can’t put it on the graph if you had bothered to check.
No I don’t trust wx or climate models I used them every day in my job and know their faults. I pointed out the folly of homogenization or using model derived grid point initialization values as though they are observations particularly in sparse sample areas like the Arctic, Antarctic or ocean regions.
The 11/12 hottest years was clearly referring to the graphed data and is a true statement with respect to that graph. Your assumption that it referred to some other metric is your own mis-reading of the statement.
Feel free to show a more up to date temp PROXY dataset than 1999. They are hard to find and are probably unreliable anyway. The hockey stick was modern observed temp data spliced on to proxies that have huge error bars and are not comparable. You will note that Dr Roy did not (correctly) even attempt to do this….unlike the Mann hockey stick cult.
RE 1) Basic Math suggests you are missing the point (I hope not avoiding it) that even if 2018 is tied or even tops the highest record, it would still be statistically insignificant.
The data is from NOAA, not a denier site.
Fig. 1 might have a better label, but it clearly shows June Maximum temps not “Only average maximums”.
If you know anything about temperature data, then you know there’s no such thing as an “average daily temperature.” There is “average daily maximum” and “average daily minimum.” That’s why the chart “only refers to average maximums.” That’s how the data is collected — that’s ALL THE DATA THERE IS (besides “daily minimum”)
If you have an issue with the data, then take it up with NOAA or NASA. 😉
Trump won election, the assholes lost.
Apparently Vlad won the election.
The problem is Dr. Roy is using B.S. democrat government stats. And we all know the democrats are lying assholes.
“Am I claiming that there is no such thing as human-caused warming? No. I’m claiming that it is overblown.”
The obvious question is why is it being overblow? Obvious answer, the left wants CAGW – for use as an excuse for more government control. I.E. Never trust the left.
Excellent information and proves all of my points.
This is where David A comes in, shows Salvatore’s previous statements… several other people jump in arguing about slightly off-topic areas until we are completely off topic and it goes on and on and on and on.
MIKE! You made my day! [ROFLMAO] Your comment is, in a nutshell, the progression of most of Dr. Spencer’s posts. The Alarmists vs. Realists conflict likely will continue well into the next time our solar system cycles back through the galactic gas and dust disk of the spiral arm in which our system resides.
That’s fine, Mike. People are free to do as they wish. The important issue is that there is nothing going on climate-wise that is of alarm.
I agree with Laura. I’ve been hearing nothing but doomsday stories during the past 40 years. And I am most certain that every generation that comes up will always create a new version of DOOMSDAY!
This particular one is quite persistent- 30 y so far
And quite persistently wrong! The Arctic ice was supposed to have melted by now according to the gloom and doomers. As more and more data pours in, the more and more so-called global warming will be seen as a natural multi-decadal cycle.
Nope. No serious people said that.
Summer IS climate. Winter is only weather.
Anti-human climate alarmists do not care about weather or climate. They are just anti-human.
Consider this thread and its comments. Everyone’s intentions are patently clear.
The good doctor tries to calm people down. Hysteria is clearly a bad thing. The resident anti-human climate alarmists attack him for it.
Why? Because anti-human climate alarmists want people to be hurt as much as possible, to be as distressed as possible, to be as desperate as possible, to be as anti-human as they themselves are.
Consider the resident anti-human climate alarmists offer no criticism whatsoever of the false reports that are making people hysterical. Instead, anti-human climate alarmists are fanatically critical of anything and anyone trying to relieve people of the fears created by the reports fabricated by anti-human climate alarmists.
Oh boy.
Laura understands people’s intentions.
For example, she judges that leading climate scientists would have been pro-Nazi, and would have wanted to go to Nazi Germany and work at concentration camps ( a previous comment of hers).
Laura encapsulates all that is wrong with America right now.
She believes people that disagree with her, or have different priorities than her, are not just wrong.
They are also evil.
Googled “climate deniers are evil”, got +300,000 returns.
get 6 million for ‘climate scientists are evil.’
Mean anything?
350,000 for ‘dishwashers are evil’
7 million for ‘swimming pools are evil’
8 million for ‘goldfish are evil’
Indeed, Abbot, indeed.
Anti-human climate alarmists have been terrifying humanity for decades while criminalizing those, like the good doctor here, who adopt a reasonable approach.
Ha! But goldfish have been worse.
Speaking of anti-human policies. How about this one?
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/08/health/world-health-breastfeeding-ecuador-trump.html
or this one:
https://www.politico.com/story/2018/07/06/epa-formaldehyde-warnings-blocked-696628
Roy, you have me rather confused.
You say: ” The June 22 memo focus was on the excessive heat in New York state”. You show a chart of maximum June temperatures in New York.
Yet according to the linked memo:
“Summer is just starting, and already we are smashing heat records. In May 2018, every state in the U.S. experienced above-average temperatures, and eight set records. We experienced not only the warmest May on record, but also the warmest three-, four- and five-year periods on record. These developments follow a disturbing long-term trend: The hottest year on record was 2016, with 2015 and 2017 close behind. Seventeen of the hottest 18 years on record have occurred since 2001, and people born after 1977 have never experienced a year in which temperatures were below the 20th century average.”
I’ve added a paragraph and an additional plot to address the warmth in May, and later in the article I’ve added a discussion of record warm years clustering together.
During my 38 years in the weather biz, I can’t help but notice how the AGW alarmists get so fixated on some regional weather event, and then try to attach some sort of meaning to it; that being WE CAUSED IT. Instead of getting so fixated on something, why not look at everything?! Maybe looking at everything gets in the way of “The Planners.”
I remember the late great Dr. William Gray publicly stated that there never has been a real dialogue between atmospheric scientists. And the reason for that was because a group of folks in government made a proclamation that the earth is warming and that humans are causing it. And the only way to get your atmospheric research funded was to prove this point. Gray said that the proper way this issue should have been handled was to split the research 50/50 between AGW causes and natural climate variation. Then, the geo-scientists could compare their results and make their suggestions together to the policy makers after both sides have had their dialogue. But instead, the funding ended up being extremely one-sided, and I think we all know what side that is!
Dr. Spencer, is there any sign that things might be changing on this front? I’m glad that I work in the private sector, so I don’t have to personally worry about it. But I am interested about how government funds science from the standpoint of a taxpayer.
‘And the reason for that was because a group of folks in government made a proclamation that the earth is warming and that humans are causing it. And the only way to get your atmospheric research funded was to prove this point. ‘
Weird conspiracy theory yur tossin out there.
Most of the people who studied climate change and discovered AGW do not work for the US government. Many live in other countries.
Of course some do work for NASA and NOAA, but they don’t control the rest off the science world, as you seem to think.
An example: Roy Spencer worked, in some fashion, for NASA, or received funding from them. Was he compelled to prove AGW true? Obviously not.
The late great Dr. William Gray sure thought government funding for climate research was awfully one-sided! In fact Gray said much of his own funding was severely cut by Al Gore when he was running the show, and whipping up AGW hysteria.
I’m sure Dr. Spencer can tell you about the pro-AGW agenda that exists at NASA.
‘cut by Al Gore when he was running the show’
Al Gore was never in charge of science funding.
‘the pro-AGW agenda that exists at NASA.’
or is it a pro-science agenda that exists at NASA?
There is a reason they called it the InterGOVERNMENTal Panel on Climate Change.
Apparently, there are no peer-reviewed climate papers by William Gray that take a negative or explicitly doubtful position on human-caused global warming.
Apparently, there are no peer-reviewed climate papers by William Gray that take a positive or explicitly supportive position on human-caused global warming.
That should tell you something. One of the recognized world experts couldn’t get his views through peer review??? However, we know what his views were and they are being supported more and more every day by reality.
https://tropical.colostate.edu/media/sites/111/2018/01/Bill-Gray-Climate-Change.pdf
“That should tell you something. One of the recognized world experts couldnt get his views through peer review???”
Huh?
More likely he didn’t write or submit any.
If he did, but couldn’t get through peer review, then that would indicate his ideas were insufficiently substantiated.
Even if he failed peer review, he still got his views disseminated- as you attest.
So, what is your problem?
Myki, I see you are in complete denial. Must be tough with the global temperature dropping so much. LOL.
Allow Bill Gray to tell you what happened to his funding after his encounter with Al Gore. Go to 3:45
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lr2DEiPHlkg&t=169s
All that happened was he didn’t join a panel. No link to funding issues.
Secondly, why would an 82 year old be in line for public research dollars? By that age you could fund your own research.
“The June 22 memo focus was on the excessive heat in New York state . . .”
It’s odd then that the linked memo doesn’t make any mention of New York state.
It’s also curious that the memo focused on something that hadn’t yet happened at the publication date.
Yes its odd, and Roy has not addressed it.
If you add a trend to Figure 1, the trend is up since 1895 and since 1918 it’s down. If you plot out the warm months (May-Oct) for each state and map the results (how far back can you find a negative trend), it looks like this:
http://oi67.tinypic.com/10er3ps.jpg
You can see that the jet stream will draw warm air from the southwest to the Great Lakes.
http://virga.sfsu.edu/gif/18070312_jetstream_h24.gif
Roy,
I think your last paragraph sums things up and renders much of the spirited debate on this blog moot. Getting 50% of our energy from solar/wind would require either a fully functioning smart grid up front (estimated to cost a few trillion) or massive energy storage capacity (probably more than doubling the cost). It would also take decades to accomplish given the permitting and lawsuits that would accompany building out new transmission lines. But that isn’t going to matter to the liberal-minded. My experience is they somehow believe they have a moral obligation to require others to live up to their standards (i.e. going green…) without realizing their standards are off. They apparently seem to think that a reasonable effort by the collective middle class in our country (keep in mind the poor and rich are generally ‘free’ from an income tax) is enough to actually bend the needle on global CO2 levels. If they practiced what they preached and actually attempted to substantially reduce CO2 emissions (what everyone in the world would need to do…), maybe they would understand…
Barry
50% of electrical energy?
Already being done in some countries:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renewable_energy_in_Denmark
Many US states already have high % renewable
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_by_electricity_production_from_renewable_sources
…. trying to post again the right spot…
Nate,
I was referring to solar/wind in the USA. In your second link the USA gets about 8% from non-hydro (more than just solar/wind). To get 50% in the USA from wind/solar would be a massive undertaking costing trillions of dollars and taking many decades.
Cheers,
Barry
1st example, Denmark, demonstrates feasibility.
States-
some have > 35 % wind and/or solar, again showing feasibility, and willing investment in it.
Both continue to see price declines, so that incentives are phasing out.
Just the beginning, but it seems to be ramping. Couple of decades, ok, why not?
Nate,
Your second link above has US electricity from wind at 6%. Your first link has Denmark wind generating capacity of 5GW. A Wikipedia page titled “Wind power in the United States” has the USA at 82GW. Basically, Denmark proves nothing. Besides the fact that orders of magnitude separate the two, much of the wind resource in the USA ins’t near population centers. The permitting alone that would be necessary to build out transmission lines on a large scale would take decades.
Regarding individual states, are you referring to the w/o Hydro column, because that includes more than just wind/solar (i.e. biomass). Furthermore, using Vermont (with a whopping 0.05% of the electricity consumption in the USA) as an template for the whole country is questionable at best.
That being said if individual states want to push and build out wind capacity, more power to them. Some states have better wind resources and less need. Furthermore, individuals and businesses can vote with their feet and leave….
Cheers,
Barry
‘That being said if individual states want to push and build out wind capacity, more power to them. Some states have better wind resources and less need. ‘
Agreed.
‘Furthermore, individuals and businesses can vote with their feet and leave.’
They will want to leave Texas because its rapidly expanding wind power??
See also regarding govt support of energy:
https://www.eia.gov/analysis/requests/subsidy/
Denmark has 6 million people clustered mostly
in a handful of large cities.
Nate, I checked your link out about US states. Did you see that nice, neat little pie chart in the upper right-hand corner? In case you pretended that it didn’t exist, allow me to tell you what it shows for US sources of electricity in 2016.
Natural Gas – 33.8%
Coal – 30.4%
Nuclear – 19.7%
Hydro – 6.5%
That is a total of 90.4% so far.
Wind – 5.5%
Biomass – 1.5%
Other – 2.6%
I guess solar was included with “other.”
Using government force to make other people buy the type of electricity you like is nothing but pure authoritarianism. That is why many of us not on board the human-caused global warming bandwagon consider much of AGW research to be agenda driven.
I like what Dr. Lindzen stated. “You control carbon, you control life.” I know Dr. Spencer and Dr. Christy have stated similar things before Congress.
The point was to show that near 50% is feasible-it is nearly so in some states and countries, even now.
But yes, overall in US, electric generation by wind and solar was 5% in 2016. But 10 y prior to that it was ~ 0.
What does that tell you?
No big surprise Nate, especially if you take a drive through West Texas. There, you will behold a sea of wind turbines. Do I have anything against that? Of course not! In fact, the wind energy generation in Texas is something I am proud of. But I don’t want to force this type of energy onto anybody. I prefer that this method of power production grow by market choice.
I am a Tesla owner. And I am constantly battling Tesla owners from California in the Tesla Forum about whether to use the force of government to make people buy battery electric vehicles or not. I want Tesla and other Battery Electric Vehicles (BEV) grow by market choice. Not by government mandate! And if you are opposed to government mandates for “green” energy, then you are a “denier.”
This is why I consider AGW proponents to be more interested in an agenda than they are in actual climate science.
‘In fact, the wind energy generation in Texas is something I am proud of. But I dont want to force this type of energy onto anybody.’
Agreed., totally. Whos saying it should be forced?
I am for all the market determining the source.
Regarding whether the market is truly free, Im sure subsidies will be brought up.
This may be of interest, from EIA. It shows that subsidies for renwable have been much much lower than those for fossil fuels or nuclear.
https://www.eia.gov/analysis/requests/subsidy/
‘This is why I consider AGW proponents to be more interested in an agenda than they are in actual climate science.’
IMO, one should not judge the science through an ideological lens.
But, in discussions I find many AGW opponents are more driven by an agenda than they are by legit problems with the actual climate science.
Eg, the acceptance of conspiracy theories about climate scientists and their findings, as fact.
Rob Mitchell says:
No big surprise Nate, especially if you take a drive through West Texas. There, you will behold a sea of wind turbines. Do I have anything against that? Of course not! In fact, the wind energy generation in Texas is something I am proud of. But I dont want to force this type of energy onto anybody. I prefer that this method of power production grow by market choice.
Do you care about the damage costs of fossil fuel pollution?
To health and to the environment?
What is it worth to keep the climate — a valuable resource — from changing?
PS: energy is energy. You will still plug your toaster into the same outlet.
‘It shows that subsidies for renwable have been much much lower than those for fossil fuels or nuclear.’
Whoops, misread it.
Actual breakdown shows more for W and S than coal, gas, oil, nuclear.
https://www.eia.gov/analysis/requests/subsidy/pdf/subsidy.pdf
Power generated (TWh) from US EIA 4/2017-4/2018
https://www.eia.gov/electricity/monthly/epm_table_grapher.php?t=epmt_1_01_a
https://www.eia.gov/electricity/monthly/epm_table_grapher.php?t=epmt_1_01
wind 264
solar 83
W+S 347
All sources 4070
% W+S 8.5 %
Denmark is surrounded by waters subject to the North Sea winds. Its population is all of 6 million – about that of metro Atlanta.
I think what he is trying to say is if eliminate everyone besides 6 chosen people (very green people), we too can achieve this.
The conversation started with PERCENTAGE renewable cannot be high. In Denmark it is high.
Rob…”Using government force to make other people buy the type of electricity you like is nothing but pure authoritarianism”.
It’s also called capitalism with a fascist flavour. Fascism is a reference to a small group controlling the economy. Here in Canada we are being held ransom by gas companies fixing gasoline prices. When their capitalist-oriented government friends investigate they claim there is no evidence.
Every gas company here sets their prices within tenths of a cent of each other and they go up and down in unison. They call it supply and demand but when is there not a demand for gas?
The greenie politicians don’t get that or they don’t want to see, because playing the carbon game pays big dividends for them.
Gordon, Here you can see how the US govt supporting non-Green energy, more so than Green.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2018/07/summer-causes-climate-change-hysteria/#comment-310538
nate…”Here you can see how the US govt supporting non-Green energy, more so than Green”.
I agree that politicians are hypocritical. When it comes to a tax dollar they talk out of both sides of their mouths. Here in Canada, our PM, Justin Trudeau, strongly advocates green initiatives yet he is strongly in favour of an oil pipeline.
Gordon, I also think it is a way for government to find yet another way to separate the working class from their hard-earned dollars. Authoritarians want to slap a massive carbon tax onto the populace because of their gasoline and electric power consumption. Richard Lindzen stated that if government can convince its citizens that they have to pay higher taxes to save the world, then the citizens would be more willing to pay. I think that is the driving force behind AGW mantra.
Rob, recall you said this ‘This is why I consider AGW proponents to be more interested in an agenda than they are in actual climate science.’
Yet most of your posts have to do with concerns over ‘agendas’ and policies, not the science.
Could it be that your agenda is biasing your judgement of the science?
Nate, I have been battling fellow Tesla owners about free market choice vs. government intervention during the past 4 years in their Forum. I have been a marine/aviation weather forecaster for 38 years. I can’t help but notice that those who are devout believers in AGW are the ones who want to alter other people’s lives in the type of vehicle they can buy or the source of electricity they can use. I see the field of Meteorology/Climate being used as a tool to affect policy decisions.
I don’t think research meteorologists should get into the business of telling the public what their motor vehicle and electric power choices should be. And of course, those of us who are opposed to a massive carbon tax are immediately labeled as “deniers.”
All that has to do with policy, values, philosophy. Nothing to do with whether AGW as science is correct or not. Seems that is less important to you.
“I like what Dr. Lindzen stated. You control carbon, you control life. I know Dr. Spencer and Dr. Christy have stated similar things before Congress.”
Good point Bob Mitchell. The benefits of rising CO2 concentrations far outweigh any of the claimed negative effects. For example, the planet is greening as plants become more drought resistant.
Rising temperatures are a benefit if you heed historians rather than “Climate Scientists”. The learned Dr. Roy included Figure 6 in his post showing peaks and valleys in the temperature record for the last 2000 years. The peaks correspond to prosperous periods while the valleys correlate with plagues and famine.
‘peaks and valleys in the temperature record for the last 2000 years. The peaks correspond to prosperous periods while the valleys correlate with plagues and famine.’
For who? Whose historical record? For Northern Europeans, possibly.
For the rest-probably not.
Denmark rarely gets above 50% of electrical energy and this only tells a small part of the story.
https://ens.dk/en/our-services/statistics-data-key-figures-and-energy-maps/annual-and-monthly-statistics
What is most important is that Denmark can not guarantee enough generation to cover it’s own domestic demand. Every year between 10-30% of energy is supplied by net import from abundant Norway hydro, Swedish Nukes and any German excess if they have it available via interconnectors. Sure on windy days they use these to export excess wind energy, but most of the time the flow is the other way into the country. What’s more this external imported power supply from other countries is used to control the grid instability caused by intermittent wind supply.
This is the untold story of both Germany and Denmark’s push towards renewables and is now the reason why Angela Merkel has now been forced by her coalition partners to stop issuing subsidies for new solar and wind installations. The intermitency of wind has also seen CO2 emissions plateau since 2008 and arguably has even increased slightly.
Denmark and Germany, far from being the poster child of renewable energy are fast becoming good examples of why countries should not invest in them.
‘What is most important is that Denmark can not guarantee enough generation to cover its own domestic demand.’
I don’t understand why this is important. I’m sure tiny Denmark trades many commodities with its neighbors in European Union. I’m sure it can’t cover its own domestic beer demand. Trade is a good thing.
The same can be said for many US states or regions.
In New England we get some power from Canadian hydro. The grid is designed to reroute power to adjust to demand.
What you did not mention about Germany was their decision, after Fukushima, to shutter nuclear plants, which meant they had to use more coal.
As someone who works in EU power commodity trading the move away from self reliance of essential supply of electricity and water etc means prices go up and if one domino falls they bring down the others. If one country has a major problem the rest all suffer. E.g. France last year when they found faulty parts in their Nukes and had to shut them down for checks. e.g. When Russian gas was curtailed in an extreme winter because they kept it for their own supply or Ukraine decided to not let gas flow through it’s territory.
Re Fukishima and DE Nuke shutdowns
Fukishima occurred in March 2011. DE emissions show little change and have flatlined since 2008 before any Nuke shutdowns.
https://www.cleanenergywire.org/sites/default/files/styles/lightbox_image/public/images/factsheet/20180326-uba-german-greenhousegasemissions1990-2017.png?itok=-Y-xcb52
‘Flat lined since 2008’
Honestly, the graph does not look that way to me.
Here are all sources over time
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c9/Energiemix_Deutschland.svg
Nuclear is Kernenergie. You can see that its downward trend has been significant. Just as Wind and solar and biomass have grown essentially making up the difference.
Pretty clear.
‘move away from self reliance of essential supply of electricity and water etc means prices go up’
That is not the usual effect of free trade, and market forces on prices. Odd. If someone across the border can supply energy cheaper, great, they will.
I also cant find reference to NY temps in the memo.
Are you saying political advocacy groups should stick to facts that they can prove, never exaggerate, never selectively present information favorable to their message, never deceptively use stats?
IOW, you would expect political advocacy groups to behave like scientists?
Ok.
Speaking of
Selectively presenting favorable information:
In Fig 6 the modern warm period shows almost no warming. Yet graph claims 10 y time resolution? Hows that make sense?
Deceptively using stats:
Fig 1. One month, one state, more noise.
‘It was 109 deg. F. on July 22, 1926 in Troy, New York.’
C’mon finding some location in the US that has a record high in 1920s?
‘Less than 2 deg. F warming in about 200 years’
Really 200y? Why not 300 y? Most of it occurred in last 50. Wow.
‘temperature was increasing at 0.01 or 0.02 deg. F’
US temps increased 0.05 F/year for last 50 y (NOAA). Similar to all NH land.
US temps increased 0.05 F/year for last 50 y (NOAA). Similar to all NH land.
Yeah.
Real US temps increased 0.03 F/year for last 50 y (NOAA). Similar to all NH land.
Climate scientist add to US temps 0.02 F/year for last 50 y. Similar to all NH land.
Wishful thinking? Or do you have real evidence?
All this is perfectly known.
http://curryja.files.wordpress.com/2014/07/slide14.jpg?w=500&h=375
In fact, it is below reality because the effect of aggregation is not taken into account.
Some use only short and cut series, pretending not to add warming when it is perfectly wrong. The increase in warming is then at the aggregation stage.
Reminder, the aggregation is done by preserving the slope of the homogeneous segments. So by eliminating information on the long-term trend.
‘Reminder, the aggregation is done by preserving the slope of the homogeneous segments. So by eliminating information on the long-term trend.’
Explain this.
The graph is not explained, no caption, no context. Where from? Who made it?
Phi,
If your posts only make sense to you, what’s their point?
What is not clear? The fact that US warming is partly artificial? The mechanism of aggregation of temperature series?
Aggregation of series (or homogeneous sections) is not done by averaging temperatures but by averaging temperature differences (similar to anomalies). The absolute level of the series (the actual measured temperature) is an information lost in the treatment. This is problematic for long-term trends as potential instruments drift accumulates. The result is that over 50 years the observed warming of thermometers is generally 0.5 C lower than what climatologists claim.
This difference between observed and calculated warming indicates a bias in the measurements (the mechanism described by Hansen). To my knowledge, only the use of proxies makes it possible to quantify this bias (estimated at about 0.15 C per decade for the lands of the Northern Hemisphere, https://tinyurl.com/yb2jxol6, https://tinyurl.com/yap8b6nx).
Is it clearer ?
‘Is it clearer?’
Not really. It would help if this discussion could be found in a publication, that we could read.
‘Aggregation of series (or homogeneous sections) is not done by averaging temperatures but by averaging temperature differences (similar to anomalies)’
Uhhh, is that true for all groups? Berkeley, GISS, HAD, ..?
Temperature difference from what, a local long-term average?
‘The result is that over 50 years the observed warming of thermometers is generally 0.5 C lower than what climatologists claim.’
Not obvious how you can arrive at this number. It appears out of thin air.
If this was indeed a problem, why isn’t anyone aggregating the data differently?
‘To my knowledge, only the use of proxies makes it possible to quantify this bias ‘
It is difficult to believe that, in the modern era, proxies are better than thermometers. After all thermometers are a direct temperature measurement.
Proxies are quite indirect.
If you would correct me if Im wrong. From what I understand, the temperature anomalies are assumed to be spatially correlated over some distance. I think is testable, and is true. An makes sense since weather patterns are strongly correlated.
Give this spatial correlation, they can use surrounding data to correct anomalies from errant stations.
But i don’t believe these corrections should be needed so often that the trend is messed up significantly.
What is clear is that surface temps must be weighted and averaged by some means. And certain measurement issues must be dealt with. Several groups are doing it, each somewhat differently.
Yet they all arrive at similar trends for last 50 y.
You claim they are (all) doing it wrong, and that the ‘correct’ trend is much lower.
But thus far, you’ve only shown snippets of information with little explanation.
You show a random unexplained graph showing difference after adjustment. Where from? What is supposedly wrong with it?
Again, adjustments are made and can be legitimate.
Fig 5 doesnt make a lot of sense, given that there has been overall warming.
Here is analysis of that for various cities-showing increasing # of 100F days.
http://www.climatecentral.org/gallery/maps/days-above-100f-projections
See graph at bottom of page. Try cities that normally get some 100F days.
These are projections of the future.
Nope. Not the interactive graph at the bottom.
Perhaps you need to learn about UHI.
Dr. Spencer
Looking at NOAA’s “Climate at a glance” for the lower 48, a clear trend jumps out. Daily lows (nights) are getting warmer, daily highs…not so much. The average of the two is slight warming. June in New York State is a perfect example:
1895-2018 trend
Daily maximums 0.0 F
Daily minimums 0.2 F
Daily average 0.1 F
An increase in water vapor/humidity is the obvious explanation, at least from my novice viewpoint. Do you agree, or is that an over – simplification?
(Sorry, I’m not able to show the NOAA link)
snape…”(Sorry, Im not able to show the NOAA link)”
Does it have NCD-C in the link? If so, change it to NCD-C and advise readers to change the link by removing the hyphen.
And remember, NOAA has seriously fudged the record to the point where it is not reliable.
“todays technology would already allow 80% to 100% of our energy to come from renewable sources.”
I cringe every time I see these type of statements. Nobody seems to remember the vast amount of referenced renewable energy comes from burning wood and dung!
https://s3.amazonaws.com/jo.nova/graph/energy/renewables/world-energy-iea-global-2016.gif
Nate,
I was referring to solar/wind in the USA. In your second link the USA gets about 8% from non-hydro (more than just solar/wind). To get 50% in the USA from wind/solar would be a massive undertaking costing trillions of dollars and taking many decades.
Cheers,
Barry
Thanks Roy,
Is there a corresponding figure 5 for the world?
An often repeated statement on this blog is how new record highs out pace record lows. As I have time I have been sampling these new records and finding most do not have temperature data going back before the 1970’s. I have also sampled stations that have records going back to the early 1900’s and the majority of these have high temp records prior to 1960. I would think someone must have done a world wide study similar to your figure 5.
bilybob…”I have been sampling these new records and finding most do not have temperature data going back before the 1970s”.
That’s not surprising considering the state of the world prior to 1970. The Soviet union was under shutdown as was mainland China. There was essentially no coverage of the oceans, nor the Arctic nor the Antarctic. There were two major wars, 1914 – 1918, and 1939 – 1945. There was the Korean conflict and Viet Nam.
As an example of 1930s Africa, explorer Bill Tillman, having lived in Kenya for 10 years decided to head back to England. The most expedient manner for him was to ride a bicycle from Kenya near the east coast, to the west coast, where he could pick up a steamer.
Much of the world was like that. No one was concerned about climate or global warming and record were mainly for local weather in civilized areas.
The current records trotted out by NOAA and BEST are highly speculative, made worse by NOAA freely amended them retroactively to temperatures they think better represented the past.
Again Gordon lies about NO.AA. And now impugns BEST based on no evidence whatsoever.
It tells me if the government forces you to pay enough extra, you can even send a Tesla into space.
I like Tesla, but not to the point of using government force to make others like Tesla!
https://www.eia.gov/analysis/requests/subsidy/
Note subsidies of renewable lower than FF or nuclear
misread it, my bad.
Actual breakdown here:
https://www.eia.gov/analysis/requests/subsidy/pdf/subsidy.pdf
2016 subsidies
Coal, Nuclear and Gas combined just 7%
Renewables 45%
But this is from a pie where common shared costs make up 48% of subsidy pie. Therefore renewables subsidies are nearly 7 times that of traditional power sources.
This puts to bed this ridiculous notion that fossil fuels subsidies are much higher than renewables. What a joke. See page 9.
https://www.eia.gov/analysis/requests/subsidy/pdf/subsidy.pdf
More than half of renewables is ethanol, which IMO overdone.
You can also see that they appear to be decreasing 2013-2016.
This is historically what has happened with govt support of energy.
First with hydro, (Hoover, TVA, etc), then nuclear in a big way, and all along with oil and gas exploration.
Also 2016 was a lean year for FF and nuclear, It was 19% in 2013.
What “extra” was paid to send a Tesla into space? What are you talking about?
Roy…thanks for the reality check in your article.
You must have gotten this graph before NOAA amended it to remove the warming in the 1930s.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/US-extreme-high-temperatures-1895-2017.jpg
My understanding is that NOAA does not adjust history on maximum temperatures. It does liberally adjust history on “average” temperature, but not on the high temperature.
To keep things in context, the area of the south 48 is only 1.6% of the area of the planet.
Dan…”To keep things in context, the area of the south 48 is only 1.6% of the area of the planet”.
If you don’t count the 70% surface area that is oceans, what is the percentage then?
Easy to calculate from the numbers already given.
Australia just had its warmest financial year on record based on maximum temperatures.
http://www.farmonlineweather.com.au/news/record-hot-financial-year-in-australia/528111
Last month was the hottest June on record for Northern Ireland and Wales, and the fourth-hottest for Scotland and England based on 24-hour mean temperatures.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/jul/02/uk-heatwave-continues-as-thunderstorms-threaten-south-west
myki…”Last month was the hottest June on record for Northern Ireland and Wales, and the fourth-hottest for Scotland and England based on 24-hour mean temperatures”.
Sources, sources. The Guardian is the climate equivalent of the US National Enquirer. Utter propaganda.
Notice that when, as always, Gordon has no data, he needs to impugn the source — paper, article, or scientist — based on nothing but his say-so. It’s always the same with him.
Lets face it.
If record warm temperatures stop being broken – that will be news.
myki…”If record warm temperatures stop being broken that will be news”.
It’s weather, as Roy claimed, there is no sign of a trend for maximum warming.
When Scotland sets a record of 32.9C which broke a record for 1893, there is no trend.
Lol.
If cool records were being broken you are telling me you would not bother commenting?
Pull the other one!!!
To make new warm records is what to be expected. The world has warmed after the little ice age and especially after the last real ice age. It would be bad news to reverse that trend and to go colder. One can of course hope for stable climate, but even that involves breaking records at both ends every now and then.
Now, warming can be a problem if there is too much of it. However, theres no signs of that. Were just arguing about less than one degree and are worried sick about 2 degrees within 100 years, which is pretty amusing.
“Now, warming can be a problem if there is too much of it. However, theres no signs of that. Were just arguing about less than one degree and are worried sick about 2 degrees within 100 years, which is pretty amusing.”
This comment is interesting. There are several stages to denialism. One of the last is to accept the world is warming but that there is nothing to worry about. Here we see an example of rapid retreat in full action. It also demonstrates ignorance about impacts- since a global average rise of “only” 2 degrees will be far from “amusing”.
Myki,
You talk of many stages of denialism and accuse Vieras of being in the last stage.
Sorry to bust your theory that was probably created by internal thinking rather that listening to what others are saying, but skeptics have been agreeing for over 30 years that some warming is to expected for a couple of reasons. First, we are in a natural warming phase. Second, CO2 does have some marginal contribution to overall warming. The skepticism is that there is not a scientific link between catastrophic weather and increased CO2 levels. We could go through hurricanes, tornadoes, heat waves, snow cover, etc., and doomsday developments are not happening. The GCM models predicting these catastrophic developments are not accurate and not reliable. The one place where GCM models under-predicted concern was loss of Arctic ice, but perhaps the reason they under-predicted is because the GCM models are not the best tool for the issue of Arctic ice. The loss of Arctic ice was driven by factors other than CO2. Now, even as CO2 continues rise, the volume of Arctic ice has not only stabilized, but has also increased.
Give me a break!
Remember when predictions of loss of Arctic sea ice were met with howls of derision by denialists.
As for: “but skeptics have been agreeing for over 30 years that some warming is to expected’
!!!
This is a portent of the very last stage of denialism. i.e. “We always knew it was going to happen.”
Commonly described as rewriting history.
Myki: [Remember when predictions of loss of Arctic sea ice were met with howls of derision by denialists.]
Yes. This was about the utterly ridiculous predictions about the Arctic being ice free in 10 years. One of those predictions came from Professor Wieslaw Maslowski. And Dr. David Viner predicted that kids would grow up without snow. 10 years went and those predictions were proven utterly wrong. And yes, their predictions were for that short time frame.
Myki: [This is a portent of the very last stage of denialism. i.e. We always knew it was going to happen.]
If you take even a little time and read what sceptics actually said (instead of reading what others say they said), you should notice that nobody (besides bloody idiots) claimed that NO warming would be expected. The beef was always: How much? And: How much of that is natural vs. caused by humans?
This argument has always been about sceptics critisizing predictions that predict a lot of warming or runaway warming. They have been gravely mistreated by claiming that sceptics deny climate change. No, they do not deny climate change or that humans would not have any effect. They deny CAGW where he C means CATASTROPHIC.
Dr Judith Curry has claimed there would be no warming for decades to come. Are you calling her an idiot Vieras?
Myki, you have a cartoonish image of sceptics. As long as I can remember, there have been lukewarmers. Is this something new to you?
2 degrees Celsius is about the same as moving 200 km south. Its pretty hard to find that terrifying unless 200 km south lands you in Venezuela.
Vieras, you have a cartoonish image of global warming and impacts.
+2 degrees is the global average. At the equator somewhat less, but much greater (+6 to +8) towards the poles.
Your comment again represents the final stages of retreat by denialists:
“It is going to warm, so what? A bit of warming will be good.”
The next stage (when it is too late) is:
“Well, we cannot do anything about it, so why worry?”
Here we go again. Denialist Why is it so hard for you to have a civilized discussion? I already told you about lukewarmers. Go read about what they have been saying for 20+ years. Its worth your time as recent studies point to their having been right. Estimates of climate sensitivity have gone down all the time. That should have caused a recalibration of the doomsday predictions, but that has not happened – yet.
And, you know, I happen to live in the north. 6-8 degrees would be a blessing. But even then, there are no signs of future warming being anywhere close to that.
Vieras,
at the moment, the world is experiencing all the symptoms of global warming being expressed as severe events (see post below):
“The past seven days have set global heat milestones and sparked safety concerns from Quebec, where at least 34 people have died in the province from the heat and humidity, to northern Siberia, home to the coldest town on Earth, which recorded temperatures 40 degrees above normal on Thursday.
In Denver, the temperature reached an all-time high of 105 degrees. Just shy of 98 degrees, Montreal broke a 147-year-old record with its hottest measurement ever. In Bergen County, New Jersey, 81-year-old Rep. Bill Pascrell (D-N.J) passed out from the 90-degree-heat at a local fire department event. ”
You so-called “luke-warmers” have contributed ABSOLUTELY NOTHING in terms of :
1. contradicting the denialists
2. assisting the warmists in sounding warnings
3. contributing towards the calls for limiting emissions
4. providing a sensible discussion of the economics
Forgive me if I can’t find the time to treat you seriously. You lot will forever be regarded as cowards by the rest of us.
Myki: [Long list of weather]
Your listing warm weather is nothing different from me listing:
Europe’s deep freeze conditions kill dozens – Vatican News
Scientists announced Tuesday they have recorded the coldest temperatures ever on Earth.
Uhhuh, those happened also this year. But they are weather and not climate. Just as your example were. When you study climate, you quote temperature series, satellite data sets and sea level datasets.
Now, why should lukewarmers assist warmists in sounding warnings? The whole point of lukewarmers is:
a person who recognizes global warming, but doubts the severity of the problem, and the certainty of climate science predictions.
Now, about limiting emissions? A lot of sceptics do like Nuclear Power, myself included. At the same time sceptics do criticize policy that is ineffective or counterproductive. Have a look at Jo Nova as a prime example. And if you actually read what sceptics think about policy, you’d see that economics is THE thing they talk about.
Myki: [Forgive me if I cant find the time to treat you seriously. You lot will forever be regarded as cowards by the rest of us.]
Look, you’re obviously not been following this debate for a long time and when you have, you’ve exclusively been following it in a one sided way. You have a choice to make: You can continue doing it and think of all this in a black or white, polarizing way or you can actually verify what I have written and notice that this is not a simple issue.
There’s really no reason to insult people and be impolite.
Vieras, you are missing the point.
It is not just hot weather. It is the fact that weather records are being broken. And it has been a fact for decades that the number of warm records continually exceeds the number of cool records. It is consistent with an overall increase in average temperatures accompanied by severe weather events.
Only a fool would state:
“..We are worried sick about 2 degrees within 100 years, which is pretty amusing.”
Don’t complain to me about insults and impoliteness when you are effectively inviting it.
Vieras: “The whole point of lukewarmers is: a person who recognizes global warming, but doubts the severity of the problem, and the certainty of climate science predictions.”
Ok then – tell us what your prediction is?
And after you do, tell us whether it falls within the lower end of probabilistic climate predictions.
And after you do that, tell us what the difference in certainty is?
And while you are at it, give us your estimate for the probability of a +2 deg rise by 2100 ?
(Don’t tell me it is zero.)
I seriously doubt that you understand the concepts of probabilities, risks and impacts.
Finally, please don’t pretend to be an even-handed, reasonable, “luke-warmer” and then refer to Jo Nova as some sort of expert. That is called shooting yourself in the foot.
Hysteria?
Red-hot planet: All-time heat records have been set all over the world during the past week.
“These various records add to a growing list of heat milestones set over the past 15 months that are part and parcel of a planet that is trending hotter as greenhouse gas concentrations increase because of human activity”
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/capital-weather-gang/wp/2018/07/03/hot-planet-all-time-heat-records-have-been-set-all-over-the-world-in-last-week/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.429e1dbe0d4b
myki…”Red-hot planet: All-time heat records have been set all over the world during the past week”.
You posted one in Scotland where Glasgow had set a record. The same article mentioned that the hottest June temperature of 32.2 C for Scotland was in 1893 in Ochertyre.
They have claimed a new record the other day of 32.9C in an urban area but we are looking here at Urban Heat Island effect. In 1893, there was nothing near the heating in cities we have now due to asphalt and concrete holding heat.
Hysteria? yes, even if it was grounded in reality i think it would still qualify for hysteria, as it doesn’t matter whether tehre is any reality underlying the hysteria.
quote mode
“No single record, in isolation, can be attributed to global warming. But collectively, these heat records are consistent with the kind of extremes we expect to see increase in a warming world.”
end uote mode
uhm, no. It is not at all obvious that GW should lead to extremes, apart from the already-cold polar areas, or to the increase in the magnitude of weather variability. It might (and i can even construe a rough theory of how), but it requires a separate proof, different from the standard ‘co2 warms the world due to forcing’ story.
myki…”Red-hot planet: All-time heat records have been set all over the world during the past week”.
Even if that’s true, where’s the proof it is related to anthropogenic sources?
Do you mean you still haven’t gone to read about that?
How can you be sure that AGW is wrong if you never looked up the evidence for it?
And when all-time cold records were being set last winter I bet your response was “that’s weather, not climate”. Do you even have a clue how silly you look now?
To support its contention that “it scarcely could be clearer that human greenhouse gas pollution {sic]” is the cause of the claimed GAT rise of 1.1C rise above pre-industrial the Public Citizen website links to U.S. National Climate Assessment and quotes that “there is no convincing alternative explanation”.
What in any other branch of science would be regarded as a logical fallacy (argument from ignorance).
Instead of a simple chart showing extremes (fig.5) the National Climate Assessment includes a chart indicating that record-setting warm daily temperatures in US are occurring more often.
That could be an artefact of modern more sensitive electronic sensors recording spikes that are more likely to be highs than lows as Jo Nova has discussed on her blog.
Chris: So what are convincing alternative explanations?
Appell, I explained urban heat islands and the increased OLR in my debate with you last week. You are clueless and will forever remain so because you don’t accept anything as a rational scientific explanation except from your environmental religion that professes human CO2 emissions are responsible for anything academia deems appropriate.
I know all about UHIs. You didn’t present an iota of data, as usual.
Here’s some:
https://davidappell.blogspot.com/2018/07/oregons-rural-warming.html
What are these graph’s Appell? Did you construct them? The data is discontinuous across the entire periods of record. Do you expect this to pass a stink test? Try again.
NASA compilation of station data:
https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/stdata/
Lots of rural stations around the Pacific NW show a warming trend….
Claiming no convincing alternative explanations to human caused 1.1 C rise belies two underlying assumptions. One, that humans cause the vast majority of any rise in IR-active gases and two, that said gas increases cause significant global temperature rise. No sufficient evidence for either hypothesis.
Chic, you’ve been given lots of the evidence, and if you were self-motivated you’d go out and research it on your own.
But you don’t want evidence, no matter how much you ask for it. You just want to keep thinking you’re right, when the entire world science community has, over the last 150 years, shown you wrong.
It is not up to me to prove a negative by spending the rest of my days proving your claims. The null hypothesis that increasing CO2 does not increase global temperatures stands until someone proves otherwise. It doesn’t take the entire science community to show me wrong, only one person. Are you the one? If not you, who?
Chic, your “null hypothesis” was proven centuries ago to be nonsense.
Roy…”Well, they mention that we have seen 1.1 deg. C of warming since the Industrial Revolution. Think about that. Less than 2 deg. F warming in about 200 years, part of which is likely to be natural…”
Let’s not forget that the world was 1C to 2C cooler during the Industrial Era. It was in the middle of phase 2 of the Little Ice Age. There’s a good chance all of the warming since has been natural.
only natural ?!
You are implying the absence of cause and effect.
Maybe god did it?
What foolishness!
Milki
Your logic is odd It warm then cooled then warmed then cooled etc etc
Natural cause and effect
Now you want to alter the cause and keep the same effect
Regards
Harry,
There is more than one way to skin a cat. The fact of AGW does not mean natural variation is cancelled out. It is also present.
Myki says: “Maybe god did it?”
Or maybe the oceans did it. Oh wait, they did.
You mean:
Poseidon, Olympian God of the Oceans and king of the sea gods; also god of rivers, storms, flood and drought, earthquakes, and horses. He controlled every aspect of the seas.
????
Now you know why we call AGW a New Age Religion!
Gordon Robertson says:
Lets not forget that the world was 1C to 2C cooler during the Industrial Era. It was in the middle of phase 2 of the Little Ice Age.
Not true. (1) the LIA wasn’t global, and (2) the temperature was only about 0.6 C cooler at most. See: https://tinyurl.com/y7ko3jnj
Theres a good chance all of the warming since has been natural.
What natural factors caused it?
How can you claim CO2 is causing warming when the OLR record shows it increased 2 Wm-2 since the beginning of the satellite record?
No matter what is presented to you, Appell, you refuse to accept it if it doesn’t conform to your environmental religion.
Again, where is your data??
climate4you.com
Click on the “big picture” and scroll to the OLR radiation charts. The site is maintained by Dr. Ole Humlum.
If that isn’t convincing then read this from MIT news. Here are a couple of postdocs from MIT scratching their heads about why the OLR has been increasing when climate models forecast it must drop in support of GHG warming. These two claim the reason is that CO2 melted snow and ice and changed the albedo. Problem is, that isn’t accurate. There has been no discernible trend in the snow and ice albedo for many years.
http://news.mit.edu/2014/global-warming-increased-solar-radiation-1110
The article is nonsense except for the fact they admit the OLT spectrally integrated is going the opposite way of the failed climate models.
You are wrong again, Appell.
Chuck, David – Appears both of you need to read the CERES Team reports as there are satellite instruments measuring facts you are discussing, see Loeb 2018.
—-
Chuck writes: “the OLR record shows it increased 2 Wm-2 since the beginning of the satellite record”
CERES Team 2018 table 7 satellite record 3/2000 to 9/2016: All-sky OLR increased 0.19 +/- 0.21 W/m^2/decade or about 0.3 W/m^2 in the satellite era (~1.6 decades) with a range of confidence interval that includes 0.
—–
Chuck also writes: “There has been no discernible trend in the snow and ice albedo for many years.”
CERES Team on all-sky albedo trend in satellite era (1.6 decades): Decrease of about 0.92 W/m^2 give or take a little.
For a net increase of radiation INTO the earth-atm. system during the satellite era of about 0.56 W/m^2, again give or take a little.
—-
David writes: “What natural factors caused it?”
CERES Team in the satellite era: “CERES TOA fluxes exhibit pronounced interannual variability driven primarily by ENSO. SW TOA (albedo) flux variations in the Arctic are noteworthy and are tied to changes in sea ice coverage.”
The planet is warming constantly in order to regain OLR balance.
“While greenhouse gases trap one type of radiation, its the other type visible, shortwave radiation that is really sustaining global warming over the long term, said co-author Kyle Armour, a postdoctoral researcher at MIT who will join the UW faculty this fall with a joint appointment in oceanography and atmospheric sciences.
“The result could help people better conceptualize global warming. It could also help better detect climate change in satellite data, which can measure both shortwave radiation reflected by the Earth and long-wave radiation emitted by the Earth.”
http://www.washington.edu/news/2014/11/10/global-warming-not-just-a-blanket-in-the-long-run-its-more-like-tanning-oil/
The Donohoe 2014 paper concludes any OLR forced imbalance “recovers quickly”:
“..OLR recovers quickly in response to GHG forcing and that global warming is driven by enhanced ASR.”
That is in accord with Loeb 2018 CERES Team observational data in the satellite era since all-sky OLR trend in that period is measured near zero to maybe somewhat positive and all-sky ASR trend is measured consistently higher than 0. However, Donohoe doesn’t discuss natural ENSO variations in the period as does Loeb 2018.
Ball4 and Appell: My BS meter is about pegged with these stories from Donohoe and Kyle Armour.
So if OLR recovers quickly to GHG forcing ( contrary to failed model predictions that show that it doesn’t ) then why are we being told by Kevin Trenberth and many others that the “missing heat” during the temperature stasis is being absorbed into the deep oceans?
If you look at the 700 meter depth ocean heat graphs from NOAA, since 1985, there has been a claimed accumulation of 150 zetta Joules of energy. On average, that is equivalent to a constant radiative forcing on the oceans of about 1.67 Wm-2. If you re-integrated this radiation by limiting its accumulation to just 30 meters of the mixed ocean layer, that absorbed energy equals nearly 3.74 degC of warming temperature, far, far from a short term equilibrium that this radiative “imbalance” would exert on a black body surface at a mean temperature of 288K. That rebalancing would change the temperature by .31 degC, NOT 3.74 degC.
And so for these two to claim that a radiative forcing by GHG’s is re-emitted by the earth in short order is just plain crap, and does not fit any observational data if NOAA is correct about ocean heat. And since the oceans cover 70% of the earth’s surface, these explanations by Donohoe and Armour are proven to be nonsense.
It appears the climate community in support of this CO2 warming nonsense can’t get their facts straight. But cover up ( CYA ) will often lead to unexplainable discrepancies such as this when the claims of the hypothesis begin to fail.
Given the facts, there is only one way for the OLR to go if the surface is being warmed by GHG’s based upon the data, and that is downward. Not up and not sideways.
Chuck 6:09pm, you seem to prefer to debate with the 5 finger salute instead of actual data. Not buying it.
What NOAA’s global satellite observatories actually report for measured global OLR lately is in PI Loeb 2018. The data in the satellite brightness temperature era shows global OLR 12month running mean anomaly trending up, then down and sometimes sideways (Fig. 9c, p. 910) in several oscillations attributed by CERES team mainly to ENSO (statement I clipped for you already).
With overall trend in satellite era at 95% significance flat to slightly up.
That is consistent with Donohoe paper (only skimmed the news report). That “slightly up” might be the signal from added CO2 ppm & might match UAH mean trends with a delay & the oscillation from ENSO. That would be interesting comment & research, G. Callendar showed how to do it in 1938.
If you want to make a believable science argument on CO2 ppm you need to utilize that data say vs. UAH 6.0 to stay at least semi-on-topic around this blog. You also would want to base your arguments on any trend in global TLT humidity observations in the period.
Just commenting on the reading of your personal BS meter ain’t cutting it.
“If you look at the 700 meter depth ocean heat graphs from NOAA..”
I already have & more; here’s what NOAA’s PI Loeb 2018 writes with data and analysis thereof:
“The uptake of heat by Earth for this period (July 2005-June 2015) is estimated from the sum of (i) 0.61 +/- 0.09 W/m^2 from the slope of weighted linear least squares fit to Argo OHCA data to a depth of 1800m analyzed following Lyman and Johnson (2008), (ii) 0.07 +/- 0.04W/m^2 from ocean heat storage at depths below 2000m using data from 1981–2010 (Purkey and Johnson 2010), and (iii) 0.03 +/- 0.01 W/m^2 from ice warming and melt and atmospheric and lithospheric warming for 1971-2010 (Rhein et al. 2013).”
Ball4: Well now my BS meter just broke with your response. Stay on track? You are describing your own response.
I just showed you what the OHC was claimed by NOAA for 700 meters. It was 150 zetta Joules from 1985 until now. I showed you how much heat this was if you re-integrated it to just 30 meters of ocean depth which was 3.74 degC It is far above the BB forcing mean of 1.67 Wm-2, which translates to .31 degC of temperature change to re-radiate the claimed blocked IR mean, which today from RCP8.5 is even greater at 3 Wm-2 at TOA. So the calculated forcing over the oceans by Loeb et. al doesn’t match what even their failed models indicate.
Another way of looking at this is that the delta T for 700 meters of ocean at 150 zetta Joules is .14 degC, half of an expected BB re-radiating temperature to offset the mean forcing,( which is actually at 3Wm-2 from RCP8.5 so by no means is the troposphere at radiative equilibrium according the models and even if you re-radiate .45 degC of SST warming back to TOA, that’s 2.5 Wm-2 and yet the OLR today is static to increasing according to CERES and the OLR should be down anywhere from .5 to 3 Wm-2 just by model comparison alone.
First these guys wanted to tell us that water vapor did all the heavy lifting, and now that OLR doesn’t match their failed modeling, well gee! Its the sun! Do you know how stupid and unrealistic this sounds? It is NOT supported with ice albedo records.
And who are you to tell me what I need to focus on to make a point when you haven’t done so in the least and post with a pseudonym name rather than a real one. Who are you? And what is your area of expertise?
“So the calculated forcing over the oceans by Loeb et. al doesn’t match what even their failed models indicate.”
Loeb et. al. doesn’t report “calculated forcing”, NOAA instruments measured net TOA flux into the earth-atmosphere system which Loeb reports as PI. Loeb 2018 isn’t about climate models. Your calculations fail to compare to CERES actual measurements or show how they do. You provide no source for your data.
“And who are you to tell me what I need to focus on..”
Well, if you comment on climate system OLR, system forcing & failed models, measured data for OLR and net TOA flux into the system of interest ought to be your focus if you want to convince your readers and/or listeners. Without that, no source cites, data without attribution, calculations not shown matching observations, you have no reliable focus. Your comments will not and do not convince the informed, critical reader.
Ball4: “Loeb et. al. doesnt report calculated forcing, NOAA instruments measured net TOA flux into the earth-atmosphere system which Loeb reports as PI. Loeb 2018 isnt about climate models. Your calculations fail to compare to CERES actual measurements or show how they do. You provide no source for your data.”
Me: Do you understand English? I’m not comparing the surface data to the accuracy of CERES. I’m comparing calculated radiative forcing from RCP8.5 (a climate model)
and the NOAA calculated ocean heat at 700 meters (That Trenberth and the rest of the climate cabal claim was “sucked into the deep ocean to attempt to explain the global temperature stasis after 1998).
Assuming Trenberth is correct about that, THIS is the basis for calculating a tropospheric radiative forcing from increased CO2 as an average from 1985 until now. The upper end of this can be taken right off of the calculated RF from RCP8.5 and where it says we are at now.
Comparing this to CERES OLR tells you how accurate the failed models are. And they fail.
Ball4 : ” Well, if you comment on climate system OLR, system forcing & failed models, measured data for OLR and net TOA flux into the system of interest ought to be your focus if you want to convince your readers and/or listeners. Without that, no source cites, data without attribution, calculations not shown matching observations, you have no reliable focus. Your comments will not and do not convince the informed, critical reader.”
Me: Huh? What gibberish! That’s what I just did. What part of my posts do you not understand?
Why won’t you use a real name if you are going to exert any authority as an expert? I asked you to provide this.
Chuck, you are misrepresenting the OLR chart from climatechange4you.
It has no clear upward trend. It wiggles up and down around a horizontal line, and only if you cherry pick 2 points, such as 1979 and 2015 could you get 2 W increase, other years no increase or decrease.
‘Given the facts, there is only one way for the OLR to go if the surface is being warmed by GHGs based upon the data, and that is downward. Not up and not sideways.’
No that’s not correct, Chuck.
If GHG are increasing, and surface temps are increasing than sideways is possible, and likely.
Nate: “Chuck, you are misrepresenting the OLR chart from climatechange4you.
It has no clear upward trend. It wiggles up and down around a horizontal line, and only if you cherry pick 2 points, such as 1979 and 2015 could you get 2 W increase, other years no increase or decrease.”
Me: Nate,No I’m not misrepresenting the OLR. Since the satellite era, the OLR has remained at or above the effective emission of 231 Wm-2. As CO2 increased all through this time, the OLR never dipped below this value. It reached it twice during the Pinnatubo eruption and the super El Ninio of 1998. That’s it.
If you’re going to claim GHE from CO2, you had better be able to show the OLR falling below this value until the surface can re-radiate the RF at a higher temperature or the premise fails. When it operates consistently above the effective temperature, it tells you the surface is getting more energy from the sun. That’s what it has been doing, which implies the warming has been solar driven.
Nate: “Given the facts, there is only one way for the OLR to go if the surface is being warmed by GHGs based upon the data, and that is downward. Not up and not sideways.
No thats not correct, Chuck.
If GHG are increasing, and surface temps are increasing than sideways is possible, and likely.”
Me: Nate, no. You are not correct. If there is GHE from the GHG’s the OLR MUST fall below the effective emission and recover as the temperatures increase. Nowhere has it done this. It runs consistently higher than the effective emission of 231 Wm-2. If you can’t see a clear decline period before recovery, you are not seeing a GHE signature.
The response time for GHE the modelers tell us is at least a decade for the land masses and much longer for the oceans that cover 70% of the globe.
If more solar is causing warming, the response time is immediate at the surface and within a few months for the troposphere to respond as the record shows well with UAH satellite temperatures that track El Ninio warming.
Chuck,
‘Nate, no. You are not correct. If there is GHE from the GHGs the OLR MUST fall below the effective emission and recover as the temperatures increase. Nowhere has it done this. It runs consistently higher than the effective emission of 231 Wm-2. If you cant see a clear decline period before recovery, you are not seeing a GHE signature.’
Argument by assertion. Show me any modeling study requiring OLR must fall.
For the last couple of decades, the NET TOA imbalance has been ~ 0.5-1 W/m^2. That means OLR is being restricted, while T is rising trying to restore OLR balance.
The result is wiggles around a horizontal line, which is indeed what we see in the figure.
“which implies the warming has been solar driven.”
More accurately: implies any warming has been more net solar driven (ASW) in the UAH satellite era temperature series than LW which measures a flat to small increase in OLR per CERES Team 2018 Table 7.
Chuck 9:39 am responds: “I’m not comparing the surface data to the accuracy of CERES.”
Well you are Chuck unless you have another English meaning than what you write: “How can you claim CO2 is causing warming when the OLR record shows it increased 2 Wm-2 since the beginning of the satellite record?”. I am pointing out Chuck has his facts wrong based on actual CERES OLR data from NOAA PI Loeb 2018 team since the beginning of the UAH TLT series.
“Comparing this to CERES OLR tells you how accurate the failed models are.”
I am pointing out you have your CERES OLR facts wrong based on actual CERES OLR data from PI Loeb 2018. Using the correct measured OLR data (flat to slightly up) since the beginning of the UAH satellite record would give some credibility to your comments.
“What part of my posts do you not understand?”
I don’t understand from which source you obtained your inaccurate OLR data & “NOAA calculated ocean heat at 700 meters” as you have not provided a published paper cite. Care to fill us in?
And I am citing the experts in the field, their data doesn’t depend on anyone’s screen name at all. The NOAA PI expert led the work and responsibly expects to be accurately quoted by Chuck.
Nate: “Argument by assertion. Show me any modeling study requiring OLR must fall.”
Me: Here is a detailed description of how climate models treat radiative forcing from a GHE:
https://www.nap.edu/read/11175/chapter/3#22
With respect to climate forcings on the oceans, reference page 22, “A relaxation timescale of 2000-3000 years is determined by the deep ocean mixing timescale. If only the upper ocean is considered, the system can reach equilibrium in about 50 years, which corresponds to an e-folding response time of 2-3 years.”
So with the oceans covering 70% of the earth’s surface, your claim that the Earth responds immediately to GHE in short order is nonsense. This is especially true since downwelling IR cannot warm directly, but only be reducing a surface cooling rate. We have also observed stratospheric cooling and yet the OLR is higher than effective emission in spite of this.
If there is a GHE signature, it must show up in the record as the OLR values falling beneath the effective emission with a slow recovery. The story being revealed in this record is that more insolation from the sun has reached the surface and caused some warming (about .5 degC in the satellite record).
‘So with the oceans covering 70% of the earths surface, your claim that the Earth responds immediately to GHE in short order is nonsense.’
Where did I say that? You’re twisting my words into something I did not say.
I agree with you that a tau of 2-3 y is reasonable for a response time of mixed layer.
That is quite short compared with the decades over which CO2 has risen.
‘If there is a GHE signature, it must show up in the record as the OLR values falling beneath the effective emission with a slow recovery. ‘
What you are describing is the response if CO2 made a sharp step-up in value a couple of decades ago. But that is not at all what the history of CO2 is.
CO2 has risen continuously, therefore the response of the OLR will be continuous, one of both reduction, due to GHG and recovery due to warming. If increase is slow enough (it is), the reduction is not going to be dominant over recovery.
Nate: “For the last couple of decades, the NET TOA imbalance has been ~ 0.5-1 W/m^2. That means OLR is being restricted, while T is rising trying to restore OLR balance.
The result is wiggles around a horizontal line, which is indeed what we see in the figure.”
Then Nate said: “Where did I say that? You’re twisting my words into something I did not say.
I agree with you that a tau of 2-3 y is reasonable for a response time of mixed layer.
That is quite short compared with the decades over which CO2 has risen.”
Me: Nate, like I said, the ENTIRE record of OLR to 2010 shows the values stayed above the effective emission of 231 Wm-2 except twice and we know why that was. It was Pinatubo and El Ninio.
The response time of 2-3 years that is deemed reasonable does not give you any information about the inverse time coefficient that is taken to get one e-fold or a 36% residual of the forcing response. If that is 2.5 years, then you’re saying the oceans are in equilibrium in 10 years at 4 folds, but the paper says it takes 50 years. So the coefficient is likely 12.5 years for one e-fold, meaning at 2.5 years, the response leaves 82% of the forcing imbalance at TOA.
That is not enough time for the OLR effective emission to be restored in the record, so for you to say that the OLR is being held constant as the temperature response tries to re-radiate the imbalance is wrong, especially when the OLR emission is above the effective emission of 231 Wm-2.
There is no GHE signature.
Ball4: ““What part of my posts do you not understand?”
I don’t understand from which source you obtained your inaccurate OLR data & “NOAA calculated ocean heat at 700 meters” as you have not provided a published paper cite. Care to fill us in?”
Me: This is blathering nonsense. I gave you the sources. The OLR graphs at climate4you were prepared by Dr.Ole Humlum, a climate research scientist. The OHC data from NOAA:
https://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/climate-change-ocean-heat-content
Now, of course, we all know that those who protect the AGW climate racket insist that any climate metric data provided by the same reliable sources used by authors who publish in the revered and compromised “climate journals” is not really accurate data unless they say it is and rubber stamp it. So black is not black and blue not blue unless we say it is, even though the data says exactly that.
This is beyond ridiculous and if you just calculated the numbers yourself like I did using this data yourself, you would see it is accurate, coming from reliable sources.
And who is “us”? This is why I asked you to provide me with a real name. You’re exerting an authority that you know better than I and I can’t be correct. Citing your sources and papers does not prove anything I said wrong. I never challenged the CERES data. I just claim it doesn’t disprove my assertions that I made with accurate data.
Chuck claims: “I gave you the sources.”
No but thank you for doing so at last. That dot gov link is the one and only search hit in these comments.
Your source is WG1AR5 Ch3 from 2013 which compares exactly to Loeb 2018 since they cite many of the same published papers (none from Humlum) and draw the same conclusion for ocean energy uptake 1993-2010 p. 265 Box 3.1 “a mean (net energy) flux into the ocean of 0.71 W/m^2 over the global ocean surface area.” Which is same total as I clipped from Loeb 2018 above. This is the GHE signature from your own source FAQ 3.1 p. 266:
“It takes about a decade for near-surface ocean temperatures to adjust in response to climate forcing (Section 12.5), such as changes in greenhouse gas concentrations. Thus, if greenhouse gas concentrations could be held at present levels into the future, increases in the Earth’s surface temperature would begin to slow within about a decade.”
“You’re exerting an authority that you know better than I and I can’t be correct.”
I have no authority beyond published papers cites, a screen name is completely irrelevant, and you are still not correct as I could not find any ref. to OLR in your entire source “when the OLR record shows it increased 2 Wm-2 since the beginning of the satellite record?”. So either you have changed the original terms or you have another source. Or point to published page number confirming your statement.
You are not correct either with “the OHC was claimed by NOAA for 700 meters. It was 150 zetta Joules from 1985 until now.” See fig. 3.2a p. 262: the published estimates range from eyeballometer roughly 80ZJ to 180ZJ with no mean published. So you can cherry pick all you want from-to many dates. “150” is not a hit in the entire document except for a mark on the chart ordinate 3.2a.
“I just claim it doesn’t disprove my assertions that I made with accurate data.”
Your data is not accurate according to your own published sources. Your assertions are therefore unfounded.
Chuck,
‘If that is 2.5 years, then youre saying the oceans are in equilibrium in 10 years at 4 folds, but the paper says it takes 50 years. So the coefficient is likely 12.5 years for one e-fold, meaning at 2.5 years, the response leaves 82% of the forcing imbalance at TOA.’
So if it is 2.5 y, as you originally said, then you seem to agree that the OLR can remain relatively flat. Ok.
Well it is easy to see the relaxation time of CO2 after volcanoes, like Pinatubo, and large El Ninos, is consistent with 2-3 y and not consistent with 12 y.
rather: relaxation time of global temp after volcanoes.
Ball4 said:”Your source is WG1AR5 Ch3 from 2013 This is the GHE signature from your own source FAQ 3.1 p. 266:
It takes about a decade for near-surface ocean temperatures to adjust in response to climate forcing (Section 12.5), such as changes in greenhouse gas concentrations. Thus, if greenhouse gas concentrations could be held at present levels into the future, increases in the Earth’s surface temperature would begin to slow within about a decade.”
Me: No! It is not my source. My source is from the National Academy of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine published in 2005:
https://www.nap.edu/read/11175/chapter/3#22
From page 22:
“With respect to climate forcings on the oceans, reference page 22, “A relaxation timescale of 2000-3000 years is determined by the deep ocean mixing timescale. If only the upper ocean is considered, the system can reach equilibrium in about 50 years, which corresponds to an e-folding response time of 2-3 years.”
And so as I told Nate, if a GHG radiative forcing takes 50 years to become neutralized over the oceans, then at a 2.5 year response time, you still have 82% of the forcing operating on the upper ocean mixed layer, not 36%. You don’t reach one e-fold for 12.5 years. That is certainly more than long enough for the OLR emission to have to drop below the effective value of 231Wm-2 but yet it didn’t.
Ball4: ” I could not find any ref. to OLR in your entire source “when the OLR record shows it increased 2 Wm-2 since the beginning of the satellite record?”.
Me: Its right on the global OLR chart published on climate4you.com.
Ball4: “You are not correct either with “the OHC was claimed by NOAA for 700 meters. It was 150 zetta Joules from 1985 until now.” See fig. 3.2a p. 262: the published estimates range from eyeballometer roughly 80ZJ to 180ZJ with no mean published.”
Me: I have no idea where you’re looking to range 80-180 ZJ, but the mean of that is 20 ZJ lower than 150 ZJ.
Ball4: “Your data is not accurate according to your own published sources. Your assertions are therefore unfounded.”
Me: This exchange is a snapshot of the mess “climate science” is in. Within 8 years, the response feedback from the oceans to neutralize radiative forcing by CO2 on the oceans is determined to have been off by a factor of 5. Instead of 50 years, it now just turns out to be 10.
I challenge you to show me just what was discovered to reveal such an error. I submit nothing. The sorry state things are in defends the indefensible by the same practice of adjusting data with time or length to match whatever the current state of the climate is when it doesn’t match reality. For WG1AR5 to have stuck to a 50 year equilibrium time with an RF from CO2 would have revealed obvious problems with the failed modeling.So the modeling is re-initialized from this to make another run with different parameterizations in hopes of matching a new future prediction and with brand new expectations coming closer to reality near real time.
This isn’t science. It is playing games with statistics to engage in curve fitting exercises.
There is no GHE signature in the OLR record.
Nate: So if it is 2.5 y, as you originally said, then you seem to agree that the OLR can remain relatively flat. Ok.
Me: No, Nate, thats not what I said. If it takes 50 years for the upper ocean to reach equilibrium with an RF from CO2, in 2.5 years, 82% of the RF is still operating at TOA. And at 12.5 years, 36%.
This means it should be below the effective emission of 231 Wm-2 and it is not.
Nate: Well it is easy to see the relaxation time of CO2 after volcanoes, like Pinatubo, and large El Ninos, is consistent with 2-3 y and not consistent with 12 y.
Me: These are totally different, Nate. Volcanoes directly block SW and LW at TOA and the dispersion is much more rapid, just like transient Kelvin waves that cause El Ninios in the tropical Pacific.
Chuck 2:33am: “No! (https://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/climate-change-ocean-heat-content) is not my source.”
First you comment this dot gov site is your source, now this dot gov site is not your source. Your science credibility is about zero once you change your data references to suit your personal views.
“It’s right on the global OLR chart published on climate4you.com.”
OLR is measured by NOAA instruments & published by their PI et. al. on CERES team so go there for accurate OLR charts not any website; you have been misled.
Again, Chuck’s data is not accurate according to his own published sources. Chuck’s assertions are therefore unfounded.
Chuck,
The e-folding time is 2-3 y according to your cite (NAS). That has a specific definition, time to reach 1/e = 1/2.71= 37% of original value. You can’t arbitrarily change it how you like.
Now, the radiative forcing due to GHG has been growing almost linearly since 1980, and has increased by ~ 1 W/m^2 since then.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiative_forcing.
Meanwhile the TOA radiative imbalance has remained relatively constant since then ~ 0.5 W/m^2.
https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/10.1175/JCLI-D-13-00294.1
So with a relatively steady imbalance, the decrease in OLR due to the 1 W/m^2 of forcing MUST have been ~ cancelled by the increase OLR due to temperature rise.
Ball4 : “First you comment this dot gov site is your source, now this dot gov site is not your source. Your science credibility is about zero once you change your data references to suit your personal views.”
Me : Bullskat! The dot gov site deals with NOAA plotted OHC. That IS a source. I did not use WG1AR5 Ch3 for a relaxation time for the upper ocean because that was changed from 50 to 10 years. I asked you to explain this and just like every other climate troll I run across like you, you NEVER answer any of the questions or explain anything.
Your MO in my exchange with you is to claim I quote all the wrong things and from bad sources even though the sources for the processed data I use are the same, with the same raw data CERES uses, except CERES doesn’t talk about absolute OLR, the speak in delta OLR over time. Then you say stupid things like I claim one thing and then another.
This convinces me you are one of today’s “climate scientists”. When you troll on the internet, you hide behind an assumed pseudonym name and then obfuscate and refuse to answer any question asked of you, but you know the material in the IPCC bible all to well and defer to anything in it to defend any question, even though that defense doesn’t answer the question that is asked.
With someone like you, it is pointless to continue a discussion because you’re not being honest.
“I did not use WG1AR5 Ch3 for a relaxation time for the upper ocean”
Of course not since we were discussing your inaccurate OLR and OHC 0-700m data.
“I asked you to explain (relaxation time for the upper ocean because that was changed from 50 to 10 years).”
You did not. You were discussing relaxation time with Nate.
“you NEVER answer any of the questions or explain anything.”
I did. And I referred you to the specialist papers for the detail explanations and question answers.
“except CERES doesn’t talk about absolute OLR”
They do! Along with absolute incoming solar, see Loeb 2018 Table 5.
With someone like Chuck, it is pointless but entertaining to continue a discussion because his commented data is known to differ with actual measurement. But Chuck can make progress by simply spending some time actually reading about and comment using the measured data from published, cited papers for OLR and OHC & not being misled by website editors with their own agendas.
Me: Bullskat! Again! I asked you this in my post above. What is wrong with your comprehension?
“Me: This exchange is a snapshot of the mess climate science is in. Within 8 years, the response feedback from the oceans to neutralize radiative forcing by CO2 on the oceans is determined to have been off by a factor of 5. Instead of 50 years, it now just turns out to be 10.
I challenge you to show me just what was discovered to reveal such an error.”
Ball4 is a climate scientist troll,trying to defend what cannot be defended and deflects to IPCC reports to do this and claims if anything isn’t published there, it isn’t accurate, which is a lame response, just like using a pseudonym for a name is when exerting authority.
Nate, your last post above is completely wrong. I’ll respond this evening when I have more time.
“I asked you this in my post above.”
Chuck, what you clip is a statement not a question. Questions have an “?” after them not a .
“deflects to IPCC reports to do this”
Not moi, Chuck deflected me and other interested readers to IPCC’s WG1AR5 Ch3 from 2013.
I exert no authority Chuck; I’ve been using CERES Team to point out Chuck’s inaccuracies in OLR and OHC. Chuck can make progress by simply spending some time reading about and comment using their measured data.
Chuck will enjoy much more credibility responding to Nate later by commenting with actual CERES Team data.
Ball4: “Chuck, what you clip is a statement not a question. Questions have an “?” after them not a ”
Me: Yes, Ball4, with you there is no common sense. It depends on what the meaning of is,is. People who understand English certainly know that challenging another to explain a discrepancy is asking for a response. Only in the world od a dissembler is it not.
Ball4: “deflects to IPCC reports to do this”
“Not moi, Chuck deflected me and other interested readers to IPCC’s WG1AR5 Ch3 from 2013.”
Me: You silly mook. What do you think me deflecting you to this and declaring anything else is not valid?
Ball4: “I exert no authority Chuck; I’ve been using CERES Team to point out Chuck’s inaccuracies in OLR and OHC. Chuck can make progress by simply spending some time reading about and comment using their measured data.”
Me: Silly response. The problem is you haven’t shown where and why the data I presented you is wrong. But you are exerting authority by claiming the IPCC and CERES data is the only correct data or forms of it. And that is why I keep asking you for a real name.
You should read my forthcoming response to Nick. You might make some progress by digesting it.
“People who understand English certainly know that challenging another to explain a discrepancy is asking for a response.”
You misdirect readers about me not answering your question (which didn’t exist) and then change to misdirect them not answering a challenge on a subject (relaxation) we weren’t even discussing. This is your issue not mine.
“The problem is you haven’t shown where and why the data I presented you is wrong.”
I did. I cited your own source: “See fig. 3.2a p. 262” to which you answered you have “no idea” which is obvious. Your OLR & OHC 0-700m data doesn’t agree with CERES Team ref.s or your own source ref.s.
“You should read my forthcoming response to Nick.”
Think you mean Nate. I will read your response but Nate is handling your inaccuracies just fine on his own.
Nate: The e-folding time is 2-3 y according to your cite (NAS). That has a specific definition, time to reach 1/e = 1/2.71= 37% of original value. You can’t arbitrarily change it how you like.”
Me: This is wrong. 1/e is not a physical equation. The correct form which you already alluded to was e^-tau, where tau must contain the “half life” coefficient that represents one e-fold where the residual RF imbalance is at 36%. Tau = t/te so that if the total time for the oceans to reach radiative equilibrium is 50 years, then one full e- fold is 12.5 years which equals te, NOT 2.5 years. This means exactly what I told you in that at 2.5 years, the RF “imbalance” from CO2 is still at 82% and doesn’t reach 36% until 12.5 years. If te equals 2.5 years, that means the radiative “imbalance” response by the oceans is neutralized in 10 years.
In the NAS report released in 2005 that I reference, everyone agreed the upper oceans need 50 years to neutralize a RF from CO2. Then suddenly in the IPCC report 2013 that Ball4 and apparently you like to tout,WGA1AR5 Ch3,the FAQ reports the oceans need only 10 years to reach equilibrium. I’ve looked everywhere to why this was changed and wondered how in the world could all these scientists be off by a factor of 5 in such a calculation. I can’t find a single reason but in looking at how RF is calculated by CO2 at TOA and the fact that there is no GHE visible in the OLR record, this becomes the excuse as to why you can’t see it. Curve fitting. Not science. Do you or Ball4 care to explain this? I’ve asked this of both of you and never get an answer. Kind of embarrassing for you both I would imagine.
Nate: “Now, the radiative forcing due to GHG has been growing almost linearly since 1980, and has increased by ~ 1 W/m^2 since then.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiative_forcing.
Meanwhile the TOA radiative imbalance has remained relatively constant since then ~ 0.5 W/m^2.
https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/10.1175/JCLI-D-13-00294.1
So with a relatively steady imbalance, the decrease in OLR due to the 1 W/m^2 of forcing MUST have been ~ cancelled by the increase OLR due to temperature rise.”
Me: Except this is nonsense. Right now the integrated OLR is on the wrong side of an RF from CO2, being slightly above the effective emission. Here is a more recent OLR graphing that adds the ERBE record to CERES and was provided by a blogger on Roy’s site here with a different topic that specifically addressed what the satellite records are telling us:
https://okulaer.files.wordpress.com/2016/06/uahv6-tlt-trop-x.png
This is in the tropics but you can clearly see there is no GHE signature in this record and you can see how temperature responds nicely from Pinnatubo and the El Ninios as the OLR drops and then recovers as temperatures rise. This is another reason why I believe the equilibrium response time for ocean warming was shortened to 10 years from 50 because the modelers like Gavin Schmidt, et al can’t explain RF from CO2 without changing the ocean equilibrium time to something much shorter so they could cover up model failure and expectation. But in any event, the OLR is on the wrong side of the effective emission mean ( given by CERES as 239.6 Wm-2) which translates to 231 Wm-2 with the atmospheric window blocked such as at the climate4you.com graphs. Your claim that relaxation times for volcanoes, El Ninio’s and such are short so therefore ocean response is the same or 10 years has no physical basis for the claim. There are completely separate processes
But to take this business about OHC further, the assumption has always been that because of the large lag time in warming from CO2, that the “imbalance” RF it is expected to cause would surely show up in the satellite record to confirm failed modeling. But I also have wondered how these modelers like Schmidt, Trenberth, Hansen and Santer could distinguish OHC from solar shortwave forcing vs. that from CO2.
If you look at CO2 radiation at 15 microns with respect to a plane of water, the ab-sor-ption coefficient is so large (around 1000cm-1) that all the incident radiation is ab-sor-bed in just over 10 microns from the surface. Visible and UV light, however, is much more energetic. The blue spectrum penetrates 100-200 meters and the green, yellows and reds including UV penetrate in the range of 10-70 meters. So how do you know what fraction of solar shortwave is adding to OHC storage vs. a claimed (and unproven in the presence of the hydrological cycle) RF from CO2? Any idea?
I’d say this is physically impossible. Just a dirty little secret that that I thought I would share with you and Ball4.
Roy Spencer talks about many of the other internal and natural forcings in the Earth’s climate system as well in his latest paper on this with Braswell in 2009.The internal mechanisms quite complex. Did you read it?
Concluding, there is NO GHE in the satellite record that is apparent anywhere. The IPCC and modelers have covered this up by changing the CO2 RF relaxation time with upper ocean heat content and without a physical reason to 10 years instead of 50 years agreed upon just 8 years earlier before IPCC 2013 and there is no way to distinguish solar shortwave warming on the oceans from a theoretical forcing by CO2.So any forcing calculation is meaningless, which I showed you by the calculations that don’t match OLR or warming of the oceans from any mean forcing derived comparing how much the upper oceans have warmed to how much heat is being stored at depths to 700 meters or beyond.
The AGW claims from CO2 and other GHG’s are now on life support and will die an agonizing death. Lots of hysteria money to be lost along with some reputations and egos. OUCH!
Chuck,
See new thread at bottom.
“Do you or Ball4 care to explain this?”
Depends on the depth of ocean being discussed Chuck. Pay attention to that bulk. Takes centuries for deep ocean to equilibrate a surface temperature change but the upper near surface levels equilibrate quickly measured in years, the reports you ref. lay it out for you. Read them, report back what you find.
Balll4 said “Depends on the depth of ocean being discussed Chuck. Pay attention to that bulk. Takes centuries for deep ocean to equilibrate a surface temperature change but the upper near surface levels equilibrate quickly measured in years, the reports you ref. lay it out for you. Read them, report back what you find.”
Me: You are completely dishonest and the typical climate dissembler when caught in a corner you can’t escape from. For someone who claims “no authority” as you do to me on this thread, I invite the reader to look at the other threads in this article where you have posted that show how you exactly exert authority as an expert in climate but yet continue to operate in anonymity with this nonsense to me.
It has been made perfectly clear that the entire discussion about OHC in every climate paper I can find deals with defining the “upper ocean heat content” as the OHC between the 0-700 meter layer. Here is just one of them:
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.3878/AOSL20150031
And it makes perfect sense that at those depths, the response time required to neutralize an RF from a GHG like CO2 would take 50 years since that only regulates cooling rates from the surface and does not directly warm as solar energy does the surface.
But somehow, the NAS version in 2005 was switched to 10 years by the IPCC in 2013 an error that is off by a fact or 5 with no justification for the change offered.
You have yet to offer an explanation and I am asking you for one too,just in in case you want to try and say I did not ask for one. You know, that depending on what the meaning of is, is thing used in dissembling.
I would conclude there is not even a way to determine a RF from CO2 because you have no way of separating the theoretical calculation from the reality of observation. The GCM’s can’t model clouds, the hydrological cycle or absolute humidity with any accuracy in special or time coordinates, so looking for a RF from CO2 is like trying to find a needle in a haystack. Just as founding principles suggested that demonstrate empirically that CO2 IR cannot control the earth’s optical depth. Solar insolation along with water vapor, clouds and the hydro cycle do which means CO2 cannot amplify it.
Climate models fail in every aspect of this and the modelers realized what I said is true so they switched the feedback equilibrium time to 10 years from 50 years in the IPCC reports so that the RF signal from CO2 can be claimed to be obscured in the other short term climate noise and from that they will claim it sill exists without a verifiable record to match failed OLR predictions.
Nice way to obscure failed modeling that has wasted BILLIONS in taxpayer money. It is obvious egos, reputations and money are what are now driving this fraudulent dishonesty.
THERE IS NO GHE SIGNATURE IN THE CLIMTE RECORDS.
Chuck writes inaccurately about “entire”: “It has been made perfectly clear that the entire discussion about OHC in every climate paper I can find deals with defining the “upper ocean heat content” as the OHC between the 0-700 meter layer.”
Chuck’s own 5:57pm source ref. that apparently Chuck doesn’t bother to read thoroughly p. 257 1st paragraph: “The strongest warming is found near the sea surface (0.11 [0.09 to 0.13] degree C per decade in the upper 75 m between 1971 and 2010), decreasing to about 0.015 degreeC per decade at 700 m.”
Chuck then claims “the NAS version in 2005 was switched to 10 years by the IPCC in 2013 an error that is off by a fact or 5 with no justification for the change offered.”
Same paragraph: “It is virtually certain that upper ocean (0 to 700 m) heat content increased during the relatively well-sampled 40-year period from 1971 to 2010. Published rates for that time period range from 74 TW to 137 TW.”
Chuck’s same source does offer justification for that assessment which Chuck demonstrates not reading: “Confidence in the assessment for the time period since 1971 is high based on increased data coverage after this date and on a high level of agreement among independent observations of subsurface temperature [3.2], sea surface temperature [2.4.2], and sea level rise, which is known to include a substantial component due to thermal expansion [3.7, Chapter 13].”
Going deeper in the ocean, Chuck is correct about response time: “And it makes perfect sense that at those depths, the response time required to neutralize an RF from a GHG like CO2 would take 50 years” see the 2nd paragraph:
“It is likely that the ocean warmed between 700 and 2000 m from 1957 to 2009, based on 5-year averages.”
“You have yet to offer an explanation and I am asking you for one too”
I just clipped the specialist explanation for Chuck and others since he was too busy to read it and would call any explanation written by me “dishonest” anyway since: “You are completely dishonest”
“The GCM’s can’t model..”
I pointed out to you and David where the actual OLR and OHC measured data can be obtained (Loeb 2018); you keep drifting to complain about GCMs which are not data, they are models as that is what the M stands for – just look at actual measured OLR and OHC data if you want to understand how the climate system works. But you seem more interested in calling commenters “dishonest” than discussing this stuff and spending time doing the actual reading & understanding the research data.
Ball4: Your obfuscation continues. It doesn’t matter whether the NAS paper talks about OHC at various levels. The point is, upper OHC content is the sum of heat energy computed within the 0-700 meter depth.
NAS had the response time relaxation at 50 years from a CO2 RF at TOA. In IPCC 2013, they say 10 years based upon the FAQ box in chapter 3 you referenced.
Explain why.
Already explained, increased oean temperature data coverage, especially the added Argo fleet after your 2005 date: “Confidence in the assessment for the time period since 1971 is high based on increased data coverage after this date and on a high level of agreement among independent observations of subsurface temperature [3.2], sea surface temperature [2.4.2], and sea level rise, which is known to include a substantial component due to thermal expansion [3.7, Chapter 13].”
Loeb 2018 also already explained OHC warming p. 904 3) para. 1 I clipped for Chuck who simply circles back – reading and making progress understanding would be a better use of limited time.
Source for 2 W/m2 number?
DA…”the LIA wasnt global….”
So it was 1C to 2C cooler in Europe but not in the rest of the world. Neat trick.
What data are you looking at for European LIA temperatures?
For European temperature reconstructions for the last 2000 years, see PAGES 2k Supplementary Material, Nature 2003.
https://www.nature.com/articles/ngeo1797
See Fig S2.
Ball4: The OLR I reference excludes the atmospheric window and only references opaque wavelengths that absorb and emit IR radiation in the earth’s atmosphere. Not sure what “all sky means” but it probably includes the 10 micron window. That would change the numbers and possibly obscure the trend that emerges without the window. You can see the charts at climate4you.com. Click on “big picture” and scroll down to the OLR radiation charts.
With respect to CERES data on albedo, the point I make is that the snow and ice albedo is static. Earlier in the record of research, it was shown that the cloud albedo declined .6% from 1984-1997 and Legates’s research showed in had no trend from 2000 onward. That is about 2.3 Wm-2 of additional energy reaching the surface for that time frame. The CERES data does not obviously cover this.
All-sky includes clear sky plus cloudy sky to the limits of what satellites can detect as a difference in the two scenes.
“The OLR I reference excludes the atmospheric window..the snow and ice albedo is static.”
Any important variation in “atmosphere window” in the satellite period then is excluded as well as any important variation in total albedo components other than snow and ice which means the data you ref. is less complete, less meaningful than CERES reports which include those variations in the period.
“scroll down to the OLR radiation charts.”
What is the source of the OLR data in the charts?
“Any important variation in atmosphere window in the satellite period then is excluded as well as any important variation in total albedo components other than snow and ice which means the data you ref. is less complete, less meaningful than CERES reports which include those variations in the period.”
Not entirely correct. Any cloud will radiate at an opaque wavelength, including the atmospheric window. That is BB radiation. There is no differentiation there. What we are trying to surmise is whether the OLR in the GHG wavelengths is declining as predicted by failed climate models. If the temperature increased by 1 degC from the global mean, the 9-11 micron window difference is only .2Wm-2. How is this meaningful to the rest of the BB spectrum? You could correct for it with less noise than getting the signal you would get ranging anywhere from a warm surface to a cold cloud 6 Km high.
“What we are trying to surmise is whether the OLR in the GHG wavelengths is declining as predicted by failed climate models.”
That would be in an effort to trouble shoot the climate models and debate their performance. To properly debate explanations for system global surface temperature trends in the satellite era based on measured TOA input & output data though, use CERES Team publications.
Chuck says:
With respect to CERES data on albedo, the point I make is that the snow and ice albedo is static.
Where is this data?
You’re not very investigative, Appell. But that is not surprising:
http://www.climate4you.com/SnowCover.htm#Recent northern hemisphere snow cover
If we are only 0.6 C from the Little Ice Age, Id say that we need a bigger safety buffer between now and famine.
Vieras,
0.6 C, where from?
Not the very misleading Fig 6 above, which shows almost no modern warming?
Here is what the record actually shows.
https://tinyurl.com/yc4e659y
David Apell claimed that (1) the LIA wasnt global, and (2) the temperature was only about 0.6 C cooler at most.
Its just an example of have the cake and eat it. You cant worry about the world being too hot if you claim that wed be that close to LIA. If what he claims is true, wed better have a warmer world just to be safe. And if the LIA was a lot colder, natural warming plays a bigger role.
He meant .6 below average of preceding periods, not 0.6 below today.
https://www.historicalclimatology.com/blog/did-the-little-ice-age-really-exist-november-24-2013
and ….
https://www.swsc-journal.org/articles/swsc/abs/2017/01/swsc170014/swsc170014.html
… both seem to indicate that the LIA was global. DA, you cannot claim emphatically that the LIA wasn’t global. Speaking in absolutes isn’t what scientists do when dealing with information that isn’t LAW. You can”t claim that AGW is LAW when there is ongoing research. Treat the subject as such.
Nate: “So if it is 2.5 y, as you originally said, then you seem to agree that the OLR can remain relatively flat. Ok.”
Me: No, Nate, that’s not what I said. If it takes 50 years for the upper ocean to reach equilibrium with an RF from CO2, in 2.5 years, 82% of the RF is still operating at TOA. And at 12.5 years, 36%.
This means it should be below the effective emission of 231 Wm-2 and it is not.
Nate: “Well it is easy to see the relaxation time of CO2 after volcanoes, like Pinatubo, and large El Ninos, is consistent with 2-3 y and not consistent with 12 y.”
Me: These are totally different, Nate. Volcanoes directly block SW and LW at TOA and the dispersion is much more rapid, just like transient Kelvin waves that cause El Ninios in the tropical Pacific.
myki…”You are implying the absence of cause and effect.
Maybe god did it?”
It was geophysicist Syun Akasofu who formulated the theory. He was a pioneer in the study of the solar wind, you’d think he’d be up on cause and effect.
Akasofu put numbers to it. The Little Ice Age ended circa 1850 and he hypothesized 0.5C re-warming per century. He claims the IPCC erred by not allowing for that natural re-warming.
Gordon, you said Michael Mann should be dismissed because he got his degree in geophysics, not climate science.
Now you are quoting a geophysicist.
Can you explain your apparent hypocrisy?
Gordon always avoids hard questions like this. He thinks no one notices.
Myki is one of those extremist when it comes to the false AGW theory, which I suspect will be proven wrong before 2020, as the climate cools. I should say continues to cool because thus far 2018 is cooler then 2017.
An “extremist” ?
That is a bit harsh.
How about I call you an extreme “goal-post mover”
Didn’t you sat that you will be proven right/wrong by the end of this year (and not 2020)?
bilybob says:
July 3, 2018 at 2:32 PM
I have been sampling these new records and finding most do not have temperature data going back before the 1970s
*
bilybob, it is not the first time you tell us that.
4GP.ME/bbtc/1530700261210.jpg
What now concerns a worldwide version of Mr Spencer’s Fig. 5, my life companion J.-P. alias Bindidon will manage to produce it out of the GHCN V4 daily record, encompassing in the sum since 1880 over 35,000 stations all over the world.
Rose J.
The link above is not directly clickable.
http://4gp.me/bbtc/1530700261210.jpg
Thanks La Pangolina,
If Bindidon can do it, I think it will be an eye opener. I do not have access to a complete data set of temperature extremes. It is a slow process to look up individual areas.
Your graph of sites shows where the problem lies. There are only 1000 global sites in 1900 and 2700 sites now. When looking at new high temperature records it should be no surprise that these 1700 extra sites (an I am giving the benefit of the doubt here because some of the original 1000 have closed so the number is probably higher) which give a potential of 1700*365=620,500 daily temperature data points versus the 365,000 daily temperature data points for the 1000 sites that go back to 1900 would likely produce a new temperature high given there limited history.
So if your friend is capable and interested, or if you could link me to the data, I would be interested in
A) what percent of the original 1000 sites are still active today?
B) what percent of these have max temp record prior to 1960?
C) what percent of the new max temp records come from the 1700 new sites?
My guess is all three answers will be above 90%. But again, I have only sampled about 150 sites over the past several months.
To (A) I think in 2017 I registered about 300 stations with activity range 1880-2017.
The evaluation will of course be based on percentiles: you see the Globe’s station number bump within 1950-1990. Ignoring it would produce nonsense.
Thanks Bindidon,
The 300 would be about 80% of the original for 1880 if I am looking at this correctly. In 1890 there was a jump to 1000 sites. The bump in 1950 – 1990 I viewed as sites that were added then removed due to budget reasons. There data would be limited to determine if extreme heat was significantly different prior to 1960 compared to now.
There were not only budget reasons for removing lots of stations.
A very important aspect if not the primary one has been that a huge amount of stations still are alive but were dropped off the record because they are not remotely accessible and their data transmission therefore is bound to the responsible persons’ goodwill.
That is a point you cannot live with anymore today.
Please apologise for my english mostly originating from
https://translate.google.de/?hl=fr&tab=wT#fr/en/
I’ve heard it said, by a scientist on Twitter who was at a conference listening to a talk, that the speaker said 100-150 temperature stations around the world would suffice to get a “good enough” measure of the average global surface temperature.
DA…Ive heard it said, by a scientist on Twitter who was at a conference listening to a talk, that the speaker said 100-150 temperature stations around the world would suffice to get a good enough measure of the average global surface temperature”.
Then he wasn’t a scientist. NOAA can’t even give an accurate global average using 1500 stations, which they have slashed from 6000 stations.
Yes, he was a scientist. Andrew Dessler quoted him. It costs money to maintain stations, and international cooperation, and there’s no need to have so many stations when that many aren’t needed.
bilybob…”If Bindidon can do it, I think it will be an eye opener”.
Binny is a rank amateur and an uber-climate alarmist. What do you think the chances are that you’ll get an objective assessment?
Binny has already produced favourable comparisons between UAH data, with a 1980 – 2010 baseline, with fudged Had-crut data with a 1950 – 1990 baseline. Only a serious alarmist could offer such garbage.
Binny does not understand that number crunching is fraught with error if you don’t specify the context from which the data is derived. A serious alarmist has no problem aligning trends from different baselines to show an agreement even though the data shows entirely different contexts.
For example, using their baseline, Had-crut shows a steep positive trend from 1980 onward. UAH does not over their baseline beginning in 1980. UAH shows a recovery from cooling from 1979 – 1997 followed by a flat trend for 15 years. Had-crut and NOAA show no such flat trend.
NOAA used to show a flat trend from 1998 – 2012 but they have re-written the record to eliminate it. Binny does not care about such scientific misconduct.
Gordon Says “Binny is a rank amateur and an uber-climate alarmist. What do you think the chances are that you’ll get an objective assessment?”
“There is a Vulcan saying. Only Nixon can go to China.” Spock
It will have more meaning to me to get Bindidon’s opinion. It would be difficult to distort this information anyway. I have had a relatively positive experience with discussion with Bindidon in the past. I started this blog about a year and half ago. You may have had a longer history though.
One other quick observation,
While looking individual sites I came across in Alice Springs where they moved the site from the Post Office to the Airport.
The extreme heat record is now based on the Airport even though the Post Office recorded a higher temperature pre 1960. There was a 15 year overlap of the two sites showing comparable temperatures, and yet the higher temperature from the past was removed.
Also, GISS somehow has reduced the average temperature by 2C starting in 1880 and reducing the correction over time. Not sure why. I went to BOM and the data did not have issues. When taken together the two sites (post office/airport) show no significant warming for Alice Springs but GISS will have you believe it has warmed 2C. I believe you mention to me to look at the data issues at BOM, but I could not find any for Alice Springs. Your thoughts?
bilybob, when there is time enough to do, I will manage to look at your Alice corner.
I will ll create for both GHCN daily stations:
ASN00015540 -23.7100 133.8683 580.0 ALICE SPRINGS POST OFFICE (1878-1953)
ASN00015590 -23.7951 133.8890 546.0 ALICE SPRINGS AIRPORT (1941-2017)
a separate time series, so we can compare them more accurately during their common period (1941-1953).
On thing is clear right now: the difference in elevation (24 m) cannot be the problem if there is any.
binny…”my life companion J.-P. alias Bindidon will manage to produce it out of the GHCN V4 daily record,”
That gives me great confidence. An armchair climate enthusiast is over-turning the work of professionals in the field like Roy Spencer and John Christy of UAH.
I have already revealed how Binny’s amateur comparison’s between fudged NOAA/Had-crut data and UAH data does not agree with either source.
Binny is interpolating data from different baselines and getting it completely wrong.
“I have already revealed how Binny’s amateur comparison’s between fudged NOAA/Had-crut data and UAH data does not agree with either source.
Binny is interpolating data from different baselines and getting it completely wrong.”
*
Why are you lying all the time, Robertson?
This comment is particularly disgusting, as you never have been able to show anything wrong.
But though you have here lots of followers willingly absorbing all your ignorant and denigrating nonsense, there will be more and more who don’t and will rather believe me.
You forgot to tag this article with “cherry pick”.
There are heavy thunderstorms over the Great Lakes in the forecasts for the US.
https://earth.nullschool.net/#2018/07/05/0000Z/wind/isobaric/250hPa/overlay=cape/equirectangular=-100.08,38.93,1323/loc=-94.084,43.086
The key metric for now is overall oceanic sea surface temperatures in particular the N. Atlantic but really the whole aggregate of sea surface temperatures and where they go the climate will follow.
Right now oceanic sea surface temperatures are around +.22c from 1981-2010 deviation meaning if they even stay at these levels no more additional global warming is going to take place.
My thought is overall sea surface temperatures are going to have to fall more in response to very low prolonged minimum solar activity.
This is why I say the climate is at a crossroads now.
I regularly notice that all participants not interested in good science project isolated weather events as proof of their global climate views, and it only weakens their side. Be happy all we have places to speak our minds, and other views can be spoken also. Cherish that, respect that, teach that.
Roy, you need to be careful interpreting that chart of average maximum temperatures. Much of New York state is very rural, and the Adirondacks have 46 mountains higher than 4000 ft. Upstate it’s more like New England than downstate NY.
For example, right now, July 4th, 2:10 pm EDT, Albany is at 95 F. Rochester NY is at 93 F.
Perhaps Public Citizen is wrong. But the USA48 is definitely getting warmer, and fast.
Since 1895 the total warming is 1.0 C.
But in the last 30 years, the trend is +0.27 C/decade. In fact, this has been the trend, +/- a few hundreths, since the early ’60s.
That’s +0.49 F/decade !
The five warmest CONUS years in the record are 2012, 2016, 2017, 2015, 2006.
Sure, it’s easy to find fault somewhere. But the Continental US is warming at a rapid rate, and you can’t dismiss by highlighting one apparent error.
This is a lie, Appell. I told you last week when I debated you that official weather stations of NOAA in Oregon and Washington away from urban heat island effects are showing either long term cooling or a static record. Those include Salem, Eugene, Astoria and Tatoosh Island in Washington State. Atmospheric CO2 is the same there as it is everywhere else, but there has been no warming. How do you explain that, Appell, especially since you claimed in my debate with you that the oceans are warming at the same rate as the continents?
You never answer legitimate questions.
Chuck never presents any data, he just waves his hands and, presto, out comes a pronouncements.
Oregon’s average temperature has increased by 1.5 C since 1895. Data from the usual NO.AA site, which must not be linked to.
Chuck…”official weather stations of NOAA in Oregon and Washington away from urban heat island effects are showing either long term cooling or a static record”.
NOAA has eliminated stations showing cooling from their database. They admitted on their site to slashing reporting stations from 6000 globally to less than 1500, then using the 1500 in a climate model to SYNTHESIZE the slashed stations.
It’s called interpolation and homogenization. If a cooler station appears they eliminate it and interpolate between hotter stations to raise the average.
Hello Gordon: You are correct. I have been following the station drop outs and deliberate backfilling of rural sites being used to distort the climate record with.
This practice is shameful and fraudulent.
Chuck, Gordon:
Which specific stations have been eliminated?
When?
Show the data and evidence to support your claim.
Which specific stations have been “backfilled?”
When? In what way?
Show the data and evidence to support your claim.
DA…”Show the data and evidence to support your claim.”
You have been shown several times and you just come back with the same dumb questions.
What about showing us these stations, Chuck Wiese?
Because when you write about GHCN V3 Oregon stations like
42572694000 44.9200 -123.0000 61.0 SALEM/MCNARY 93U 108FLxxno-9A 1COOL CROPS C
Salem’s population: about 150.000 people
or
42572693000 44.1200 -123.2200 114.0 EUGENE/MAHLON 117U 113HIxxno-9A 4COOL CROPS C
Eugene’s population: about 160.000 people
and describe them as being ‘away from urban heat island effects’, you show nothing else than absolute ignorance; both have station type ‘U’ (urban) and highest nightlight level ‘C’. No wonder when considering their population!
*
It seems to me that like Robertson, you pretend much more than you know.
And while naming Appell a liar, you yourself do not seem to be averse to writing lies.
Blindidon: Eugene’s weather station is on the far north end of the metro. I have no idea why it is designated as urban.
But Climatologist Mark Albright uses this station as a reference to urban networks, and tells us it is far enough away from the urban part of Eugene to where it does not have the UHI effect that many other metropolitan stations have.
But he nor I are in charge of NOAA designation, so I don’t know what point you are trying to make.
Eugene shows warming:
https://tinyurl.com/ycr5sco7
Chuck, Gordon:
Which specific stations have been eliminated?
When?
Show the data and evidence to support your claim.
Which specific stations have been backfilled?
When? In what way?
Show the data and evidence to support your claim.
Chuck Wiese says:
But Climatologist Mark Albright uses this station as a reference to urban networks
Notice that the data only go to 2013.
Why is that, when it’s now 2018?
Some data for Chuck:
https://davidappell.blogspot.com/2018/07/oregons-rural-warming.html
What is the source of the data you are using here, Appell, and who plotted it?
The records are incomplete.
You can ask over on my blog.
Why should I have to ask you for this on your blog? The readers here are the ones participating in the discussion. Just tell us, Appell.
If you desire a reply, you can ask at my blog.
“Since 1895 the total warming is 1.0 C.”
That’s about the same as the rest of the world. So the US warming fast is basically a hand-waving pronouncement. Without sufficient evidence that increasing CO2 causes the warming and that humans produce the majority of the CO2 increase, you are pissing into the wind.
The 30-yr trend for CONUS is 0.27 C/decade, which is indeed fast.
Everyone knows that CO2 causes warming. You can go learn, or pretend you know more than every scientist on the planet. Your choice.
It’s fast if you distort and change a record by throwing out rural stations and backfilling with urban ones and then expand this record into rural locations where there are no records or deliberately delete the ones that don’t give the trend you want. This is called fraud.
You always have some excuse, don’t you Chuck? Always some nefarious reason why things aren’t going your way. Meanwhile, you have no proof or evidence of anything such as that — it’s just an convenient excuse for you. You can’t disprove the science, so you try to claim it’s all a conspiracy, the lazy man’s approach to everything he can’t disprove.
Where is your evidence or “throwing out” rural stations?
Of “backfilling” with urban stations?
Of deliberately deleting stations?
Put up or shut up.
DA…”You always have some excuse, dont you Chuck?”
Chuck’s claims and mine have been intricately logged at chiefio’s site.
https://chiefio.wordpress.com/gistemp/
Gordon, to be frank, no one cares in the least about your claims. You’ve shown repeatedly that you understanding of science is very poor.
“Everyone knows that CO2 causes warming.”
Many assume CO2 causes warming. No one has any unconfounded temperature measurements caused by increased CO2 and those who claim CO2 warms don’t agree on how much warming.
CO2 could cause warming if you eliminated all the water on this planet, Appell. But then, without water, you would be starting at a temperature 28 degC colder than now. The earth would be a giant piece of frozen tundra.
CO2 does not cause warming once you add the water and its hydrological cycle back in. That is what controls the optical depth of this planet, Appell and you cannot change this from any human influence. You are woefully ignorant in atmospheric science.
Where is the data and evidence proving what you claim?
It’s in all the dynamic meteorology texts I have on atmospheric radiation, Appell. We have been through this. I cited the references and pages for you and you just ignore what I give you.
This work in atmospheric radiation was done post Einstein which superseded and disproved Arrhenius’s claims about CO2.
Does Walter Elsasser from Harvard ring a bell?
I’m not going to repeat answering your requests for “data and evidence”. You ignore anything that contradicts your narrative.
How ancient are these texts, Chuck?
How come you never name them or link to them?
How come you think climate hasn’t progressed in the century and a half since you were a wee lad?
Chuck says:
CO2 does not cause warming once you add the water and its hydrological cycle back in.
Prove it.
Let’s see your data and evidence.
Let’s see your equations and analysis.
Chuck says:
CO2 does not cause warming once you add the water and its hydrological cycle back in.
Add water? How?
Let’s see your equations and data.
Hydrological cycle.
Means what?
Let’s see your equations and data.
You know there’s very little water vapor in the atmosphere in the polar regions, right?
That Antarctica has some of the driest deserts in the world?
That the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere can’t increase until the temperature first increases (such as from CO2, etc.) Clausius-Claperyon equation.
That the cloud feedback is very probably positive, according to science?
Let’s see your equations, definitions, data and evidence.
No equations, Chuck?
How come?
Chuck thinks Elsasser’s work was the end of climate science.
He doesn’t analyze or understand Elsasser’s approximations that were needed for him to solve the equations without a computer.
Chuck thinks climate science stopped in 1942.
Because, I think, he read something of Elsasser’s when he was trying to get a Bachelor’s degree, but never read anything further.
Chuck B.S. thinks scientists didn’t know about Elsasser’s paper and, what, intentionally ignore it?
Or did they improve on his analysis with better handling of radiative transfer with radiation code models?
Chuck thinks that science stopped when he stopped learning about it.
DA…”the USA48 is definitely getting warmer, and fast.”
Amusing. There was no warming trend from 1998 – 2015 then the 2016 EN raised global temps temporarily. After two years of a gradual negative trend we are back at the flat trend mark.
Ergo, no warming whatsoever for more than 18 years that can be related to CO2.
Gordon Robertson says:
DAthe USA48 is definitely getting warmer, and fast.
Amusing. There was no warming trend from 1998 2015 then the 2016 EN raised global temps temporarily
Gordon lies again. In fact, the warming trend for USA48 from Jan1998 to Dec2015 is +0.21 C/decade.
data from NO.AA
Trends of Tmax for New York, by month:
Jan 0.09 F/dec
Feb 0.39
Mar 0.24
Apr 0.24
May 0.11
Jun 0.05
Jul 0.00
Aug 0.11
Sep 0.05
Oct 0.04
Nov 0.32
Dec 0.32
Nate,
The issue is cost. If it costs more to install wind generators than something else consumers and businesses will pay more for electricity. If a state is doing it, a business could move to a state with lower electricity costs. But some states have a very good wind resource and may have a need for a bit more electricity because of growth. This reasoning doesn’t apply to the USA going from 6% to 50% over ‘a few decades’. Costs would skyrocket, partly because much of that 44% replaced is a paid for resource not in need of replacement. You’re talking something like 100x the number of turbines in Denmark and massive new transmission lines resources plus the need for some backup generators.
In places wind power is at parity with FF sources, and cheaper if you take into account the damage done by fossil fuel pollution to human health and the environment.
“Xcel Energy receives shockingly low bids for Colorado electricity from renewable sources: Solar and wind generation with storage now competitive with coal power,” Denver Post 1/16/18
https://www.denverpost.com/2018/01/16/xcel-energy-low-bids-for-colorado-electricity/
David,
‘take into account the damage done by fossil fuel pollution to…’
Ah, so you get to add in a made-up number to make it look cheaper. If it is ‘cheaper’, then it is ‘cheaper’. There is also a ‘cost’ to humanity for more expensive energy… i.e. more poverty. I am sure there are cases where wind power is at parity… for example, if there is a plentiful wind resource and there is actually a need for more power in that spot. However, trying to say the USA should go from 6% of it’s electricity from wind to 50% within decades is way outside that realm of reasoning. You would need ~100x the global supply of wind turbines, massive new transmission line resources, and no doubt much of it would go in places with lower wind resource.
I can only assume if you consider CO2 ‘pollution’ that you have cut your own carbon footprint to ‘zero’?
Cheers,
Barry
I meant 10x, not 100x, but even that is off….
To go from 6% to 50%, the USA would need an additional 600GW installed wind capacity. Last year (per Wikipedia page titles “Wind power by country”) there was approximately 51GW installed worldwide (about 14GW in USA). So, at our current rate of installation, we would add 600GW in 43yrs. To get there in 20yrs would require the average supply of wind turbines (globally) to increase by 16GW or 30%. The bigger issue is this 600GW installed in the appropriate places (USA plains or off the coasts) would require massive amounts of new transmission lines and the permitting for those alone would take decades…
Barry
‘However, trying to say the USA should go from 6% of it’s electricity from wind to 50% within decades is way outside that realm of reasoning.’
Wind and solar both are growing rapidly, like it or not.
A ramp-up of a new infrastructure over two or three decades is a recurring theme in our history.
Think of railroads, telegraph network, electric grid, telephone network, hi-way system, cable TV, internet, fiber optic networks, cell phone networks, gas pipeline network.
BTW, each of these has had an economic benefit.
Wind and solar are growing rapidly…
So far, they are a relatively minor component of the grid power, so their intermittent nature is more easily dealt with. At 50%, that would not be the case… Getting there is much more difficult than you apparently realize. As I’ve said, just getting the permits through for the necessary transmission lines will take that long. Look, I’m sure that at some point in our future we will get more than 50% of our electricity from green sources… it will just be much longer than 20yrs from now…
Cheers!
Barry
Barry: Generating electrical power with coal and oil creates more damage than value-added, according to a 2011 study that included noted Yale economist William Nordhaus:
“Environmental Accounting for Pollution in the United States Economy,” Nicholas Z. Muller, Robert Mendelsohn, and William Nordhaus, American Economic Review, 101(5): 164975 (2011).
http://www.aeaweb.org/articles.php?doi=10.1257/aer.101.5.1649
Summarizing that paper’s findings: for every $1 in value that comes from coal-generated electricity, it creates $2.20 in damages.
Total damages: $70 billion per year (in 2012 dollars).
Petroleum-generated electricity is even worse: $5.13 in damages for $1 in value.
The National Academy of Sciences estimated that fossil fuel for more than just electricity use causes damages of at least $120 B/yr to health and the environment:
Hidden Costs of Energy: Unpriced Consequences of Energy Production and Use
National Research Council, 2010
http://books.nap.edu/catalog/12794.html
(Dollar figure for 2005, in 2007 dollars.)
blah, blah, blah…
So, I guess if $1 of value from CO2 based coal-energy results in $2.20 in damages that means you have already successfully reduced your carbon footprint to ‘zero’ so you are not part of the problem?
Barry
The AGW scientist zealots are pawns being used by the advocates of the Global State (GSA). The IPCC is an adjunct to the GSA. Europe is leading the way. Most climate scientists are oblivious to their designs to form a single global government. The GSA takes a “long run” approach to their activities. The Global State crowd is currently focusing on two prongs to achieve its goals. The first prong is open borders.
Open borders is the key to making a world wide government happen. Once most first world industrialized nations have open borders then they can force it upon the rest of the world. The concept is that if there is one global country,then world wars will cease to exist and humans can direct resources away from defense and have a thousand years of peace.
The second prong is global warming. No rational person believes that economical CO2 reduction can occur. The only way to maintain the current standard of living in the first world nations is to limit population. The Global State does not believe the level of resource use in first world countries can continue for one or two thousand years into the future. We must begin limiting resource use in the near term, not because it is truly believed we will over cook the planet, but because we must ration resources now to protect human life a thousand years from now and longer. Therefore population control is a necessity.
This is not to say AGW scientist zealots are trying to fake us all out and have bought into lying to us to help their political buddies achieve their goals. Having AGW win the day is one step out of many in the right direction for the GSA. However, should actual results eventually prove AGW to be just a little noise in a global climate system dominated by a stochastic combination of natural forces including PDO, AMO, solar wind, eccentricity, cloud cover and dozens of other natural systems affecting climate at the margins, you will not see a reduction in attacks on the use of fossil fuels.
Joseph Dickinson says:
No rational person believes that economical CO2 reduction can occur.
“Fixing Climate Change May Add No Costs, Report Says,”
Justin Gillis, New York Times, Sept 16 2014.
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/16/science/earth/fixing-climate-change-may-add-no-costs-report-says.html
PS: What is the cost of *not* addressing climate change?
“What is the cost of *not* addressing climate change?”
It is nothing, Appell, considering the GHG radiation and temperature fingerprint is missing from the climatological record that validates the failed hypothesis and claims, and that contradicted founding principles in atmospheric science developed years ago with accurate radiation physics.
Nothing? Let’s see your calculations.
The gotcha troll strikes again!
Let’s see yours first!
Cheers.
Barry,
There is also a ‘cost’ to addressing climate change via higher energy prices. The cost of higher energy prices is experienced immediately. Any ‘cost’ of not addressing climate change (forget about the fact someone would have to pull the number out of a hat…) would be experienced what decades out… 50yrs… 100yrs from now? Look no further than the debate over the Social Security Trust Fund, etc to see how that would go even if you could convince people of the validity of your numbers…
Barry
Changing how get we our energy, has not in the past caused poverty. The opposite in fact.
The history of energy markets is one of constant change. Hydro, Nuclear (both supported by govt), Natural Gas, Petroleum, all had periods of rapid growth in market share over 2 or 3 decades.
Yes. In fact, US per capita CO2 emissions since 1973 have decreased by 1973, while real GDP per capita has increased by 107%.
Data from EIA.
Sigh…
Poor examples by comparison.
All of those sources you can plunk down anywhere and they provide a constant output. Calculating the ‘cost’ of wind/solar is much more complicated because it depends on where you put it (solar/wind resource varies drastically geographically) and the amount you need. Adding a little bit here/there is no big deal, but getting a lot of wind/solar energy onto the grid would be a nightmare due to the intermittent nature of it.
Bottom line… I am all for green energy sources… as long as they are only subsidized the same as any other energy source. But, something like carbon cap-and-trade or the other schemes I’ve heard of to ‘penalize’ carbon-based energy due to potential damages down the road would in-fact (whether you want to admit it or not…) make energy prices go up (in fact, they do so on purpose to try to make green sources more competitive) and cause poverty to increase…
Barry
‘make energy prices go up (in fact, they do so on purpose to try to make green sources more competitive) and cause poverty to increase…’
How much of someone’s budget goes to an electric bill?
http://eyeonhousing.org/2015/03/average-monthly-electrical-bill-by-state-2013/
If a family electric bill went up even 10%, due to Green energy regs, that amounts to $12/mo.
There are many things that contribute to being in poverty-cost of public transport, health care, college, etc.
To single out the elctric bill, which is typically a tiny percentage, as CAUSING poverty, is hyperbolic.
Nate,
Replying here to your July 13 6:47a.m. post below because no Reply button there…
I did not say higher energy prices ‘CAUSE’ poverty. I said ’cause poverty to increase’.
Apparently, you make plenty of money… to someone near the poverty line, $12/mo is a big deal.
Furthermore, energy prices don’t just affect people’s pocketbooks via utility bills… the cost of everything would go up.
Furthermore, your comment about 10% increase leads me to believe you are one of these folks that actually believe a reasonable effort by a reasonable amount of people for a reasonable amount of time can solve climate change…
$12/mo per household in the US amounts to about $22 billion per year. You think that’s going to make a dent in anything? Besides the fact that carbon-cap-and-trade would be just a tax and the revenue would get spent elsewhere…
Barry
Barry K,
OK, point taken. Energy costs add to everything.
Carbon tax. We already tax gasoline. We already have a sales tax. We already have a payroll tax. If we want to really help poor people, maybe we shouldn’t have those. But we do have them. We need the revenue.
Probably need a higher gas tax to maintain crumbling hiways. But nobody likes taxes.
But we TRY to make the tax structure help poor people, Im sure it can be improved. Same would be desirable for a carbon tax.
Nate,
Carbon tax would for sure be another regressive tax as it would affect poor disproportionately. My guess is it would have to be instituted along with another credit to the poor somewhere else. But in my opinion it’s also bad because it would put pressure on manufacturing because it would be even more attractive to manufacture somewhere else.
Also, in my opinion all entitlement based taxes (i.e. helping the poor) should be done at the state and local level anyway because this would allow for more accountability and we could have 50 examples of how to do things and the better ideas could boil to the top. What we really need when it comes to taxes is less tax systems and much less complexity (assuming revenue neutral for a start…). It is a crying shame that someone needs to go to school for multiple years to understand the federal system… it’s too complex by orders of magnitude.
Barry
“Fixing Climate Change May Add No Costs, Report Says,”
Justin Gillis, New York Times, Sept 16 2014.
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/16/science/earth/fixing-climate-change-may-add-no-costs-report-says.html
Joseph…”The AGW scientist zealots are pawns being used by the advocates of the Global State (GSA)”.
Google ‘Club of Rome’.
What about them? They have planetary dominion?
DA,
Do they really? How do you know?
Show us your peer reviewed prestigiously published irrefutable evidence. If you can’t, just make something up – as usual.
Cheers.
GSA is either Gerontological society of America or Geological Society of America. Which one is it?
“Red-hot planet: All-time heat records have been set all over the world during the past week,” WaPo 7/4/18.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/capital-weather-gang/wp/2018/07/03/hot-planet-all-time-heat-records-have-been-set-all-over-the-world-in-last-week/
Why is it that every heat wave or major hurricane brings out the CAGW paranoia? What happened to the “climate is the average of weather” sensibilities? Where is the evidence that humans cause the majority of CO2 increase and that increasing CO2 causes significant temperature rise? Did CO2 suddenly double?
As I showed elsewhere in these comments, more record highs are being set than record lows, by about 1.5-2 to 1.
What record highs? For a date or all time in a season? There is an important distinction climatologically, Appell, and records for a date do not prove there is any trend you could obtain by this. You would think you could figure that out.
CONUS records set in the last 365 days, total as of today:
high max: 31477
high min: 39355
low max: 22028
low min: 15136
Source:
https://tinyurl.com/lqs6wcz
USA48 30-yr trend = +0.27 C/dec.
More record highs than record lows would be expected in a warming world regardless of the cause of the warming.
And today the cause is anthropogenic GHGs.
DA,
Nobody has ever managed to warm anything using a GHG, have they?
Sounds like you are suffering from delusional psychosis!
Do you think your obsession with mythical GHGs has overheated your brain? Only joking, GHGs have no miraculous heating properties, do they?
Carry on flogging that dead horse – maybe a miracle will occur, and you can raise it from the dead!
You can’t prove a miracle won’t happen, can you?
Go on, demand some proof.
Cheers.
DA, attribution please:
As noted above by Myki, July 3, 2018 at 9:47 PM
I gave you a link. What do you want?
I gave you a link.
Forget it. I am being petty because I pointed to the link first.
You really mean:
Poseidon, Olympian God of the Oceans and king of the sea gods; also god of rivers, storms, flood and drought, earthquakes, and horses. He controlled every aspect of the seas.
Sorry- Wrong post position.
‘Where is the evidence that humans cause the majority of CO2 increase’
Are you really doubtful about that one?
I’ll see your WP and raise you an investors.com ,,,,
https://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/climate-change-global-warming-earth-cooling-media-bias/
“Red Hot Planet”…..Really, Appell? How do you explain the fact that at Eugene Oregon, a century old low temperature record was broken in the last few days?
Eugene Oregon this morning (3 July 2018) shivered through their coldest July morning “ever” (107 years) with 38 deg F.
Downtown Eugene:
https://wrcc.dri.edu/WRCCWrappers.py?sodxtrmts+352706+por+por+mint+none+mmin+5+01+F
Eugene Airport:
https://wrcc.dri.edu/WRCCWrappers.py?sodxtrmts+352709+por+por+mint+none+mmin+5+01+F
-mark albright
PS: Did anyone see the haynado yesterday near Albany Oregon?
https://twitter.com/ScottSKOMO/status/1014192502738337792
—
Mark Albright
Dept of Atmospheric Sciences
Box 351640
University of Washington
Seattle WA 98195-1640 USA
—
Of course records lows are sometimes being broke, Chuck. Nothing about AGW says they won’t.
“Daily Record Highs are Dramatically Outpacing Daily Record Lows,”
December 6th, 2017, Climate Central
http://www.climatecentral.org/gallery/graphics/daily-record-highs-are-dramatically-outpacing-daily-record-lows
DA…”Of course records lows are sometimes being broke, Chuck. Nothing about AGW says they wont”.
The overall implication is that the global average is rising. Makes no sense that records for cold weather would be included in that propaganda.
There’s no reason cold records can’t be broken. Natural variability still exists in an AGW world.
Appell, your dishonesty or incompetence is glaring. If the AGW claims were true, CO2 has increased from 280 ppmv to 410 ppmv today and the increased atmospheric opacity would make it impossible to break this century old all time record of low temperature if atmospheric CO2 was controlling on temperature. But as I have explained so many times to you, Appell, water vapor and the hydro cycle control nocturnal radiation, not CO2. You don’t get to have it both ways and you’re obviously not bright enough to comprehend that you’re engaging in doublespeak.
You never “explain” anything, you just wave your hands and expect people to believe you. I don’t believe you — I’ve seen you make too many basic physics errors. (Not to mention using laughable sources like CO2science.org or Steve Goddard.)
Where are your data? Your numbers? Your calculations? Your publications?
I’ve shown them to you repeatedly, Appell. Just like here. You ignore any data presented and label the sources as “denier” sites, when in fact, they use the same data from the same source you do. Difference is, they don’t “adjust” it like NOAA and NASA GISS does to unjustifiably get the spurious warming trends they do.
If anyone doesn’t comprehend physics, it is you. And that is just downright amazing, coming from a guy who claims a Phd in it.
For example, when I told you the OLR has risen rather than dropped off, which is a critical test of what caused the warming ( AGW or natural ) of the last 30 years, you just ignore relevant facts and go off on a lark and say stupid things like I claimed CO2 is a blackbody, which I never said. You dissemble, distort and change the subject just like anyone who is parroting nonsense does. You NEVER answer a relevant question. You have a trail of playing duck and bob at every site you visit and everyone can see it, Appell.
WHERE is your data and evidence Chuck? You’ve ever shown me anything. All you do it a lot of hand waving, as if you’re constantly saying goodbye. Which in a way you are.
No one will pay any attention to you as long as you read pages from CO2science.org, throw in a Steve Goddard link, and refuse to at least try to publish your ideas in a decent journal, where transparency and analysis will be required to pass peer review.
Chuck Wiese says:
For example, when I told you the OLR has risen rather than dropped off,
I don’t want to be *told* — I don’t believe a word you say — I want the DATA AND EVIDENCE. I want citations to the research.
It’s easy to tell you never went past your claimed bachelor’s degree.
And I don’t want to be TOLD by an arrogant atmospheric science incompetent like you, Appell, that CO2 is causing “climate change”. This contradicts all the founding principles in atmospheric science, and only someone completely ignorant of science would call a textbook in it “ancient” like you just did, which further demonstrates your incompetence.
Is relativity and gravity invalid because it was described and defined in physics over 100 years ago?
You’re a colorful cloth of frivolity , Appell.
Again, where is your data and evidence?
CONUS records set in the last 365 days, total as of today:
high max: 31477
high min: 39355
low max: 22028
low min: 15136
Data from the agency that must not be named:
https://tinyurl.com/lqs6wcz
DA…”Data from the agency that must not be named:”
You should have figured out by now that NOAA often has ncd-c in its URL. Put a hyphen in the URL as indicated and tell the viewers what you have done.
In your case it’s
https://www.ncd-c.noaa.gov/cdo-web/datatools/records
Copy/paste to URL bar, remove the hyphen from ncd-c, and voila, you have a good URL.
I’d rather use a link that I know works instead of expecting people to delete something confusing from a URL.
David why do you ignore all the data Dr. Spencer has put up, which shows AGW is in no way unique?
Essayons de calmer un peu les esprits échaudés!
I’m wondering about how often some people still insist about the so-called UHI problem in CONUS.
I separated for CONUS the GHCN V3 stations in two subsets
– rural (station type ‘R’, nightlight level ‘A’);
– nonrural (station type ‘S’ or ‘U’, nightlight level ‘B’ or ‘C’).
And I generated time series out of GHCN unadjusted data for the two CONUS station subsets.
Here are 2 charts plotting the time series in anomaly form wrt UAH’s baseline (1981-2010). Only the running means are plotted to avoid graphic overhead.
One for 1893-2018:
http://4gp.me/bbtc/1530747186962/001.jpg
and one for 1979-2018:
http://4gp.me/bbtc/1530747306275/001.jpg
to which the plot of UAH6.0 TLT’s regional series ‘USA48’ was added.
You see that while the 1893-2018 period shows a higher estimate for the nonrural stations than for the rural ones (0.08 C / decade vs. 0.03), the satellite era presents a different situation: nonrural and rural stations show the same estimate of 0.18 C / decade, exactly as much as does UAH.
Interesting: the rural and the nonrural corner show an inverse behavior for 1997/98 and for 2015/16.
*
BTW: why does everybody talk about UHI but never about the inverse, namely RCI (Rural Cooling Island) ?
Good question.
“Urban heat and cool island effects controlled by agriculture and irrigation,” Phys.org, October 26, 2017.
https://phys.org/news/2017-10-urban-cool-island-effects-agriculture.html
Chuck Wiese
In your debate with David, if I remember correctly, you said the 30 year trend for Salem, OR. was flat and the 30 year trend for Eugene, OR. was actually negative.
I just checked out NOAA’s “Climate at a glance” and found something different:
Salem, OR. 1988 – 2017 trend:
0.5 F. /decade
Eugene, OR. 1988 – 2017 trend
0.0 F. /decade
Could you provide a link to your source?
Snape: Those records I referenced were plotted by Washington States Climatologist Mark Albright. The record I have runs from 1940-2013 before the last El Ninio of 2015-17. The trend then was flat. It always goes up with an El Ninio, but you wouldn’t get a trend going from flat to .5 degF per decade from the start with a two year El Ninio.
There has been discussion about this that the record has been altered like so many in the network at urban sites and we know the thermometer sensors have been malfunctioning at some of these places.
Mr. Albright called NOAA out on the fact that the Yakima, WA site was reading 2 degF higher than it should have been. When they checked the site, they indeed found a malfunctioning sensor and claimed to have replaced it. I don’t know what that means with respect to their actions. We are seeing that NOAA seems more than willing to play with and manipulate their climate records to show warming. To see how badly this has occurred, visit realclimatescience.com.
We are seeing that NOAA seems more than willing to play with and manipulate their climate records to show warming.
Spoken like a true denier, with no evidence given whatsoever.
PS: Adjustments reduce the long-term global warming trend. See Karl et al Science 2015 Fig 2.
Karl gave no rational justification for what he did with the sea surface records. They had already undergone quality control.
No evidence? Bull! But like I said, anyone who doesn’t feed the AGW propaganda mill to you is a “denier”.
You have no credibility, Appell. Anyone can see the evidence of the manipulated climate records by visiting realclimatescience.com. And yes, Tony Heller is more than qualified to examine the NOAA record and analyze it. He is a quality control engineer in engineering and has extensive experience doing exactly what he did with the NOAA and NASA GISS temperature records in the engineering profession.
Karl et al certainly did give justifications. Why don’t you read their papers, including those they cite that lead to their final paper?
Wake me up when Steve Goddard publishes in the peer-reviewed literature. His claims of data manipulation have been dismissed:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steven_Goddard#Claims_of_NASA_manipulation_of_temperature_data
https://thsresearch.files.wordpress.com/2017/05/ef-gast-data-research-report-062717.pdf
Your full of it, Appell. Joe D’Aleo is a fellow of the America Meteorological Society. The integrity of the surface temperature record has been tortured beyond recognition.
Chuck’s idea of evidence is a weather forecast tore off a teletype four minutes before airtime.
Chuck Wiese says:
Snape: Those records I referenced were plotted by Washington States Climatologist Mark Albright. The record I have runs from 1940-2013 before the last El Ninio of 2015-17.
So where are these data? I’d like to examine them….
Why did you leave the 2015-16 El Nino out?
Did you leave out the earlier La Ninas?
Snape: station data for Salem, Oregon:
https://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/stdata_show.cgi?id=425726940000&ds=5&dt=1
There is a data gap from Aug2004-Dec2009, and one around 1978. (I guess the station keepers forgot to cheat those years.) That said, the 30-yr trend is +0.08 C/decade, and the trend since Jan1948 is +0.18 C/decade.
And this doesn’t match any trend for Salem that was compiled up to 2013. The trends showed a slight cooling for Salem up until this time.
Albright will be updating this, but it is clear you don’t get a reversal in temperature trends like this without cooling the earlier records and warming the latter, as Goddard showed us.
And Appell is so full of baloney by claiming Goddard doesn’t know what he’s doing. Joe D’Aleo and Wallace did a study on how badly the temperature records have been distorted and both are Phd’s with D’Aleo being a fellow of the American Meteorological Society.
Where was this study published?
Not in your revered journals that only accept the conclusion that anthropogenic CO2 is causing “climate change”.
I knew you didn’t have any real science.
You never do.
You read CO2science.org, a site published specifically to suck in gullible people just like you, Chuck.
Do you ever read ANY real journal papers, Chuck?
It looks to me like an incomplete record you attempt to submit as relevant is what is cheating the record. Here is the REAL unhomogenized plot for Salem Oregon back to 1940.
You’re incompetent, Appell:
https://atmos.washington.edu/marka/oregon/salem.1932_2013.png
Source:
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/stdata/
(scroll to bottom of page)
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/stdata_show.cgi?id=425726940000&ds=5&dt=1
Chuck, the NWS data I obtained show a clear warming trend for Salem’s Tmax:
https://davidappell.blogspot.com/2018/07/is-salem-oregon-warming.html
“If a portion of recent warming is natural, the less the human-caused global warming problem becomes.”
________________________
Likewise, if a portion of the recent warming has been reduced due to natural (or even human-caused)influences, the more of a problem it becomes.
TFN
And reduced by anthropogenic factors, like aerosol pollution from China and India (and, to a lesser extent, the other countries too). About -1 W/m2, according to the 5AR. About -0.5 C.
http://www.realclimate.org/images/ipcc_rad_forc_ar5.jpg
realclimate.org is the equivalent of CNN fake news.
They’re not, and
they’re merely reproducing the figure from the 5AR WG1.
I am interested in the future not the past.
Chuck
“The record I have runs from 1940-2013…”
So why, in the debate, did you make claim “over the past 30 years…..” when this is 2018?
Am I misremembering?
It ran for more than 30 years, Appell. From 1940-2013. And the last 5 years will not have changed the answer by much and any warming from El Ninio is natural.
Let’s see your data.
Here it is, Appell. And I’m sure that since the state climatologist who prepared this ( Mark Albright ) didn’t submit this to a “pal reviewed” journal, you will dismiss it, even though this sort of data compilation is Albright’s specialty. But that is you, Appell. You’re incompetent.
https://atmos.washington.edu/marka/oregon/salem.1932_2013.png
chuck…”Im sure that since the state climatologist who prepared this ( Mark Albright ) didnt submit this to a pal reviewed journal, you will dismiss it…”
He’ll dismiss anything that contradicts catastrophic global warming. DA is an eco-weenie with an authority-figure complex.
Chuck: Mark Albright certainly knows that real science is published in the peer reviewed literature.
Having only a (claimed) BS, there is no way you would understand that, or how science is done.
Trend for Salem’s monthly average surface temperature, since 1948:
+0.32 F/decade
Download and calculate, Chuck, if you know how.
Source:
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/stdata/
(scroll to bottom of page)
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/stdata_show.cgi?id=425726940000&ds=5&dt=1
DA,
Another pointless demand, David?
Trying to divert attention away from your inability to even describe the GHE which seems to be the basis for your pseudoscientific blather, does not seem to work as well as in the past, does it?
Go for it, David. Keep trying to convince people that stupidity, ignorance, and gullibility are preferable to the scientific method – involving reproducible physical experiments. Stick with Schmidt and his computer games – more your style. A completely pointless waste of time, effort, and money.
Cheers.
David Appell,
Have you managed to find a description of the reproducible GHE, and a disprovable GHE hypothesis to go along with it?
Surely it has appeared in a prestigious peer reviewed journal, somewhere?
Or maybe the idea of increasing the Earth’s temperature by increasing the amount of stupid GHGs between the Sun and the surface, is just too ridiculous even for a pedestrian mathematician like Gavin Schmidt or a dim fraud like Michael Mann to associate themselves with?
Do you really believe that increasing the amount of CO2 between the Sun and a thermometer makes the thermometer hotter?
If so, you raise the bar for pseudoscientific stupidity and ignorance (not to mention delusional gullibility), to new heights!
Maybe you could have a tantrum – threaten to hold your breath until you turn blue. That’ll fix ’em!
Carry on demanding, David.
Cheers.
David
Thanks for the data.
I’m generally a fan of Cliff Mass, UW, but he likes to demonstrate a lack of NW warming by presenting daily maximums (little trend), and omitting daily minimums or averages (much larger trend). I wonder if Mark Albright uses the same tactic?
Snape: There is no warming in rural records with minimum temperatures as there is in urban sites. Are you trying to say that the UHI is really caused by AGW?
There is a good reason to focus on maximum temperatures because of this fact.
I just posted a lot of rural data that shows Chuck is wrong:
https://davidappell.blogspot.com/2018/07/oregons-rural-warming.html
You’re incompetent, Appell. This data is not separating anything, and you have not stated where it came from or whether you plotted it.
Chuck Wiese says:
July 5, 2018 at 12:23 AM
Youre incompetent, Appell. This data is not separating anything, and you have not stated where it came from or whether you plotted it.
Chuck Wiese, I’m not a fan of Appell but here really you do not behave so very honest.
In
https://davidappell.blogspot.com/2018/07/oregons-rural-warming.html
It is clearly visible that Appell’s source is
https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/stdata/
and that the pictures have been plotted using the NASA site itself:
https://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/stdata_show.cgi?id=425726930000&ds=5&dt=1
And let me tell you above all that a person writing
…and the satellite records also support a static temperature trend for Oregon
is all you want but competent.
How can you derive local surface behavior out of satellite date measuring temperatures 5 km above surface?
And… why did you not condtadict my friend’s data?
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2018/07/summer-causes-climate-change-hysteria/#comment-310671
binny…”It is clearly visible that Appells source is…[NASA GISS].
Binny, you git. GISS takes fudged data from NOAA and fudges it more. Appell would not post anything that was not fudged, he’s an eco-weenie who interviews only alarmist scientist.
When NOAA proclaimed 2014 the warmest year in the historical record it used a 48% confidence level. GISS one-upped them by lowering the CL to 37%.
Hey, why don’t we drop the CL right down to 5% then we can claims catastrophic warming?
La Pangolina:
1) This data is plotted from missing and incomplete sets. Climatologist Mark Albright has actually shown a declining temperature trend by 1 degF in the last 20 years of record with a complete set of numbers for Eugene, OR.
2) The satellite records are not the surface but the data I’m referencing is not a 5 Km either. It is the LT data at 2 Km. While this also does not match the surface numbers, the trends are most certainly connected by convective heat transfer, so the trends will be identical to the surface except for slight time lags.
There is no need to “contradict” Roy Spencers data. Why would there be? Where is the conflict.
There is no dishonesty. Appell is the one who is not being straight with data.
Chuck Wiese says:
July 5, 2018 at 1:58 AM
La Pangolina:
1) This data is plotted from missing and incomplete sets. Climatologist Mark Albright has actually shown a declining temperature trend by 1 degF in the last 20 years of record with a complete set of numbers for Eugene, OR.
Maybe Bindidon answers to that.
2) The satellite records are not the surface but the data Im referencing is not a 5 Km either. It is the LT data at 2 Km.
Here you prove again your lack of competence.
UAH6.0’s average absolute data for the Globe actually is around 264K.
Taking the lapse rate of 6.5 K/km, that places the average height at about 3.7 km i.e. at an atmospheric pressure of 640 hPa, but RATPAC-B radiosondes (agreed by Mr Christy, oh yes) operating at this pressure do not reflect the same temperature, which they rather show just above 500 hPa.
Thus the 5 km are certainly correct.
“Here you prove again your lack of competence.
UAH6.0s average absolute data for the Globe actually is around 264K.
Taking the lapse rate of 6.5 K/km, that places the average height at about 3.7 km i.e. at an atmospheric pressure of 640 hPa, but RATPAC-B radiosondes (agreed by Mr Christy, oh yes) operating at this pressure do not reflect the same temperature, which they rather show just above 500 hPa.
Thus the 5 km are certainly correct.”
La Pangolina: You need to clarify what it is your saying. I don’t claim 5 Km temperatures are incorrect, but it is not correct to say that by “assuming” a lapse rate of 6.5 K/Km, you could be assured that whatever temperature you measure at 3.7 Km compared to radiosonde measurements is what the geopotential height of the 640 millibar pressure surface is. That is a constant pressure and as such will have varying geopotential height depending on the mass and temperature composition of the column being measured. If an airmass is warm, the geopotential of 640 millibars will located at a higher altitude than if it is colder. To assume that is always at 3.7 Km by a theoretical lapse rate is wrong, and if your claiming this is a hold true formula of some sort, then I would say that it is you that is demonstrating incompetence, at least in atmospheric science. Using your methodology, there is always going to be a difference in temperature at an absolute altitude you use with a theoretical lapse rate comparing this to 640 millibars of constant pressure that will vary continuously in geopotential height due to the unequal distribution of atmospheric mass and temperature around the earth.
Chuck Wiese says:
1) This data is plotted from missing and incomplete sets.
That’s just sad. But still laughable.
Chuck Wiese says:
Youre incompetent, Appell. This data is not separating anything
Idiot. There are temperature data from many stations, many of them rural.
They directly disprove your dumb claim that Oregon has no warming except from the urban heat island. (Note: you have never provided any data yourself.)
David,
What is all this data supposed to be showing? I assume it is some veiled appeal to authority, about something unstated.
There is no GHE, and no disprovable GHE hypothesis, as a result.
Endlessly examining the past, in a vain attempt to foresee the future, is a pointless waste of time. Pseudoscientific nonsense, of the climatological variety.
Prestigious journals charge fees to publish. That is their business – and a mighty profitable business it is. Time after time, they publish computer generated gibberish. How this rubbish passes peer review is questionable, but is mirrored by some of the bizarre climatological papers which have been published.
CO2 as the control knob of the world’s thermostat? Yeah. Right.
Some people are gullible enough to believe anything. Just like you.
Cheers.
Chuck
“It ran for more than 30 years, Appell. From 1940-2013. And the last 5 years will not have changed the answer by much and any warming from El Ninio is natural.”
According to NOAA, January, 2013 – December, 2017 was the warmest 5 year period in Oregon history. Data goes back 119 years.
I’m therefore dubious of your claim that the last 5 years wouldn’t have made much difference!
snape…”According to NOAA, January, 2013 December, 2017 was the warmest 5 year period in Oregon history. Data goes back 119 years”.
NOAA are liars, a load of climate alarmist, eco-weenies. They have blatantly misrepresented science with their statistical propaganda. They have blatantly altered the historical record retroactively. They have lowered confidence levels to move cooler years into first place as records.
NOAA no longer does science, it throws out real data and manufactures pseudo-data in climate models.
Since the Feb 2016 EN there has been no further warming, we have experienced a gradual cooling trend.
Oregon is just down the road from us here in British Columbia, Canada and there has been nothing remarkable going on. The only thing Oregon can claim is being the home of David Appell. Oregonians should be wearing bags over their heads based on that.
Gordon has no proof whatsoever that NO.AA are “liars,” but Gordon is the kind of man who casts aspersions without evidence. He doesn’t think twice about it, because he’s the kind of man who disparages people without thinking twice about it. Gordon is a bald-faced liar, and that doesn’t bother him in the least. Just like DTrump.
DA…”Gordon has no proof whatsoever that NO.AA are liars, but Gordon is the kind of man who casts aspersions without evidence”.
There is no one so blind as he who won’t see. I supplied evidence from NOAA’s own site that they fudge data by slashing real station data and replacing it with synthesized data from climate models.
This is also a lie — You’ve never provided any evidence whatsoever.
And you don’t even care who knows you’re a liar. Perhaps because you’re anonymous here.
Snape:Be as dubious as you want. The warming of the last 3 of the 5 years were caused by El Ninio, an entirely natural phenomena, and the satellite records DO NOT agree with the surface records and support the conclusion that this El Ninio was the warmest in the record. 2016 was nearly a statistical tie with 1998 and 2017 was the 3rd warmest in that record, and the satellite records also support a static temperature trend for Oregon, at least up until the El Ninio of 2015 and 2016.
All of this talk about comparing one warm year to the next still misses the entire point. How is this modern maximum any different than any other in the glacial or geological record? And you need to face up to the fact that the GHG signature is missing from the upper tropospheric temperature data as well as the OLR signature of declining values vs. what is observed. Without this, it is pointless to be concerned about CO2. The proof required that it is the culprit for temperature changes is NOT PRESENT IN THE RECORD AFTER 30 YEARS OF THIS NONSENSE. Something Appell and all others promoting this refuse to accept, even though this is fact.
Chuck Wiese
” How is this modern maximum any different than any other in the glacial or geological record? ”
Because this time the inhabitants built a global civilization on the assumption that global temperatures would stay below 14.0C and are now experiencing the consequences of self-inflicted warming.
E,
Where can this wondrous global civilisation be found?
Certainly not in the tropics. Too hot. Certainly not where it is below zero n winter. Too cold.
Even the cradle of civilisation (now Iraq) has temperatures between -30 C and 50 C. I suppose you think that the average, 10 C, is just about perfect! Stupid averages – only a witless climatologist would use such a thing in these circumstances!
Global civilisation? You are making stuff up. No such thing. No GHE either.
So sad, too bad.
Cheers.
https://www.nature.com/articles/nature15725
E,
Another completely irrelevant and pointless link, eh?
It starts off –
“Growing evidence demonstrates that climatic conditions can have a profound impact on the functioning of modern human societies1,2, but effects on economic activity appear inconsistent.”
Gee. Droughts and floods might affect food production, I suppose.
This comes as news to these dummies? Obviously affected by the same pseudoscientific delusions that afflict GHE believers!
Just more evidence that Nature is quite capable of publishing nonsense for profit. Oh well, your appeal to authority reflects your ignorance, stupidity and gullibility, if nothing else.
Cheers.
e…”Because this time the inhabitants built a global civilization on the assumption that global temperatures would stay below 14.0C and are now experiencing the consequences of self-inflicted warming”.
Where are you getting this propaganda? And where are the consequences? Little or no average warming for nearly 20 years.
Where would one find the satellite record for Oregon?
Mark B: Roy Spencer and John Christy do not publish their monthly temperature composite in the specific sector that was requested of them by a Dr. Jared Black, who asked about what Oregon’s temperature trends were over the length of the satellite record.
But either Roy or Jon supplied this to Mr. Black when he inquired about it doing his own independent climate research for Oregon.
The result for the 2 Km LT temperature was the same as what Albright’s surface temperature trends were in the rural stations that included Salem and Eugene. There was no statistically significant warming and the trend line was flat for the entire period over the entire State of Oregon including southern Washington state.
The funniest thing is that Chuck thinks Oregon warming has something to do with global warming.
Chuck, what is the ratio of the surface area of Oregon to the surface area of the globe?
Chuck Wiese says:
Snape:Be as dubious as you want. The warming of the last 3 of the 5 years were caused by El Ninio, an entirely natural phenomena
Why were average surface temperatures for the 2015-2016 El Nino 0.4 C higher than for the 1997-98 El Nino, and why were surface temperatures for the latter 0.4 C warmer than for the 1982-83 El Nino?
‘the OLR signature of declining values vs. what is observed. ‘
False. We’ve been over this.
‘GHG signature is missing from the upper tropospheric temperature data ‘
Nope not in RSS and RATPAC
‘the satellite records DO NOT agree with the surface records’
Nope not RSS and RATPAC (also troposphere).
Chuck, what is the reason to favor UAH over RSS and RATPAC, other than one fits your beliefs?
This year cooler and if it continues moving forward AGW theory will be obsolete.
July 5, 2018 at 12:36 AM
Snape:Be as dubious as you want. The warming of the last 3 of the 5 years were caused by El Ninio, an entirely natural phenomena, and the satellite rec
What Chuck Wiese said which is 100% correct. Look at the Mei index also.
As I said watch the overall SURFACE oceanic temperatures as they trend down so does the global temperature.
You wouldn’t use nuclear as backup for solar or wind power.
If you have a nuclear power plant you run it all the time, it’s high quality energy that doesn’t emit CO2 and it’s usually cheaper than solar or wind. Why in the world would you want to turn off a cheaper source of energy, because that is what a backup does, to replace it with a more expensive source?
And if by some misfortune due to some regulatory insanity your nuclear power plant is more expensive than solar or wind, then you still run it all the time, because you have to earn back some portion of the money spent on it somehow and you can’t afford to turn it off.
There are only two backups for solar and wind. Coal power plants and natural gas power plants. You have to have them because people don’t want intermittent power. Every solar or wind power facility has fossil fuel plant behind it that is turned off when it is running and turned on when it is not.
Somehow this basic point has escaped solar and wind advocates. Not only are the true costs of solar and wind almost always radically understated, but solar and wind mean major CO2 emissions!
It’s true. It’s not as bad as solely a coal power plant, but kilowatt per kilowatt if the solar or wind plant isn’t producing their maximum energy then the compensating energy has to be coming from a coal or natural gas power plant.
There are only two backups for solar and wind. Coal power plants and natural gas power plants.
Smart grids
nuclear
hydro
batteries
In many locations hydroelectric is itself an intermittent power source that has to be backed up by a fossil fuel plant. For example California normally a wet season and a dry season and the usage of their hydroelectric power plants is planned so that if there is the normal amount of precipitation the hydroelectric plant can run year around.
But if there should be a drought and as history and the geologic evidence would suggest droughts aren’t exactly unusual for California, then the hydroelectric plants are shut down and the backup, if there is a backup, is always a fossil fuel plant.
I’ve already explained why nuclear plants are run constantly. That means that can’t be used as backups.
Batteries are extremely expensive. That’s the problem. Unless or until they become cheap, then they aren’t part of the solution. The only sense in which cheap batteries are real is that we are hoping that if we continue to do the research we will someday find a way.
The only relatively practical power storage technology we have is pumped water. That is pumping water up a hill into a reservoir when the sun is shining and/or the wind is blowing and then releasing that water to generate electricity when the sun is not shining and the wind is not blowing. These systems are expensive and you only get back roughly one-third of the energy you put in, but that still puts the idea massively ahead of any other known power storage technology including especially batteries.
“Smart grid” means a number of things most of which is not relevant in this context. The part that is relevant is the transmission of power long distances from a region where excess power is being produced to a region where it is needed. Practically speaking that excess power right now is almost always coming from fossil fuel power plants, but we can imagine scenarios where it might be coming from wind power and in some special situations solar power. I believe the only way solar can back up solar is if one region has cloud cover where an adjacent doesn’t. Similar idea for wind. I don’t deny that it helps. But there will always be situations, and even very common situations, where this doesn’t do any good at all, and the thing about fossil fuel backups is that unless a population is quite tolerant of power outages, then the fossil fuel power plants have to be built for the normal worst situation. And in the normal worst situation, and by normal I mean it happens a lot, long-distance power transmission isn’t going to help.
Goal post moving:
“Future global warming may eventually be twice as warm as projected by climate models and sea levels may rise six metres or more even if the world meets the 2C target, according to an international team of researchers from 17 countries.”
“Global warming may be twice what climate models predict”
https://phys.org/news/2018-07-global-climate.html
Global warming is ending this year if I am correct on my theory, which I have explained many times.
jimc…”Goal post moving:”
You’re right, when little lies don’t work then tell big lies.
Do you have thoughts and a critique on their science?
If not, then your comment has no place here.
http://notrickszone.com/2017/04/27/20-more-new-papers-link-climate-weather-clouds-enso-nao-sea-levels-crop-yields-to-solar-activity/
Paper number 10 in the above which is solar/versus sea surface temperatures is my case.
From a study co-authored by Mark Albright:
“The residual time series of Cascade snowpack after Pacific variability is removed displays a relatively steady loss rate of 2.0% per decade, yielding a loss of 16% from 1930-2007. This loss is very nearly statistically significant, and includes the possible impacts of anthropogenic global warming.”
http://www.oregonlive.com/environment/index.ssf/2010/02/scientists_still_sparring_over.html
Snape: what you don’t know is that it was expected analysis like this, using dubious cherry picking of data start and stop times that led to considerable consternation between Albright and his supervisor, Phil Mote, who was then head of the Climate Impacts Group at the University of Washington.
Albright disagreed with much of the methods Mote and associates were using and this disagreement led to Albright leaving his position as Washington State’s Climatologist.
There is a lot to be said about honesty and integrity when one feels strongly enough about it to leave on principle.
And it has been my experience with Mr. Mote that he is not being honest about climatic trends in Oregon since he left CIG and became employed at OCCRI. He insists Oregon heat waves are worsening and reported this claim which was used in a report issued by the Oregon Health Authority a few years back. That seemed suspicious to me so when I checked the records, there was no increase in Oregon heat waves in Multnomah County where the report was issued to cover, which most would define by the number of days official records exceeded 90, 95 or 100 degF. When I confronted Mote with this, he then claimed he believed the statement to be true because of higher minimum temperatures. But the report is based upon blaming GHG’s for the warming, never differentiated between maximums and minimums (but increasing heat implies higher temperatures in the maximum) and the UHI has nothing to do with this which has caused nocturnal warming at urban sites. And yet Mote refused to correct the record with the Health Authority.
This sort of dishonesty says a lot about those that continue to misuse temperature data for the promotion of something that has no concrete science underpinning. I see this rampant abuse of data in a lot of todays literature on “climate change” that tortures the real meaning of climate metrics used and makes absolutely incorrect and outrageous claims to support this nonsense.
Albright is true to science. And I’ve found he is trustworthy in using climatology in its proper context.
And note the difference in this paper vs. papers and reports from OCCRI is that OCCRI concludes any snowpack loss IS the result of GHG’s. This report does not conclude this, does not show statistical significance to the loss, but rather states it is a possible consequence.
But we can also look at declining glaciers that started in the record long before atmospheric CO2 was rising beyond pre-industrial concentrations and 75% of the reductions there had already occurred by the 1930’s.
Also, Cliff Mass believes strongly in his modeling capability, and on this I am miles apart with him, but like Albright, they won’t lie about what something means. This paper, remaining true to science does NOT affirmatively tie the snowpack decline to AGW.
Chuck: where are Cliff Mass’s peer reviewed journal papers?
Or did you read him on {chuckle} CO2science.org?
Hey, I just realized that most of the word “chuckle” consists of “Chuck.”
Chuck….”Albright disagreed with much of the methods Mote and associates were using and this disagreement led to Albright leaving his position as Washington States Climatologist.
There is a lot to be said about honesty and integrity when
one feels strongly enough about it to leave on principle”.
*********
U of W seems to be a hot bed of alarmists. Stieg is from there, Mann’s buddy who did the study with him in which they concluded Antarctica has warmed since 1950. Turned out they interpolated warming from the north end of Peninsula to the entire continent. One station cited was under 4 feet of snow.
“Finally, the Public Citizen memo claims that todays technology would already allow 80% to 100% of our energy to come from renewable sources. This is patently false. Solar and wind are relatively diffuse (and thus expensive) sources of energy which are intermittent, requiring fossil fuel (or nuclear) backup. It would be exceedingly expensive to get even 50% of our energy from such sources.”
Renewable sources includes creating CO2, one could include natural gas as renewable source, but it’s included a fossil fuel, all you to do is change the definition of renewable source, and bingo, it’s possible.
If one wants emission-free:
“Nuclear power in the United States is provided by 99 commercial reactors with a net capacity of 100,350 megawatts (MW), 65 pressurized water reactors and 34 boiling water reactors. In 2016 they produced a total of 805.3 terawatt-hours of electricity, which accounted for 19.7% of the nation’s total electric energy generation. In 2016, nuclear energy comprised nearly 60 percent of U.S. emission-free generation.” -wiki
So increase Nuclear and hydro power use. I think having 25% of energy from nuclear energy, would be a good idea, though having be 75% like France, probably not needed or desirable.
One could call nuclear and methane gas as a renewable source- some nuclear power could be “created or grown”, and some methane is produced by biological process.
Natural gas currently is making 31.7% of US power:
https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.php?id=427&t=3
and it is cheap:
https://www.eia.gov/dnav/ng/hist/rngwhhdd.htm
And it growing is our oceans, Methane hydrate deposits and have vast potential supply if one mine Methane hydrate in the ocean, which only done on very small scale at the present.
So if wants more emission-free or renewable energy that you define as nuclear and natural gas, that could be done by a political process, which does not require robbing from the poor, mere need politicians who are slightly educated or not completely delusional/crazy [as most are].
gbaikie…good info, g.
Methane Hydrates: A Business opportunity for NOCs in the Middle East and large IOCs?
[NOC- national Oil Company. IOC international oil company. And
International vs. National Oil Companies—What’s the difference?
https://www.spe.org/en/print-article/?art=717 ]
“According to the experts of this sector…”
“Methane Hydrates Reserves have been estimated to be about 21,000 trillion cubic meters, about 100 times the total natural gas reserves currently worldwide. They content that even if 10% of these quantities is technically recoverable it can be used for many centuries. ”
https://energyroutes.eu/2016/04/06/methane-hydrates-a-business-opportunity-for-nocs-in-the-middle-east-and-large-iocs/
And:
According to Oil and Gas financial journal in the article “Challenges of the Methane Hydrates” by Darren Spalding and Laura Fox, Bracewell & Giuliani LLP, London on May 7, 2014 the cost of developing any new energy is high and methane hydrates are no different. The current cost of gas produced from methane hydrates is estimated to be US$30 to US$50 per million British thermal units (MMBTUs). The International Energy Agency estimates that once efficient practices and processes are developed, natural gas produced from methane hydrates will cost between US$4.70 and US$8.60 per MMBTU.”
So competitive in places like India, South America, Europe, Japan, Korea- and if one can work with China.
US in north east is about $1 cheaper than those countries above] and elsewhere in US much cheaper [Ie due to fracking and increase in US oil production].
I wonder island nations could mine locally methane hydrates or benefit, if in general, there more ocean produced methane. So say Hawaii has higher electrical costs and assume islands in general have high costs of electrical power.
Search: natural gas service pacific islands:
“Hawaii has no proved natural gas reserves and produces no natural gas. Hawaii is one of only two states producing synthetic natural gas, which is called syngas. Syngas is produced in an Oahu processing plant using naphtha feedstock from a local refinery. The syngas is delivered by pipeline to parts of Oahu. Customers in rural areas of Oahu and on other islands, who are not connected to utility Hawaii Gas’s distribution system, are supplied with propane. As part of the state’s shift to renewables, Hawaii is encouraging the use of local biomass as a feedstock for the production of renewables-based synthetic natural gas”
https://www.eia.gov/state/analysis.php?sid=HI
“For over 50 years, Origin, one of Australia’s leading energy companies, has been supplying LPG to domestic, commercial and industrial customers in countries throughout the Pacific, including Papua New Guinea, The Solomon Islands, Fiji, Vanuatu, Tonga, Samoa, America Samoa and the Cook Islands.
Origin’s aim is to maximise the usage of LPG as a preferred energy source in the Pacific. LPG is an environmentally friendly, clean, efficient and reliable product.
In the Pacific, the majority of energy consumed comes from traditional fuels such as biomass and oil. In Fiji and Vanuatu, LPG accounts for as little as two per cent of total consumption.”
LPG isn’t using natural gas pipeline like system [like syngas does] so if have ocean methane minning, one need such infrastructure to use the natural gas.
India:
“India had 38 trillion cubic feet (Tcf) of proven natural gas reserves as of January 2007.The total gas production in India was about 31,400 mcm in 2002-03 compared with 2,358 mcm in 1980-81.
http://www.eai.in/ref/fe/nag/nag.html
Compare US:
“In 2012, the United States produced 25.3 trillion cubic feet of marketed natural gas, with an average wellhead value of $2.66 per thousand cubic feet, for a total wellhead value of $67.3 billion.In 2013, the country produced 30.0 trillion cubic feet (TCF) of marketed gas.”
trillion cubit feet equal how much million cubic meter:
35.2 million feet equals 1 million cubic meter. 31,400 mcm equals about: 1.1 trillion cubic feet. Or about 1/20th of US, and has 4 times as many people, and seems to indicate India has a significant natural gas network
Chuck
Please get your facts straight. The figures from the study I quoted were considered a LOWBALL. The authors were Stoelinga, Albright and Mass, and did not include Mote.
Mote, in fact, was the Washington State climatologist, not Albright.
******
“The arguments and whos behind them:
50 percent decrease since 1950: Widely used as recently as this year, now dismissed by scientists on all sides as a major overstatement.
35 percent decrease since the mid-1940s: Offered by Washington State Climatologist and UW climate scientist Philip Mote.
30 percent decrease since 1945: Professor Dennis Hartmann, chair of the Atmospheric Sciences Department, after a meeting with the different sides and consultations with other scientists.
10 to 15 percent decrease since the mid-1940s: Professor Cliff Mass, in association with meteorologist Mark Albright”
https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/how-one-number-touched-off-big-climate-change-fight-at-uw/
Snape: You are re-affirming what I just said. The disagreements about how much snowpack had declined in the records were very large, in fact, when just looking a SWE records over the period, Cliff Mass had reported the snowpack had no trend. It was flat over a century of record.
Mote expected Albright to sign off on the ridiculous 50% decline which was based upon cherry picking part of a record. Albright refused to do this because of his sense of wanting to be honest and this sort of contention led to his departure. This is what I was getting at. And Mote also wanted those working with him to sign off on affirmative explanations that such declines and other climate metrics were absolutely being caused by AGW.
And my understanding is that Albright was acting as Washington States Climatologist until his departure when Mote then took over his responsibilities. Mote was busy with his failed modeling efforts which in 1998 predicted that regional temperatures in Oregon in 20 years would be +3.1 degF above the 30 year mean. In the last 20 years since this climate model prediction, Eugene Oregon’s temperature has declined a full 1 degF. Mote’s modeling can’t even get the sign of the temperature change correct!
Honestly, are you telling me you would believe this nonsense with such a record of failure?
Yet again, Chuck fails to cite or link to any science.
Chuck
BTW, Not only was Mark Albright NOT the State Meteorologist, it is also not true that he stepped down from the position he held.
Infact he was, and still is, employed as a research meteorologist at UW:
https://atmos.washington.edu/people/staff.shtml
Are you saying Phil Mote was Washington State’s Climatologist and labeled so by the State of Washington? If so, why wasn’t Mote executing those responsibilities? Mark Albright was.
You are correct that after his departure from employment by Phil Mote, he was assigned research duties with Cliff Mass.
When you can’t disprove the science, attack the scientists personally.
It’s a well-worn path, from tobacco to lead paint to ozone to AGW.
And it has never once succeeded.
chuck w…”…as I have explained so many times to you, Appell, water vapor and the hydro cycle control nocturnal radiation, not CO2″.
I can see a scenario where the surface cools significantly with no solar radiation at night. The question arises as to whether the surface gets cooler than the atmosphere. If not, the 2nd law applies and heat cannot be transferred from a cooler atmosphere to a warmer surface.
The AGW theory proposes that the surface is heating GHGs in the atmosphere. If the surface cools at night does that not means the GHGs, including WV, must cool as well?
At best, what I am seeing is thermal equilibrium where heat cannot be transferred. Having GHGs warmer than the surface seems odd, especially with increasing altitude.
Having GHGs warmer than the surface seems odd, especially with increasing altitude.
Why?
Mark B says:
July 5, 2018 at 6:01 AM
“Where would one find the satellite record for Oregon?”
*
Mark B, you raised an interesting point here.
The zonal and regional temperature record provided since years by Roy Spencer for four different atmospheric layers
https://tinyurl.com/y997zl7w
(here: lower troposphere) is not the only visible aspect of what Mr Spencer makes available to the public.
There is (again: here for the LT) also a 2.5 degree grid (72 latitudes, 144 longitudes) in the directory:
https://www.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/v6.0/tlt/
consisting of a sequence of yearly files (tltmonamg.1978_6.0 till tltmonamg.2018_6.0) out of which you can obtain finer information by averaging small grid cell subsets, e.g. Nino3+4 or… the Oregon state.
I generated also UAH time series out of GHCN V3 data, allowing to ‘see’ how UAH behaves above GHCN stations.
Here is an example of two plots: UAH Oregon zone (42N-46N — 124W-117W) vs. UAH above all GHCN Oregon stations
http://4gp.me/bbtc/1530836380184/001.jpg
The difference between the two plots in the chart is nearly imperceptible.
An interesting detail: the trend of these two time series for 1979-2018 is 0.19 ± 0.05 °C / decade, just a bit more than in the entire CONUS.
Blindidon: Could you please provide a link to the plots of the UAH data LT for Oregon as well as the USHCNv3 plot that you worked up?
Thanks
Chuck Wiese
Maybe you misunderstood what I did?
1. The plots you see in the graph above where generated by Excel out of a time series generated by my software out of a part the entire UAH6.0 grid data, i.e. the files
https://www.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/v6.0/tlt/tltmonamg.1978_6.0
till
https://www.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/v6.0/tlt/tltpenamg.2018_6.0
The software using these files was validated using
https://tinyurl.com/y997zl7w
2. I did not use USHCRN but GHCN V3 (they are two different datasets).
The GHCN V3 time series has been generated by my software as well, and validated by Excel and GIDD data.
*
Thus what I can do if you are interested is to send you the generated time series by uploading them in pdf files.
The GHCN V3 unadjusted data is here:
https://tinyurl.com/y9uyykgz
Bindidon: I think you misunderstood me. What I want from you is a plotted graphing of the actual temperatures you used from UAH for the Oregon grid as well as from GHCNv3 in a time series that you retrieved along with the trend lines for both.
I’m not interested in your claim that the difference between the two sets are nearly indistinguishable.
Chuck Wiese says:
July 6, 2018 at 12:11 PM
J.-P. isn’t at home.
I suppose you mean this:
http://4gp.me/bbtc/1530916873786/001.jpg
Linear estimates for GHCN V3 Oregon:
– 1893-2018: 0.03 C / decade
– 1979-2018: 0.36 C / decade
Linear estimate for UAH6.0’s grid cells above GHCN Oregon stations:
– 1979-2018: 0.19 C / decade
GHCN V3 unadjusted is raw data and therefore shows higher estimates during the satellite era than do e.g. GISS time series.
Most unexperienced people think or pretend that the process of homogenisation produces higher trends. The contrary is the case.
Your Eugene example shows that pretty good.
And Chuck, let’s see a plot from you from Oregon “rural” temperature stations….
Still nothing from CW.
binny…”I generated also UAH time series out of GHCN V3 data, allowing to see how UAH behaves above GHCN stations”.
Which stations, those among the 4500 they deleted from the 6000 global stations, and synthesized in a climate model, or one of the 1500 they actually used.
I started calling you an idiot because you don’t understand the difference. Nor do you seem to care.
Hi Gordon: I responded to your comment about radiation above Bindidons but I don’t see it posted. I’ll re-address this if it doesn’t appear soon. I don’t know what happened.
Hi Gordon: I tried to re-post my response to you about the radiation problem and it keeps going to a trash bin. Probably because it is too long.
If your not a member of global warming realists, you are welcome to join and I will share this with you there.
Why do you write so dumb things all the time, Robertson?
And why do you call all people idiots when you are not able to understand let alone to grasp what they do?
If anyone is still following, and if I’ve done this correctly, here’s a plot of the UAH 6.0 annual 2.5 degree grid over Oregon:
http://tinypic.com/r/w7ok77/9
I get 0.11 C/decade for this vs about 0.13 C/decade global.
Corrected link to Oregon grid timeseries:
http://i63.tinypic.com/2mm7qyt.png
The trends for 2018 looking good ,let’s see if they not only continue but intensify as we forward.
Chuck
According to this link, Philip Mote became the Washington State climatologist in 2003. Was Mark Albright his assistant and performing a lot of those duties? I don’t know about that so you could be right.
https://www.fws.gov/pacific/climatechange/pdf/boise/Mote/Bio/Philip%20Mote.pdf
snape…both you and Chuck are right. Mote was the state climatologist and Mark Albright was the Associate State Climatologist.
Albright was fired for exposing warming myths.
https://www.heartland.org/news-opinion/news/associate-state-climatologist-fired-for-exposing-warming-myths?source=policybot
I thought I remembered that corruption. Other climatologists were fired for similar matters, like Tenk Hennekes in the Netherlands and Pat Michaels as the Virginia State CLimaatologist.
Climate alarmists are corrupt, through and through.
As corrupt as Pruitt?
Patrick Michaels! LOL!
Patrick J. Michaels once said:
“I’ll take even money that the 10 years ending on December 31, 2007, will show a statistically significant global cooling trend in temperatures measured by satellite.”
Then, subsequently, in a Washington Times op-ed in January 2013, Michaels stated “it’s a pretty good bet that we are going to go nearly a quarter of a century without warming.” [The Washington Times, 1/17/13]
He out-does Salvatore Del Prete !!
Pat Michaels did indeed say these things:
https://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/fighting-fire-facts
https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/jan/17/global-warming-apocalypse-canceled/
Did he mea culpa?
Myki…”Patrick J. Michaels once said:
Ill take even money that the 10 years ending on December 31, 2007, will show a statistically significant global cooling trend in temperatures measured by satellite.
Then, subsequently, in a Washington Times op-ed in January 2013, Michaels stated its a pretty good bet that we are going to go nearly a quarter of a century without warming. [The Washington Times, 1/17/13]”
*********
Michaels was/is right on both counts. The only warming we’ve had has been due to temporary El Nino warming.
Michaels is a smart cookie who uses past climate history to project future conditions. He has been right where modelers have been wrong.
If Gordon couldnt lie here hedhave nothing to say.
Michaels was as wrong as wrong Canby. Pretending otherwise isnt convincing to people who can read. Michaels admitted 40% of his salary comes from fossil fuel interests.
” We are currently half way to doubling.”
Not really. We’ve added about 130ppm. What ever effect that has had we would now have to add twice that amount to get an equal reaction, due to the diminishing effect increasing CO2 has.
And we also have to consider the LARGE increase in CH4, & chloroflurocarbons.
Wake me up when something actually bad happens
Transport…”Weve added about 130ppm”.
That’s based on cherry picked samples from ice cores in Antarctica. No one knows what the CO2 concentration was pre Industrial Era.
The Little Ice Age was at a peak back then and one would expect the atmospheric CO2 to be lower in a cold spell.
Gordon Robertson says:
No one knows what the CO2 concentration was pre Industrial Era.
Baloney. There are plenty of proxies. Go learn.
DA…”There are plenty of proxies.”
You mean like Mann’s 1000 years of proxies that were showing warming in the late 20th century while real temps were rising?
{giggle} yes Gordon, those
“Double double, toil and trouble . . . ” –
Wm. Shakespeare.
If you passionately believe in dangerous man-made global warming due to CO2 emissions, here are a few tried and tested words and turns of phrase that will help you to overcome those nasty, evil, twisted skeptics.
Firstly, do not, ever, call it dangerous man-made global warming. It’s such a mouthful and far too hard to say. Climate change is much better.
Now learn the following:
97% of scientists
strawman
since records began
cherry pick
peer review
highest ever
record high
liar
likely
the science
ocean acidification
extreme
debunk
Other suggestions are welcome.
Of course, there’s also…….DENIER!
Hi Carbon500
feel free to setup the complementary list, starting with
alarmist
uberalarmist
etc etc
Those certain we are going to leave this icebox climate, very soon, maybe, tomorrow or the next day.
Those who think an average global temperature of 16 C is coming soon.
Those who think 15 C is very warm.
Those that think Canada which has average temperature of -4 C, will get average temperature of 10 C, soon.
Those that think a thousand years is soon.
Carbon500 says:
If you passionately believe in dangerous man-made global warming due to CO2 emissions….
What do you mean by “dangerous?”
DA: “What do you mean by ‘dangerous’?”
I’m not going to respond to this.
You know of course full well what the whole CO2 saga is about.
You can’t define the words you use?
How very typical. Just goes to show….
More seriously, it’s good to see analyses of data from the real world such the one posted by Dr. Spencer above. It makes for fascinating reading. Given the irresponsible nonsense in so many media proclamations, there’s a real need for some hard facts. Many thanks.
Carbon.
Lets face it. Roy is throwing you guys some highly select cuts of red meat to confirm your biases, and make you feel warm and fuzzy about your beliefs.
Just look at Fig 1 (one selected state – one selected month) and Fig 6 (a denier favorite reconstruction with no modern warming!).
C’mon.
Nate: In my view, these are exactly the sort of studies which are greatly needed. Real world national and regional data, worldwide, going back a century or more, and coming from professional meteorologists, not computer modellers and their like. Then let’s see how much climates around the world have actually changed.
Have you read the rest of the article? Doesn’t it make you think, at least a little, that the doom-mongers who measure fractional temperature changes (to a hundredth of a degree!) and are claiming climatic Armageddon due to mankind might just have it wrong?
Roy didn’t give you a “study,” he gave you a cherry pick. While ignoring the rapid warming in the USA48.
DA: Where did I say that Dr. Spencer had presented a study?
Since when have fractional temperature changes defined climate, whether on a local or national scale?
c500: Since they have been increasing.
‘Real world national and regional data, worldwide, going back a century or more, and coming from professional meteorologists,’
Real world is fine. But cherry-picked real world is not fine.
Data selected and misrepresented in order to mislead not ok.
For example Fig 6, shows a red stripe indicating where ‘period allegedly warmed by humans’ is supposed to be, but warming is conspicuously absent. The reconstruction cannot resolve that period of rapid warmth, which we know from the thermometer record is ~ 1 C.
This is intentionally misleading. If your ok with being misled, well..
nate…”Roy is throwing you guys some highly select cuts of red meat to confirm your biases….”
Roy is telling the truth. It is you alarmists who are so myopic and thick-headed, who cannot see the truth when it hits you.
Rory cherry picked this particular situation, while ignoring the fast warming taking place across the continental US?
Is it at all surprising that you UAHs temperature trend is the lowest of everyones?
david…”Rory cherry picked this particular situation, while ignoring the fast warming taking place across the continental US?”
Only an idiot thinks it’s warming in the continental US. Not a shred of proof and no one can go on the NOAA/GISS data since it is fudged. Of course, an idiot would not think so.
Gordon,
Sounds like you are quite happy to be misled, as long as its leading you where you already want to go.
Bindidon
Of those who regularly comment on this blog, my two favorites are you and LP. I can’t decide who I like better. 😏
Thanks to both for your unique, fact based input.
Thanks Snape!
La Pangolina (Rose in real life) is my lady, we both love to look at data, she is good in using Excel, and I ‘do my very best’ using Linux, writing little pieces of software etc.
That this blog’s dumbest commenter constantly attacks us with his lies leaves us completely cold. Now and then, Rose is a little harder with him, he deserves that, too.
*
There are however people having much a closer look at climate data than I could ever do, e.g. Nick Stokes, or Clive Best who recently created a fantastic evaluation of NOAA’s 30 GB GHCN daily record using icosahedrons.
Have a look at it! I’m sure you will enjoy.
http://clivebest.com/blog/?p=7820
J.-P.
binny….”we both love to look at data, she is good in using Excel, and I do my very best using Linux….”
I am not convinced both of you exist. I think you are such an ego-tripper that when you left here in a snit you needed to invent an alter-ego to return while saving face.
AFAIC, La P is binny. It’s too cute that you leave one day and a few days later La P shows up complete with the same attitude as you and with a memory of past events.
What you don’t get is that your amateur number crunching in Excel, by which you produce a close fit between UAH data and that of Had-crut and NOAA, is utter nonsense.
30-day average SOI is now -8 and dropping sharply.
The last severe El Nino event in 2015-2016 saw values as low as -20.
Mean while the overall oceanic surface temperatures are trending lower which is what really matters when it comes to the climate.
Getting worried?
You predicted cooling by the end of this summer(NH).
myki…”30-day average SOI is now -8 and dropping sharply.
The last severe El Nino event in 2015-2016 saw values as low as -20.”
Bring it on. We’ve had two major EN’s since 1997 and one lesser EN in 2010. The net warming of the first 2 was zero and the most recent is heading back to the flat trend.
No sign whatsoever of a CO2 warming signal nor should there be. A gas comprising 0.04% of atmospheric gases does not control the temperature of the atmosphere. Only an idiotic pseudo-scientists would claim it has a significant effect.
Roy has claimed it should have some effect and I can live with that, however, talking about catastrophic changes in climate is sheer nonsense.
And how many La Ninas since 1997?
Gordon Robertson says:
No sign whatsoever of a CO2 warming signal nor should there be
Gordon thinks CO2 doesn’t absorb IR, a statement contrary to reality (J Tyndall 1861 and beyond).
Observation of a CO2 signal:
http://agwobserver.wordpress.com/2009/08/02/papers-on-changes-in-olr-due-to-ghgs/
“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
These are the same stupid, tired and worn out papers that claim you can exclusively count increased opacity around the wing lines of CO2 and claim from that, that this CO2 warming nonsense is validated.
This discussion has graduated far beyond this, Appell, but being the fool you are, you stay stuck on first base.
Chuck…”This discussion has graduated far beyond this, Appell, but being the fool you are, you stay stuck on first base”.
Amen.
Chuck Wiese says:
These are the same stupid, tired and worn out papers that claim you can exclusively count increased opacity around the wing lines of CO2 and claim from that, that this CO2 warming nonsense is validated.
That’s not even close to a scientific critique.
You don’t have one.
The papers Appell refers to all use one or more software programs to translate spectral differences into forcings. No actual temperature response was measured. Anderson et al. explain it like this:
“The task of the climate analyst only begins when good data become available. The spectra in Fig. 8a [Harries el al., 2001] are the result of a superposition of two different effects. First, there is an increase of greenhouse gases from 1970 to 1996 that gives rise to recognizable bands in the observed spectrum. This effect is known and understood theoretically and is the basis for the climate forcings of all GCMs. Harries et al. [2001] showed that the expected bands could be detected in the observed IRIS/IMG difference spectra, confirming the capabilities of the two observing systems. But the important problem for modern climate science is to predict and to measure the response of other atmospheric variables (temperature, humidity and cloud) to a climate forcing. These changes also leave characteristic imprints on the outgoing thermal spectrum. The requirement is to separate forcing and response, and to compare the response to theoretical predictions.”
https://www.atmos.umd.edu/~dankd/AndersonEtAl2004.pdf
Merci / thanks for the intelligent, educating comment. This is a wonderful recovery from Robertson’s incredible scrap.
Thank you. I strive to make my comments constructive as you seem to do as well.
I am increasingly reluctant to respond to those who pollute this blog with insults and wild speculation. That goes for GR, in particular.
Chuck
You claim there has been no recent warming in Oregon, yet admitted the source for that claim, Mark Albright’s plots (where does he get his data from?) ended in 2013, and more up-to-date data shows otherwise:
1979 – 2018
UAH/LT: + 0.19 C. /decade
1979 – 2017
NOAA: 0.27 C. /decade (climate at a glance)
********
You also said Albright’s analysis of rural stations around Oregon match well with the satellite record. If he is correct, then by looking at the UAH trend above, we can infer similar warming for those sites: +0.19 C. /decade since 1979
(Thanks again to Bindidon)
Snape says:
July 6, 2018 at 6:54 AM
… Mark Albrights plots (where does he get his data from?)
This was original GHCN data. More a bit later.
Is there a link, maybe, so anyone can examine the data?
Or it is secret?
I told that so many times.
https://tinyurl.com/y9uyykgz
If you want to get time series out of that stuff, you have to process it like my life companion did. Lots of work.
So, still no data.
Meanwhile, lots of data here:
https://davidappell.blogspot.com/2018/07/oregons-rural-warming.html
binny…”This was original GHCN data….”
Before it was fudged by NOAA.
Whats your proof it was fudged just Gordon?
See below.
Bindidon
How does the GHCN data relate to NOAA? As I mentioned above, NOAA claims a + 0.27 C./decade warming for Oregon (since 1979), but your look at the GHCN sites indicate + 0.19 C.
…but your look at the GHCN sites indicate + 0.19 C.
—
No!
What you looked at was a comparison between UAH6.0’s 2.5 degree grid data for Oregon
– using a coordinate rectangle akin to Oregon’s surface (12 grid cells)
– using the set of 9 cells encompassing the locations of Oregon’s GHCN V3 stations active between 1979 and 2018.
Both show indeed 0.19 C / decade.
GHCN V3 Oregon average is 0.36 C / decade.
I’ll discuss that later together with a zoom into Oregon’s Eugene, incomplete datasets etc etc.
Bin
I forgot to say thanks for the Clive Best link. Really interesting.
Dr. Spencer has done a good job in putting into perspective the heat wave that is driving MSM hysteria.
My local media will not publish contributions that can be construed as skeptical, so this blog provides an opportunity to say something that is worthy of note.
We had one day in Minnesota over 90 degrees*, and the media called it an extreme heat wave. I remember heat waves over 100 degrees lasting for days. The media is doing a great disservice by ignoring historical perspective.
(*Clarification – there were a couple stations with UHI that made 90 degrees on the 2nd day.)
Memories aren’t reliable. So you have any data?
Yep,
For the sake of time, I will just give a couple of examples:
07.05.1936 96
07.06.1936 106
07.07.1936 103
07.08.1936 103
07.09.1936 101
07.10.1936 107
07.11.1936 108
07.12.1936 109
07.13.1936 110
07.14.1936 110
07.15.1936 107
07.16.1936 108
07.17.1936 105
07.18.1936 104
07.19.1936 96
Most years nowadays, the highest temperature for the summer does not reach the lowest of the high temperatures in this heat wave.
Heat waves have decreased in intensity. Here is the heat wave from 1983.
07.12.1983 93
07.13.1983 99
07.14.1983 100
07.15.1983 94
But still hotter than what we are experiencing this year.
The best set up for immediate global cooling is overall sea surface temperatures falling and the N. Atlantic remaining cold.
Even a weak El Nino would not change the scenario which unlike the former is more transient but like the former is also a natural climatic event.
This leaves AGW as the odd man out.
Chuck Wiese
Blindidon: Eugene’s weather station is on the far north end of the metro. I have no idea why it is designated as urban.
—
1. Thanks for the humor! I am well known to have ‘Eyes wide shut’.
2. Interesting point! Where, do you think, does ‘nightlight level C’ (the highest in GHCN V3) come from?
It stems from a database, look e.g. at
https://tinyurl.com/yd28cyql
If you don’t accept nightlight’s correlation with urban development: that is your problem.
Moreover, I had a closer look at Eugene/Mahlon’s exact location using
https://www.findlatitudeandlongitude.com/
Unfortunately, the site does not transfer actual info into the URL; I have to show a screenshot instead:
http://4gp.me/bbtc/1530893369556.jpg
Chuck Wiese, if that is not urban for you, please ask Anthony Watts. Sure he is ‘glad to help’.
Et la même remarque vaut a fortiori pour Salem/McNary, n’est-ce pas?
http://4gp.me/bbtc/153089403552.jpg
binny…”Interesting point! Where, do you think, does nightlight level C (the highest in GHCN V3) come from?”
Only idiots would use city lights to determine UHI. The same kind of idiots who would drop a confidence level to 37% to move a cool year into first place as a record.
Dumb, dumber, dumbest commenter evah.
Luckily, there are intelligent people writing here useful things.
You, Robertson, never did and will never be able to.
My current candidate for first prize at claiming cause-effect relationships with natural phenomena is this news from the Jerusalem Post
https://www.jpost.com/Israel-News/Politics-And-Diplomacy/Earthquake-caused-by-Reform-Conservative-Jews-says-Shas-MK-561646
Member of Knesset Yinon Azoulai claimed that the recent 4.1 magnitude earthquake in Israel was caused by non-orthodox Jews pushing for egalitarian prayer rights at the Western Wall (i.e. allowing women to pray there) and incurring the wrath of God. The fingerprints are apparently all there. He even calls the offenders an appropriate name – “falsifiers” those who try to falsify the Jewish religion.
Thx 4 mkg me lol
fah says:
Member of Knesset Yinon Azoulai claimed that the recent 4.1 magnitude earthquake in Israel was caused by non-orthodox Jews pushing for egalitarian prayer rights at the Western Wall (i.e. allowing women to pray there) and incurring the wrath of God.
Radical conservatives in America do this all the time, blaming hurricanes and earthquakes on gays, on gay marriage, on sodomy and more. Pat Robertson does it repeatedly. He can read the mind of god you know. Or at least one of them.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/did-lesbians-cause-hurricanes-irma-and-harvey-god-knows/2017/09/08/638efbca-94bf-11e7-89fa-bb822a46da5b_story.html
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/pat-robertson-flooding/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_disasters_as_divine_retribution
The dangers of leaping to cause and effect know no political, philosophical, or scientific boundaries. Feynman had a lot to say on this topic such as,
“The first principle is that you must not fool yourself and you are the easiest person to fool.”
I believe he also said that one should be the world’s expert on proving one’s own theories wrong. And of course there is the inimitable Feynman quote “So I have just one wish for you – the good luck to be somewhere where you are free to maintain the kind of integrity I have described, and where you do not feel forced by a need to maintain your position in the organization, or financial support, or so on, to lose your integrity. May you have that freedom.” The commencement speech from which the last quote is taken is worthwhile reading for any inquisitive mind.
Feynman would be warming about AGW if he were alive today.
I wish I had a nickel for every time some denier quoted Feynman, as if they think he’d be a CO2 denier.
Odd. Nothing was said about any particular physical theory. There is an oft-used anecdote about a patient seeing a psychiatrist. It goes like this:
A man goes to a psychiatrist. To start things off, the psychiatrist suggests they start with a Rorschach Test. He holds up the first picture and asks the man what he sees.
“A man and a woman making love in a park,” the man replies.
The psychiatrist holds up the second picture and asks the man what he sees.
“A man and a woman making love in a boat.”
He holds up the third picture.
“A man and a woman making love at the beach.”
This goes on for the rest of the set of pictures; the man says he sees a man and a woman making love in every one of the pictures. At the end of the test, the psychiatrist looks over his notes and says, “It looks like you have a preoccupation with sex.”
And the man replies, “Well, you’re the one with the dirty pictures.”
DA…”Feynman would be warming about AGW if he were alive today…”
Feynman was very aware and he would not fall for the propaganda spread by dimwit alarmists.
Gordon, another of your laughable moments. Thanks for the chuckle.
I currently live in Birmingham AL. Looking at the historical records these past few summers especially this year werent even close to being the hottest summers on record. I am originally from Miami and let me tell you when it gets to be triple digits here in Birmingham Im sure its a totally different ballgame that I do not plan to witness.
So?
The temperature data for Birmingham show a good bit of warming since 1970:
https://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/stdata_show.cgi?id=425722280000&ds=5&dt=1
Check bottom of page for Birmingham days > 95F
http://www.climatecentral.org/gallery/maps/days-above-100f-projections
Ouch. That’s gotta suck.
In Germany, Solar Power is just 1% of the Primary Energy consumption. Wind Power is 2.4%.
German Ministry of Economics, 2017.
Not enough space for Wind Turbines. Actually in Bavaria there will be no new one. There must 2 km distance from any windmill to houses.
Johannes Herbst says:
July 6, 2018 at 12:41 PM
In Germany, Solar Power is just 1% of the Primary Energy consumption. Wind Power is 2.4%.
In theory correct, but… in practice, you first should consider the following repartition of 2,642 TWh consumed in Germany in 2016:
– mineral oil: 935
– gas: 644
– electricity: 515
– nonelectric renewables, others: 183
This means that electricity accounted in the end for no more than 23 %. And solar plus wind were no more than 25 % of these 23.
*
Not enough space for Wind Turbines.
Is that really the point?
How many offshore wind parks were planned for 2020 in… 2010? How many of them will produce electricity in 2020?
Johannes…”In Germany, Solar Power is just 1% of the Primary Energy consumption. Wind Power is 2.4%”.
How many coal-fired plants are they building to replace their discarded nuclear generators?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_in_Germany
Here are all sources of energy for electric power in Germany over time.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c9/Energiemix_Deutschland.svg
Nuclear is Kernenergie.
‘Solar and wind are relatively diffuse (and thus expensive) sources of energy’
Are they??
Lets look an existing source, Hydroelectric power, and compare to solar.
Hoover Dam, produces max 2 GW, and generates full power 25% of the time (25% capacity factor).
It covered 400 km^2 of land with water (Lake Meade).
Suppose we covered 400 km^2 of land with solar panels. 1 km^2 receives max of 1 GW. Suppose we can extract 10% of that.
That’s 40 GW max.
We can also get ~ 25% capacity factor.
So is it too diffuse? Not really.
Expensive? No. It is now < $ 0.8/Watt installed. Other PP range from $0.6 – $5/ watt installed.
“Lets look an existing source, Hydroelectric power, and compare to solar.
Hoover Dam, produces max 2 GW, and generates full power 25% of the time (25% capacity factor).
It covered 400 km^2 of land with water (Lake Meade).
Suppose we covered 400 km^2 of land with solar panels. 1 km^2 receives max of 1 GW. Suppose we can extract 10% of that.”
One could cover lake with solar panels.
Oh, but wait, the lake is used for recreational use.
Wiki:
“Since about 1900, the Black Canyon and nearby Boulder Canyon had been investigated for their potential to support a dam that would control floods, provide irrigation water and produce hydroelectric power. In 1928, Congress authorized the project.”
So, it makes lake for recreational use, controls floods, and provide irrigational water. And ” is a major tourist attraction; nearly a million people tour the dam each year.”
It seems fewer are going visit solar farms. And they don’t stop floods, and don’t provide water, and hoover dam has been used for 80 years.
Oldest solar farm in world:
“Toledo-PV: The Oldest Solar 1MW In the World has been Operating for 23 years 1993/2016 Abstract/Summary: The paper is a summary of the energy production during the 20 years, 1994-2014, of operation of the photovoltaic plant, Toledo-PV.
https://decentesimas.wordpress.com/2017/02/18/toledo-pv-the-oldest-solar-1mw-power-plant-in-the-world/
That might be tourist attraction in another couple decades- come and see one the dumbest things people wasted money on in 20th century.
Moving the goal posts.
The question was simply ‘how diffuse’ and ‘how expensive’.
I would imagine coal mines and power plants, ash pits, and toxic runoff from these are also not tourist attractions.
Ash pits:
“Coal ash, also referred to as coal combustion residuals (CCR), can be used in different products and materials. Coal ash can be beneficially used to replace virgin materials removed from the earth, thus conserving natural resources. EPA encourages the beneficial use of coal ash in an appropriate and protective manner, because this practice can produce positive environmental, economic, and product benefits such as:
reduced use of virgin resources,
lower greenhouse gas emissions,
reduced cost of coal ash disposal, and
improved strength and durability of materials.”
https://www.epa.gov/coalash/coal-ash-reuse
And:
“What is Coal Ash?
Coal ash is chemically similar to clay, essentially a calcined or fired clay which lends itself as a replacement for natural resources.
…
Since 1951, AEP has been a pioneer in many of the utilizations of coal ash in the construction of its own power plants. Dams, plant roads, stacks, cooling towers and even the company’s 31-story headquarters building in Columbus have been constructed with the help of this versatile and plentiful material.”
https://www.aep.com/about/b2b/CoalCombustionProducts/coalash.aspx
So if coal ash is used to make a dam, it will be part of tourist attractions.
All very nice, but like putting lipstick on a pig.
Chuck Wiese
“But that is you, Appell. Youre incompetent.”
https://atmos.washington.edu/marka/oregon/salem.1932_2013.png
Well Chuck Wiese, mayby I have ‘Eyes wide shut’ all the time, but what I immediately saw in Albright’s graph was this so pretty inconspicuous letter sequence “Max”.
That lets me ask you: Are you incompetent or did you intentionally manipulate this blog’s readers?
I produced a time series out of the GHCN daily station Salem/McNary, and here is the result:
1. TMAX 1932-2013
http://4gp.me/bbtc/1530912046112/001.jpg
2. TAVG 1932-2013
http://4gp.me/bbtc/1530912108492/001.jpg
I guess you see a little difference, huh?
And by the way:
– Why did Albright choose TMAX when TAVG is the most used measurement? He had everything a hand:
https://atmos.washington.edu/marka/c30.cgi?sle
– why did Albright start in 1932? The Salem record is quite a lot incomplete between 1893 and 1913, but starting in 1914 wouldn’t have been that bad, would it?
http://4gp.me/bbtc/1530912423357/001.jpg
In my native language we love to say: “Tel est pris qui croyait prendre”.
And, I wonder why Albright’s plot stops in 2013.
For Salem:
2015 was the warmest year in the records.
2014 was 4th warmest.
2016 was 5th warmest.
Seems awful convenient to leave these year out….
For Oregon:
2015 was the warmest year in the records.
2014 was 3rd warmest.
2016 was 7th warmest.
Data for Salem:
Source:
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/stdata/
(scroll to bottom of page)
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/stdata_show.cgi?id=425726940000&ds=5&dt=1
And it seems odd that CWiese wouldn’t notice that the data stopped in 2013, and question why.
And it’s even odder still that CWiese thinks Salem temperatures say something about global warming.
What’s the ration of the area of Salem OR to the area of the globe, Chuck?
binny….”I produced a time series out of the GHCN daily station Salem/McNary, and here is the result:”
Good grief!! Another fudged time series from Binny.
Blindidon: “That lets me ask you: Are you incompetent or did you intentionally manipulate this blog’s readers?”
Me: With reference to the use of Tmax or Tmin, when we see that most all of these stations in urban areas have experienced increases in nighttime temperatures due to the UHI, which is the best set to use to subtract out the UHI effect? Tmax!
And if we are talking about validating the claim that CO2 is causing “climate change”, then both sets should have the CO2 warming signal in them. But they don’t. Why is that Blindidon? Or should I direct that question to the incompetent David Appell, who never answers legit questions?
There have been significant changes in the morphing versions of the surface temperature records and considerable discussion as to how the plots of temperatures keep changing. An in depth analysis here, and Gordon Robinson has already linked it, but I’ll provide it for you in case you missed it:
https://chiefio.wordpress.com/gistemp/
GISS and NOAA have unquestionably buggered the data sets to get the sort of temperature trends they seek to validate their failed modeling, but more importantly, this analysis shows nearly ALL of the warming signal in Tave is obtained with rising minimum temperatures, just like you demonstrated for Salem, OR. That is the reason why Tmax is the only marker that can delineate whether the TAVE is valid for CO2 warming or not. And as you just demonstrated, CO2 is not valid as a cause for Tave because it would have to contain warming from both data sets and it doesn’t. Maybe you don’t care about this, but those of us interested in validating the cO2 warming claims are. That would include Albright, myself and many others.
You asked why Mark Albright started his record in 1932. I can assure you the reason is not to cherry pick a data set. You just demonstrated why it doesn’t matter.
Thanks for the plot differentiation to highlight these points.
Upthread I asked you to plot the UAH temperature grids that you also used, “placed above” the stations like Salem, Eugene, ect. Could you please provide this as well and link it? And what about the entire Oregon grid using UAHv6 LT Could you provide this as well?
Thank You!
One additional point of clarification to my post above. When you plotted Salem temps Tmax with Tave, it needs to be pointed out that in this analysis of these temperature records, another thing that NOAA and GISS did was to deliberately COOL the early part of first order station records. In this category, there is absolutely no reason to do this. We saw this done at EUG and many other first order stations in the record, which explains why Tmax and Tave show warming in your last example. It isn’t real when data is manipulated in this manner.
This
NOAA/NCD~C: GHCN The Global Analysis
https://chiefio.files.wordpress.com/2009/11/thermometer-records-by-year.gif?w=622&zoom=2
is very probably the dumbest manipulation I have ever seen. Simply disgusting.
Bindidon generates for each run over GHCN V3 monthly or GHCN V4 daily data an associated time series showing the number of stations active in each year.
No: he won’t invoke the wayback machine to get the GHCN V2 dataset valid at the time your ridiculous ‘Chiefio’ produced the graph, and check if it’s right. There are a lot of more meaningful tasks to do.
“No: he wont invoke the wayback machine to get the GHCN V2 dataset valid at the time your ridiculous Chiefio produced the graph, and check if its right. There are a lot of more meaningful tasks to do.”
Of course. And what would those tasks be? To continue to ignore how data sets have been tortured by NOAA and GISS in the present versions to cover up model failure?
If it’s so disgusting, then maybe you and your sweetie should take the time to refute it. After all, we all want the truth about this CO2 warming nonsense, don’t we?
Where is a link to the data?
Why does the plot stop at 2013, five years before today?
Chuck Wiese says:
Of course. And what would those tasks be? To continue to ignore how data sets have been tortured by NOAA and GISS in the present versions to cover up model failure?
1) How would you correct for the observational biases?
2) Adjustments reduce the long-term warming trend.
Salem McNary was a first order station after 1937, Appell. You don’t even follow this conversation or understand why there are designations.
Chuck Wiese says:
July 6, 2018 at 5:12 PM
To continue to ignore how data sets have been tortured by NOAA and GISS in the present versions to cover up model failure?
Where is a scientific proof of this discriminating, denigrating claim?
Nowhere, Chuck Wiese, excepted in blogs.
La Pangolina : “Where is a scientific proof of this discriminating, denigrating claim?
Nowhere, Chuck Wiese, excepted in blogs.”
Me: And just where do you think your going to find it elsewhere? In a revered journal that is heavily invested in fronting this crap about CO2 warming?
Having these studies published in one of these journals is the equivalent of presenting garlic and a cross to Count Dracula. It would mean a sure and swift death to the billions of dollars being wasted on this racket and the fact that these censored authors from the journals are getting their message out anyway is very damaging.
Like I said before, if you think all of this blog research is crap, then you should step forward and refute it. It would appear you have all the tools at our disposal for a good start.
So what is the matter with you? Are you frightened about what you might be able to replicate in these analyses?
Chuck uses his bias against science to make up accusations about journals keeping people like him out of their pages. (Not that he has ever bothered to submit a paper to any of them, mind you.)
When you are facing a much better team, try to work the refs.
Chuck…”Of course. And what would those tasks be? To continue to ignore how data sets have been tortured by NOAA and GISS in the present versions to cover up model failure?”
Binny does no care if NOAA/GISS are outright cheats. Neither do any of the alarmists on this blog.
Gordon is the cheat and liar. He doesn’t have a scintilla of evidence that NO.AA has cheated on anything. But he’s frustrated by reality, and he finds his only option is to make up accusations and denigrate people for no good reason. That’s the kind of guy Gordon is.
Chuck, instead of insulting me, why dont you start providing some data and evidence?
Appell to me:” Idiot. There are temperature data from many stations, many of them rural.
They directly disprove your dumb claim that Oregon has no warming except from the urban heat island. (Note: you have never provided any data yourself.)”
Me: I think Blindidon just demonstrated that I am correct and you are continuing to play the role of a fool that you do very well, here and every place you surface, Appell.
Chuck, now you can’t even read plots, huh?
Many of these stations show warming in rural areas. You don’t get to claim that black is white.
https://davidappell.blogspot.com/2018/07/oregons-rural-warming.html
PS: There plots ARE data, dingo.
Chuck Wiese says:
July 6, 2018 at 5:07 PM
Me: I think Blindidon just demonstrated that I am correct…
WHAT ???
Never and never did Bindidon demonstrate that you are correct!
http://4gp.me/bbtc/1530912423357/001.jpg
This graph demonstrates exactly the inverse, but you absolutely needed to invent some stuff to reject it (see your own comment somewhere above).
Do not try to manipulate us, Chuck Wiese.
Apparently your comprehension is in need of some work. I clarified to you and Blindidon above that the reason why Tmax and Tave show warming when you go back to the beginning of the record is because NASA GISS and NOAA have mauled that record and COOLED Tmax without any justification near the beginning of it.
THAT is why you can get a closer match in comparing the records when you go back that far.
And I’ll ask you a question. Why is Tmax showing no warming beyond 1930 when atmospheric CO2 has risen substantially since then?
In order to be clear:
I am not at all interested in these unscientific discussions concerning any proof or disproof of CO2’s influence on temperatures, based on so incredibly trivial points like a discrepancy between daily maxima and averages during a well selected period!
La Pangolina:
“I am not at all interested in these unscientific discussions concerning any proof or disproof of CO2s influence on temperatures, based on so incredibly trivial points like a discrepancy between daily maxima and averages during a well selected period!”
Me: Why? This goes directly to the question of whether CO2 is causing warming. So not answering my question and calling it “unscientific” is just plain nonsense and hardly trivial. Isn’t the claimed radiative forcing from CO2 not present on the day side of the earth’s rotation? It most certainly is and if it was operating as the failed models claim it is, then IR emission from solar side forcing from the surface should also surely slow and allow Tmax to rise as well. Why didn’t it?
Can you answer the question to save the failing hypothesis?
binny…”Never and never did Bindidon demonstrate that you are correct!”
Will the real Binny please stand up. Chuck addresses Binny and La P replies.
Blindidon just provided it. So what don’t you explain why Tmax shows no warming if Co2 is the cause of Tave warming?
Why don’t you provide a link to the data?
Why does the plot end in 2013, 5 years earlier than now?
That was Mark Albrights data, who is a Climatologist, not mine. But I’ve already told you, Appell, that everyone knows there was a super El Ninio in 2015 and 2016. Those are natural, not AGW driven but they do cause warming in the western USA.
Chuck: You blindly cited a graph only because you liked its conclusion. You had no idea where the data came from, didn’t verify the results for yourself, and didn’t even care that it was 5-years out-of-date.
So I had to clean all that up for you. You’re welcome.
https://davidappell.blogspot.com/2018/07/is-salem-oregon-warming.html
Chuck Wiese says:
July 6, 2018 at 4:54 PM
it needs to be pointed out that in this analysis of these temperature records, another thing that NOAA and GISS did was to deliberately COOL the early part of first order station records.
Typical paranoid pseudoskeptic blah blah a la Robertson, all bloody stuff he picks up from lying web sites like chiefio, goddard, hockeyschtick etc etc.
Should you have real interest in communicating with Bindidon and me, so I think it would be a good start to avoid such unproven nonsense in the future.
A typical example of this unproven nonsense is your Eugene/Mahlon station in OR.
I obtained from J.-P. a time series he generated out of GHCN V3 for this station.
Linear estimates for GHCN:
– Feb 1942 – May 2017: 0.29 C / decade
– Dec 1978 – May 2017: 0.49 C / decade
After having downloaded the text file in
https://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/stdata_show.cgi?id=425726930000&ds=5&dt=1
Linear estimates for GISS:
– Feb 1942 – May 2017: 0.19 C / decade
– Dec 1978 – May 2017: 0.38 C / decade
That the estimate for UAH6.0’s grid cell above Eugene and Salem (42.5N-45.0N — 125W-122.5W)
– Dec 1978 – May 2017: 0.18 C / decade
is way lower: that is unavoidable when considering only one cell out of 9,504.
Btw: your claim that stations with an incomplete record are unusable is another nonsense: in that case Albright couldn’t have used the GHCN V3 Salem record due to lots of missing months prior to 1914!
But exactly that you wouldn’t have been able to detect, unless you did the processing of the original data by your own.
binny…”Typical paranoid pseudoskeptic blah blah a la Robertson, all bloody stuff he picks up from lying web sites like chiefio….”
I have quoted NOAA directly from their own site and you are too stupid to clue in. NOAA admits that they have slashed over 75% of their 6000 global reporting stations. They admit they use less than 1500 stations globally to produce their data.
Chiefio has done a masterful job revealing which stations they have slashed and how they interpolate data from stations up to 1200 miles apart to synthesize intermediate stations data they have discarded. He claims GHCN has slashed 90% of global data since the early 90s.
In California, NOAA uses only 3 stations, all along the warm coast. None from the Sierra-Nevada mountain locales. In the Canadian Arctic they have only one station, at Eureka. In Bolivia, where it’s cooler at altitude, they just bypass the cooling and interprlate the area using 2 warmer regions.
Since they have resorted to using climate models they are required to produce a confidence level. No problem, NOAA reduced the CL to 48% in 2014 and claimed it as the hottest year on the record. On the UAH dataset, 2014 is several tenths C below 1998 and 2016. It’s even behind 2010.
Alarmists are cheaters and I see you have gotten into the spirit, producing fake graphs on Excel that place the UAH time series and the Had-crut time series nearly on top of each other.
Gordon Robertson says:
They admit they use less than 1500 stations globally to produce their data.
So what?
“Typical paranoid pseudoskeptic blah blah a la Robertson, all bloody stuff he picks up from lying web sites like chiefio, goddard, hockeyschtick etc etc.”
Really? That’s it? That’s all you can offer? What about showing where these authors made mistakes rather than attack them personally?
There is NO QUESTION, NOAA and NASA GISS have been manipulating the surface temperature records. Personal attacks against these authors rather than showing they made mistakes and are wrong is not a convincing strategy.
Where are these authors specifically messing up their analysis?
I agree Chuck . So far 2018 looking good as all trends are down.
Chuck…”Really? Thats it? Thats all you can offer? What about showing where these authors made mistakes rather than attack them personally?”
Because La P is really Bindidon and Bindidon is as much an alarmist, troll, idiot as Appell.
“Because La P is really Bindidon and Bindidon is as much an alarmist, troll, idiot as Appell.”
It’s beginning to look that way, Gordon. This is my first experience with these two. It looks like you’ve been there/done that like I have been doing for years with the incompetent David Appell.
Like Gordon, Chuck substitutes data with name-calling. It seems to be the best they can do.
No we don’t, Appell. You have been given every last bit of data from me that you have ever asked for. The problem with you is that if anything disagrees with your misperceived, wrong and incompetent opinions relating to atmospheric science or AGW, you just ignore them and then make the same request for data, over and over.
You’re the one name calling, not me.
There was no data for Salem Tmax until I went and found it.
Chuck…”No we dont, Appell. You have been given every last bit of data from me that you have ever asked for…”
It’s the alarmist way of doing things. They actually study such ploys in hope of confounding skeptics. Problem is, skeptics are skeptics because they have more intelligence than alarmists.
The only data Chuck ever gave was a plot by someone else that was 5-years out-of-date. He couldn’t even link to the plot’s data.
Chuck…”Its beginning to look that way, Gordon. This is my first experience with these two”.
You may have noted that I address both Bindidon and La P as Binny. There’s a reason.
A while back, Binny got in a snit over proceedings on the blog and announced his/her departure from the blog. A few days later, La P appeared but with the same attitude as Binny and an exacting memory for past events involving Binny.
I smelled at rat. La P claims Binny is her life mate but I am thinking La P was already posting as Bindidon. When Binny departed with a sad epilogue, claiming he/she could no longer bear the context of the blog, I figured he/she would be back as many do under such circumstances.
However, it was not Binny who re-appeared a few days later, it was La P. When challenged, La P claimed to be Bindidon’s life mate and that her name is Rose. I think Rose did not have the courage to appear in the blog as a female and took the persona of a male, as Bindidon.
I have no problem with the possibility that JP, claiming to be Bindidon, and La P, as Rose, are life mates, I just don’t buy into the manipulation of the blog, and science, to appease egos. Rose (La P) is supposed to be the expert in Excel while Binny dabbles with Linux. However, in the past, Binny posted Excel graphs as Binny, not La P.
None of this would be an issue had these two not been uber-alarmists who manipulate data to produce graphs in which UAH time series are shown to be very close to Had-crut and NOAA time series. Using Excel, as amateurs and alarmists, they manipulate the data between series with vastly different baselines to produce overlapping graphs that appear to be very similar.
Trolls tend to have ego issues and they will go to great lengths to placate their egos. I have seen trolls appear on blogs under many different personas until being revealed by someone who was smarter. Only trolls would come onto Roy’s blog and use his data against him in such a nefarious manner.
Thank you for this, Gordon. A great perspective to approach them with.
Chuck Wiese
Concerning your TAVG vs TMAX nonsense, I invite you to have a closer look at a chart with plots comparing them for the entire CONUS.
{ I could do the same for the Globe, but it would take about two hours to process all the 30 GB, and it is here 4 AM now. }
Tmin / Tavg / Tmax
http://4gp.me/bbtc/1530927891244/001.jpg
Active stations in each year:
http://4gp.me/bbtc/1530927589513/001.jpg
I’m sure you will manage to cherry-pick some period, and tell me: “You see? I’m right! Tmax has a lower trend than Tavg!”.
I’m so sad of such ridiculous discussions…
Blindidon and Lapangolina:
This note is also meant to greet you both when you wake up Saturday morning to let you know, that Mark Albright chose 1938 as a starting point because before this time, Salem, OR was not a first order station. The conversion took place in 1937 and before this time, there were months of records missing from the station.
So why would both of you decide its OK to plot a temperature graph at this location prior to this year? You are guestimating temperatures just like NOAA and NASA GISS do and it would be very easy to rig a cooler record into the volumes of missing months.
Why would you want to do this? Mixing different classes of observations is a no no for anyone who knows how to generate proper climatological statistics.
Starting at 1938, my data show a linear trend for Tmax of +0.09 F/decade.
https://davidappell.blogspot.com/2018/07/is-salem-oregon-warming.html
By the way, the trend of Tmax since 1970 is +0.31 F/decade. Just saying.
This is a good example of how linear trends are meaningless without knowing the cause of their result. This is because of the super El Ninio of 2015 and 2016.
But someone who as dishonest as you, Appell, will not make the distinction and blame it all on CO2.
That’s how this game is played by all of the special interests that want money and careers out of promoting this rot.
Chuck always has some excuse.
Chuck…”This is a good example of how linear trends are meaningless without knowing the cause of their result”.
Chuck, you are dealing with trolls/alarmists who have no idea what a trend means outside of the amateur practice of number crunching. In the case of Binny, he/she enters numbers blindly into Excel without consideration of the contexts represented by the data.
The UAH trend, quoted as 0.12C/decade has at least three major contexts. The first, from 1979 till 1997 is a recovery from cooling. Most of the data is below the baseline. The second is from late 1997 – 1915, which represents a flat trend. The IPCC admitted to 15 years of the flat trend from 1998 – 2012, calling it a hiatus.
The third is the EN of early 2016 and its lingering effect. The UAH trend should be quoted in at least three parts but that won’t happen due to scientific protocol and paradigms.
The trend itself means nothing and it in no way suggests anthropogenic warming.
The UAH LT v6.0 trend is +0.13 C/decade.
How deniers like Chuck sees global warming:
https://tinyurl.com/ya65jlqc
I do find the trend from 1938-2013 to be zero. These last four years were very warm here, and make a significant difference!
So it turns out that the “trick” (ahem) to Chuck’s claim is: don’t include all the data.
Sneaky!
Yes. From a natural phenomena called El Ninio. But that doesn’t count in your myopic world, so you just ignore it.
Very sneaky and dishonest.
Why wasn’t there any warming in Tmax before this? CO2 was rising steadily through the 70 years of record. Doesn’t CO2 affect Tmax? It absolutely should if it is causing warming.
Why won’t you answer this, Appell?
Chuck, can we also take the La Ninas out of the data?
Why are El Nino seasons getting warmer and warmer?
And La Nina seasons?
And neutral seasons?
https://nca2014.globalchange.gov/report/appendices/climate-science-supplement/graphics/warming-trend-and-effects-el-ni%C3%B1ola-ni%C3%B1a
Appell: That you would take a computer simulation by Gavin at GISS (who has also engaged in torturing the surface temperature record) and claim this shows how temperatures have warmed with all three ocean cycles goes to demonstrated that you aren’t bright enough to distinguish between simulations and reality.
Just look at the UAH temperature records. Such trends do not exist and this crappy graph doesn’t even display time across the abscissa. But that’s your level of sophistication, Appell.
It’s not a “computer simulation,” it’s merely a plot of the observed data.
And yes it is true for UAH. (Which you’d see if you ever looked at the data.) For UAH LT v6.0
* the warmest El Nino season is 2015-2016.
* the warmest La Nina season is 2016-2017
* the warmest neutral season is 2014-2015.
The 2015-2016 El Nino season average 0.47 C for UAH LT v6.0.
The 1997-98 El Nino season averaged 0.35 C.
The 1982-83 season averaged -0.16 C.
Next time try looking at the data before you write.
Up until this last El Ninio, Tmax was showing a slight cooling. That was over a span of 70 years. Why was it, Appell? You never answer questions like this. Do GHG’s stop working on the solar side of an earth rotation?
Atmospheric CO2 rose substantially from just over 280 ppmv to 394 ppmv, but no warming at this first order station in Tmax.
You aren’t the first person of the army of climate hysterics that always use individual Tmax values as proof of CO2 warming.
You first used Tmax bub, not me.
Now you’re trying to cherry pick. Typical denier behavior.
Appell, here is you commenting to Roy Spencer:
“Perhaps Public Citizen is wrong. But the USA48 is definitely getting warmer, and fast.
Since 1895 the total warming is 1.0 C.
But in the last 30 years, the trend is +0.27 C/decade. In fact, this has been the trend, +/- a few hundreths, since the early 60s.
Thats +0.49 F/decade !”
What do these measurements (that are corrupted by NASA GISS and NOAA) use to give the result they do? Just Tmin?
You have no cohesiveness in anything you say from one post to the next.
So now the data are corrupted, you say.
The same data you cited for 1938-2013!
You are using every excuse in the denier book, even if they aren’t self-consistent.
Which is it, CWeise — are the data OK to use, or are they corrupted?
Explain the dichotomy.
Blindidon: “Concerning your TAVG vs TMAX nonsense, I invite you to have a closer look at a chart with plots comparing them for the entire CONUS. ”
OK. I looked. Tmin and Tave look like they warm after about 1990, but Tmax doesn’t show this at all, but in fact, slight cooling after the 1930’s which fits into many discussions about how the 1930’s were the warmest decade in the thermometer record for the USA. Before then from the beginning of the record, they warm.
Why do you think these discussions are ridiculous? Because you can find problems with these records validating the CO2 warming hypothesis?
Chuck: the NWS data I obtained show a clear warming trend in Salem’s Tmax:
https://davidappell.blogspot.com/2018/07/is-salem-oregon-warming.html
Even since 1938.
After the super El Ninio of 2015 and 2016. I’ve already pointed this out, Appell. There was no warming before 2014 and before this event. Why is this, Appell, if CO2 is causing warming?
The positive linear trend in Tave is the summation of Tmin and Tmax, and Tmin was the only part of the record that warmed. That is because of UHI and why you look at both to validate CO2 warming. If it’s not in the record, then it’s not causing warming.
Why don’t you explain this, Appell? You never do. Anything that warms in your world is proof of AGW.
This is just one reason why I think you are incompetent. You never address anything like this and frequently will blame something completely natural on AGW.
shorter Chuck: if you leave out warmest years, there is no warming.
Typical.
I didn’t leave them out, Appell. I’ve explained them. But you won’t answer my question about why the record of Tmax shows no warming at Salem before 2014 with rising CO2.
Why won’t you, Appell? This is you to a tee. You absolutely refuse to see any warming in a record in any other way, except to blame it on CO2. That is your ultimate confirmation bias.
If you were a researcher working for any corporation and handled data in this manner in your summary reports you would have been swiftly fired years ago.
Again, you don’t get to throw away data you don’t like.
First you use the station data to claim the trend is 0. Then you claim the surface stations aren’t good (Watts).
Which is it?
Salem McNary field is a first order station, Appell. At least for now, the placement of the thermometers meet those standards. Urbanization cannot be controlled to accommodate a thermometer sensor, so the UHI effect cannot be ignored. It is glaringly apparent in this record like many other urban observations and it is obvious that is why Tave shows a positive trend in temperature.
Your reasoning is shallow and incorrect.
Chuck: So when you used the data to show no trend, the data were OK.
But when I included the data you left out, suddenly the data are no good because of the UHI?
You said the warming in recent years was from an El Nino (even though 2014-15 wasn’t an El Nino, and 2016-2017 and 2017-18 were La Ninos). Now you’re saying the warming is due to a UHI?
What’s next — Jupiter has aligned with Mars, throwing off global temperatures?
Get your story straight, man.
Appell: ” So when you used the data to show no trend, the data were OK.
But when I included the data you left out, suddenly the data are no good because of the UHI?”
Me : No Appell. As usual, you don’t get it. Tave, which shows warming is accurate. The problem is, it doesn’t prove this was caused by AGW as you always claim. For that to happen, Tmax had to increase as well and it didn’t And Albright used Tmax because it hasn’t warmed, and the warming record in Tave was caused by UHI. The question is whether any warming is caused by AGW, and this record does not support that notion.
I know that’s hard for you to comprehend, Appell, as you demonstrate by asking the same question no matter the answer you are given, because in your world, any warming is proof of AGW.
Chuck: WHERE IS YOUR DATA?
Data = a list of ASCII numbers I can download and calculate with.
Where it is?????????????
And I mean up-to-date data, not numbers you cherry pick by fraudulently leaving out the warm years.
This is brilliant:
Chuck Wiese says:
Tave, which shows warming is accurate. The problem is, it doesnt prove this was caused by AGW as you always claim. For that to happen, Tmax had to increase as well and it didnt
Tmax’s trend for Salem from 1938 to present was as I gave, +0.09 F/decade.
https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-xq6SVuqG_5o/W0D4vW7Ym-I/AAAAAAAAKwU/LCzGuUEM9Hk_VqzsxBCnVi168YgaBhj5gCLcBGAs/s640/Salem%2BTmax%2Bannual%2Bavg%2B1938-2017.JPG
That’s warming.
This is brilliant:
Chuck Wiese says:
Tave, which shows warming is accurate. The problem is, it doesnt prove this was caused by AGW as you always claim. For that to happen, Tmax had to increase as well and it didnt
Tmax’s trend for Salem from 1938 to present is, as I gave, +0.09 F/decade.
https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-xq6SVuqG_5o/W0D4vW7Ym-I/AAAAAAAAKwU/LCzGuUEM9Hk_VqzsxBCnVi168YgaBhj5gCLcBGAs/s640/Salem%2BTmax%2Bannual%2Bavg%2B1938-2017.JPG
That’s warming.
Chuck Wiese says:
July 6, 2018 at 8:42 PM
“Why do you think these discussions are ridiculous? Because you can find problems with these records validating the CO2 warming hypothesis?”
Of course no! I personally have no interest in discussing about CO2’s influence on climate, because it is a far too complex area, handling thousands of observations, highly interrelated rules, and so son.
I’m sorry, but your approach is so horribly simple compared with what really scientific educated people do since years and years.
If I wasn’t so lazy, I would go into the model customisation corner this genial KNMI climate explorer, and I could then show you what you have to do there to gat a little clue of actual work.
Btw: do you know that your 2 W/m^2 in excess at OLR, which you think is a marker demonstrating CO2’s lack of influence on climate, in fact are below OLR’s standard error?
What, do you think, does that mean?
Good luck Chuck Wiese.
I’m sorry for bilybob who asked me for something far more interesting than your thoughts. I lost a lot of time with you!
Blindidon: No! I have lost a lot of time with you. When you are asked legitimate questions, you attack people personally and then run down your rabbit hole.
Lets summarize.
You and La Pangolina like to pass yourselves off as some sort of experts in everything climate but you haven’t demonstrated that here and you are full of contradiction. You and La Pangolina both have told me that you are not interested in discussing anything relating to the science of CO2,but yet, La Pangolina tries to assert she has knowledge in atmospheric science by claiming the UAH temperatures don’t match radiosonde measurements on a constant pressure surface of 600 millibars. She apparently thinks a geometric altitude is the same as geoptential height. That is wrong.
And Now you are telling me that 2Wm-2 is below OLR standard of error. Really? Then why are published research papers being fronted on this site that disagree with your claim?
“CERES Team 2018 table 7 satellite record 3/2000 to 9/2016: All-sky OLR increased 0.19 +/- 0.21 W/m^2/decade or about 0.3 W/m^2 in the satellite era (~1.6 decades) with a range of confidence interval that includes 0.”
“CERES Team on all-sky albedo trend in satellite era (1.6 decades): Decrease of about 0.92 W/m^2 give or take a little.”
Do these published researchers realize your claim of error? Apparently not. Why is that? Do you not know what you’re talking about or does the CERES team play fast and loose with their own estimates? The data published on climate4you with respect to OLR gives numbering to the nearest 1 Wm-2 and you can interpolate in between those numbers on the ordinate axis..Now why would you care about this if you don’t care to get into a discussion about the effects of atmospheric CO2? You argue this and then say you don’t care about it!
Before I go, I have another request from you. You plotted UAHv6 satellite data over a few of he USHCNv3 stations and show they produce a trend of .19 degC/decade since 1978. What if you widen UAHv6 to include all of the Oregon sector grids so that we can measure the same trends at 2 Km where there are no surface weather stations? Could you check that and get back to me, please? One of the advantages of having satellite data over surface stations is that the grids are far more extensive than you could possibly hope to even guess at in a surface constructed network and because of this fact, they are excellent substitutes for rural zones where there are no measurements at the surface.
Satellite data are not as good as the surface data. One sign of this is that RSS’s LT temperature trend is about 50% higher than UAH’s LT trend.
UAH & RSS must now correlate over something like 11 different satellites, going back to 1979. Yes, they have to determine how today’s satellite measurements compare to one 11 generations ago.
Satellite data also require subtle adjustments for satellite drift, orbital decay, diurnal heating, and more.
The leader of RSS thinks surface measurements are superior:
Carl Mears, Senior Research Scientist, Remote Sensing Systems (RSS):
“A similar, but stronger case can be made using surface temperature datasets, which I consider to be more reliable than satellite datasets….”
http://www.remss.com/blog/recent-slowing-rise-global-temperatures
video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8BnkI5vqr_0
I will be using only satellite data . UAH is the gold standard for global temperatures.
Appell, both methods of temperature measurement can have some issues if careful attention is not given to how data is collected.
Mears is not being honest if he believes the surface record is more trustworthy in gathering accurate temperature information given how badly the integrity of the measuring stations had deteriorated after NOAA’s MARS program converted the dedicated observing program to ASOS with badly placed Stevenson screens that were not being maintained.
Anthony Watt’s did a intensive investigation of this and saw the deplorable state this non monitored sites had deteriorated to and this doesn’t even address how NOAA and NASA GISS have tortured the actual records through unjustifiable manipulation, cooling the earlier records and using synthesized algorithms to expand urban influence into rural areas where there are no measurements.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/03/02/alarmists-throw-in-the-towel-on-poor-quality-surface-temperature-data-pitch-for-a-new-global-climate-reference-network/
For anyone knowing this and still claiming the surface temperature records are better than satellite’s for monitoring temperature trends is engaging in deceit or incompetent. But with you, that is nothing new, Appell, like I have demonstrated many, many times.
Again, blog posts aren’t science.
Carl Mears knows the issue far far far better than you do, Chuck.
You don’t get to dismiss his expertise.
UAH has made huge adjustments to their data — last time, some regions were altered more than 1 C for a month.
https://davidappell.blogspot.com/2015/04/some-big-adjustments-to-uahs-dataset.html
Appell: “Carl Mears knows the issue far far far better than you do, Chuck.
You don’t get to dismiss his expertise.”
Me: I just did dismiss his assertions and with robust authority that Watt’s explains well.
And blogs can be as scientific as the participants want to make them, Appell. Your idiotic reasoning always asserts that anything that isn’t published in financially vested journals that promote AGW isn’t worth considering.
UAH has always been on the lookout for anything that can affect the accuracy of what they generate and they always correct for it. The surface temperature record as published by NASA GISS and NOAA has no such luxury. It has been shown many times and in many places how tortured and fraudulent the surface record has become, and even with the problems in measuring, nobody has done a thing to correct much of it today.
And Nobody reads your blog Appell,so if you have something you want to show, just post it here. Your blog doesn’t have the traffic to educate anyone and I’m sure most that do decide to check it out leave after a good laugh.
Chuck Wiese says:
July 7, 2018 at 3:09 PM
I just did dismiss his assertions and with robust authority that Watts explains well.
Sorry, but Watt is a former TV weather reporter.
That he managed to setup the most visited site related to climate matters doesn’t make a climate specialist out of him.
Nor am I a climate specialist let alone ever pretended to be one.
There are good guest posters at WUWT, e.g. Eschenbach, Javier;
and there bad ones too.
binny…”That he managed to setup the most visited site related to climate matters doesnt make a climate specialist out of him”.
Watt is popular because he exposed the dilapidated state of surface stations throughout the States. He revealed surface stations heated by the warm exhaust of an air conditioner in one case and surface stations affected by the heat from cement in others.
Watt is as much a climate specialist as Michael Mann, a geologist, or Gavin Schmidt, a mathematician.
Chuck…”Appell: Carl Mears knows the issue far far far better than you do, Chuck”.
Appell should not be too sure of that. I am not convinced that Mears is not an alarmist at heart. I challenged him once on using reds and browns in his graphics to represent minuscule warming. More recently, he has aligned himself more closely with NOAA with the RSS average rising sharply.
I don’t think RSS can be trusted.
Gordon, sometimes all one can do is laugh at you. This is one of those times.
David Appell has nothing to offer except insults and pseudoscience, as usual.
JD, you’re laugh too, if you were smart enough.
DA…”The leader of RSS thinks surface measurements are superior:”
That’s why I think Mears is an alarmist and proof that RSS was set up to destroy confidence in UAH. How could anyone in his right mind compare fabricated surface data, that barely covers the 30% of land surface, to state of the art technology that covers 95% of the surface, including oceans?
Surface data is deceit. It is based on discarding most of the real data and using some of it in a climate model to fabricate the discarded data. In other words, the surface quacks at Had-crut, GISS, and NOAA have taken to guessing at what they think global temps should be and have manipulated data to realize that guess.
All of them are climate alarmists and have a political bent. That was exposed in the Climategate email scandal when several top IPCC scientists were caught interfering with peer review and adjusting time series to hide cooling. One of them, Mann, referred to that process as The Cause.
Another one, Phil Jones, head of Had-crut, claimed he and ‘Kevin’ would see to it that skeptics’ paper would not get to the IPCC review stage. Kevin seems to be Kevin Trenberth with whom Jones is partnered as a Coordinating Lead Author at IPCC reviews.
Another, Michael Mann, a good friend of Gavin Schmidt of GISS, has admitted to a trick in which cooling in data is hidden. Jones bragged about using the trick himself.
The IPCC is crooked and so is the entire alarmist movement, which is in control of Had-crut, NOAA and GISS.
Now it appears Mears is associated with that mob, which suggests RSS is just as corrupt as they are.
Gordon, what is your evidence of all this “cooking” going on?
You have absolutely none whatsoever.
You construct fantasies to please yourself.
Chuck Wiese says:
July 7, 2018 at 9:02 AM
1. She apparently thinks a geometric altitude is the same as geoptential height. That is wrong.
Sorry, 640 hPa are well known as the atmospheric pressure where UAH measures 264K.
2. All-sky OLR increased 0.19 +/- 0.21 W/m^2/decade or about 0.3 W/m^2 in the satellite era (~1.6 decades) with a range of confidence interval that includes 0.
I was sure you wouldn’t understand because you think of the CI of the increase and not of that of the OLR itself…
https://tinyurl.com/yd429kr8
And btw: what, do you think, does the bolded text exactly mean, Chuck Wiese?
Any idea?
3. You plotted UAHv6 satellite data over a few of the USHCNv3 stations and show they produce a trend of .19 degC/decade since 1978. What if you widen UAHv6 to include all of the Oregon sector grids so that we can measure the same trends at 2 Km where there are no surface weather stations?
3.1 No, Bindidon has the USHCRN record too but doesn’t use it. The data was obtained out of GHCN V3. This something different.
3.2 See
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2018/07/summer-causes-climate-change-hysteria/#comment-310856
All you need is in it.
binny…”I was sure you wouldnt understand because you think of the CI of the increase and not of that of the OLR itself”
The use of a confidence level tells you immediately that results are statistically derived. If the observation had been real, the data would have an error margin.
A CL is a guess (probability), an error margin is an estimate of error from a real measurement.
Gordon Robertson says:
July 7, 2018 at 4:18 PM
… with a range of confidence interval that includes 0
As usual: Robertson shows how incredibly ignorant and pretentious he is.
Learn, Robertson, learn instead of writing your boring nonsense.
Gordon Robertson says:
A CL is a guess (probability)….
Gordon, Gordon, Gordon…. you are just so dim.
Everytime.
La Pangolina: ” Sorry, 640 hPa are well known as the atmospheric pressure where UAH measures 264K.”
1) Me : UAHv6 or any other they have had does not “measure” 264K at 640 millibars. That is a calibration point of some sort that is based upon a standard earth atmosphere. In the real world,640 hPa will seldom have 264K temperature associated with it because of the horizontal advection of temperature and mass within the system. But from this static assumption and weighting function, the difference in spectral radiances from a profile to reality can allow their algorithm to calculate a 2 Km temperature.
The fact that radiosonde balloons do not agree with a static atmosphere at that pressure is to be expected because it is only a reference point. You don’t comprehend this at all if you think that just because of the differences that their algorithm cannot be accurate. And you seem to have already forgotten that you just ran sector grids of UAH data for the points in Oregon placed above these surface sites at 2Km and calculated an identical trend. So your point in all of this would be??
La Pangolina:”I was sure you wouldnt understand because you think of the CI of the increase and not of that of the OLR itself”
2.) Me: No! My figure of 2 Wm-2 is a change of OLR from a starting point in the satellite record to the end. If you claim the margin of error in the instrument is at least 2 Wm-2, then claiming that erases my point is wrong. The margin of error in the instrument carries to any absolute value displayed on the graph. So the delta is identical to the delta’s used in developing the CI’s in those examples I gave you. There is a difference between stating any absolute value is correct if the margin of error is 2 Wm-2 versus stating the 2Wm-2 is a difference between two absolute values which is what I used.
And what’s the point in bringing up the bold text CI of zero? All it means is the authors had good statistical data whose CI interval would have to drop to 5% CI or less not be significant. Are you trying to lecture statistics now to try and obscure that you’re wrong about concerning the meaning of what I said?
La Pangolina: “3.1 No, Bindidon has the USHCRN record too but doesnt use it. The data was obtained out of GHCN V3. This something different.”
3) Me: OK. Fair enough. So are you going to generate a graphing of UAHv6 for all of the Oregon sectors like I asked you to do and link it from here like you did with the Salem data?
By the way, your comment about Anthony Watt’s is ridiculous. You follow the examples of the incompetent David Appell to a tee. Through your myopic lens, nobody is qualified to write about climate, atmospheric science or weather unless they are “designated” by some bogus self proclaimed “authority” that labels all the proponents of this rot “climate scientists”. Do you know what one is? In researching backgrounds like Gordon Robertson did and I have found, they could be just about anybody as long as they have the blessing of the AGW cult.
La Pangolina: And before you go off on a lark and claim that if a margin of error in an OLR instrument is 2 Wm-2 or greater that this can invalidate a delta of 2 Wm-2, then if you’re going to assume it does, then the same would apply to the CERES data. It makes no sense if what you claim were true that any delta to an absolute value of OLR much smaller than 2 Wm-2 or outside the bounds of instrument accuracy is valid either, which the CERES team measured as deltas smaller by an order of magnitude. So it doesn’t matter whether they have a good sampling of data that could make their CI good to include zero. If the sampling falls inside the margin of error of the instrument, then the samples are worthless.
This is a better way to describe what I’m getting at and is why it is very unlikely that Blindidon is correct about a 2 Wm-2 margin of error. Better put, if CERES can claim accuracy to an order of magnitude smaller than 2 Wm-2, my delta is certainly correct. If it isn’t, then CERES is way off and I doubt they would calculate in this manner.
Did CWiese ever provide the source for his claim of 2 W/m2?
You really have to hound him about where his data are coming from.
Appell, I have already given the source of the data. It is posted on climate4you.com. All of the graphs were prepared by Dr. Ole Humlum and his associates.
The spectrally integrated OLR is higher today than it was at the start of the satellite record in 1979. It appears up by 2 Wm-2 at the end of this record in 2010 and the dips in the graphs are from well known events such as the Pinnatubo eruption and the 1998 super El Ninio. These graphs end at 2010 but the CERES data shows no trend to slightly up over the record since.
Take your pick. Bottom line is the OLR is supposed to be in a deficit by 3 Wm-2 from the effective OLR temperature according to failed model RCP8.5, so the excuses offered up by Donohoe et.al are just an affirmation that the models don’t work and now they realize that increased solar energy is driving the warming and then have a silly excuse that the reason for this was that CO2 radiation is melting the snow and ice. This is just absurd and over the top. The snow and ice records do not support this.
But you would accept this, Appell, because that is what you do. You defend the indefensible. If the global temperatures begin to decline as a result of the deceasing solar magnetic, you will chase that down another rabbit hole and claim either CO2 is causing this or that if it weren’t for the sun driving the climate colder, the planet would burn up and will as soon as we come out the other side because of CO2.
And in case you can’t figure out what that means, Appell, Rcp8.5 is claiming an IR imbalance at TOA of 3 Wm-2 right now. The effective emission is 240 Wm-2, so on these graphs I reference, blocking the 10 micron window reduces this by 8.37 Wm-2. So the baseline on the graph is 231.37 Wm-2 The last measurement was 233 Wm-2, so the difference to the effective emission is 1.67 Wm-2.
But the failed modeling claims the OLR should be down 3 Wm-2 from the baseline. The difference is 4.67 Wm-2. No winder Gavin and all the modelers are scurrying for answers. They look as silly as they are with this claiming CO2 warming defers to solar forcing from an unsupportable assertion that the snow and ice albedo explains it.
What crap!
A slight correction, Appell. I calculated the BB emission temperature of 255K as 239.74 Wm-2 and accidently rounded that to 240 Wm-2.
My bad. But everything else in order.
CWeise – you can’t quote 5-digit accuracy from numbers with < 5 digits.
Didn't you learn that in Science 101?
CWeise wrote:
And in case you cant figure out what that means, Appell, Rcp8.5 is claiming an IR imbalance at TOA of 3 Wm-2 right now.
So what?????????????????????????????
RCP8.5 isn’t trying to model reality. No RCP is.
THEY’RE ASSUMPTIONS about the future. As such, not one of them will come true. Not one. Just as not one of Hansen’s projections came true. Which is why that has to be taken into account when looking at his model projections. Something you utterly failed to understand during the debate — and still do fail to understand.
SCIENTISTS CAN’T READ THE FUTURE.
Chuck Wiese says:
Bottom line is the OLR is supposed to be in a deficit by 3 Wm-2 from the effective OLR temperature according to failed model RCP8.5
Says who?
In what paper?
Provide a citation to that paper.
Quote the paragraph that says what you claim.
Waiting.
David Appell says:
Did CWiese ever provide the source for his claim of 2 W/m2?
No, he did not.
CWeise just throws out claims and expects everyone to bow down to him, the oracle.
—
Start providing some science, CWeise, or shut up and go back to the raw denierland blogs like EdBerry and WUWT where you are comfortable and take on no risks.
binny…”If I wasnt so lazy, I would go into the model customisation corner this genial KNMI climate explorer, and I could then show you what you have to do there to gat a little clue of actual work”.
You are seriously deluded. Models incorporate pseudo-science to get their results. They assign an arbitrary value to CO2 warming and include a positive feedback that cannot exist in our atmosphere.
You are likely referring to the model fudging done by NOAA in which they divide the globe into cells which they cannot possibly fill with real data. So, they invent data by any means available, using interpolation, assumption, and homogenization in models. They even alter data retroactively simply because they think it is wrong.
You talk about scientifically educated people. NOAA, Had-crut, and GISS have abandoned science, replacing it with ego and consensus. They are cheaters, as revealed in the Climategate email scandal. They have no interest in doing science, their goal is the political confirmation of anthropogenic warming.
Mann, who runs realclimate with his buddy Gavin Schmidt, who is head of GISS, was seen to interfere with peer review in the Climategate emails. He referred to their beliefs as ‘The Cause’ while denigrating Judith Curry for speaking against The Cause. He was involved in snipping proxy data off a time series that was showing cooling and splicing in real data.
You can call these clowns scientifically educated and I claim that only proves the scientific education of people does not ensure integrity or good science.
Gordon Robertson says:
July 7, 2018 at 4:06 PM
Models incorporate pseudo-science to get their results.
As usual: Robertson shows how incredibly ignorant and pretentious he is.
Learn, Robertson, learn instead of writing your boring nonsense.
*
You can call these clowns scientifically educated…
Months ago, Robertson, I called you a clown.
But I stopped to do that, because I felt that calling you a clown in fact would insult all clowns, who – as opposed to you – are mostly intelligent persons.
For a similar reason, J.-P. stopped to call you a troll.
Gordon Robertson says:
Models incorporate pseudo-science to get their results.
Gordon, point out the pseudo-science in these models for us:
NASA GISS GCM Model E: Model Description and Reference Manual
http://www.giss.nasa.gov/tools/modelE/modelE.html
“Description of the NCAR Community Atmosphere Model (CAM 3.0),” NCAR Technical Note NCAR/TN–464+STR, June 2004.
http://www.cesm.ucar.edu/models/atm-cam/docs/description/description.pdf
From NASA GISS –
“Model development is an ongoing task. As new physics is introduced, old bugs found and new applications developed, the code is almost continually undergoing minor, and sometimes major, reworking. Thus any fixed description of the model is liable to be out of date the day it is printed.”
New physics? Old bugs?
These dummies can’t even get their game developed to the point where they can actually describe it!
Just like the GHE.
Fumbling bumblers – they can’t even get to the pseudoscience stage with their computer game. At least astrologers are consistent – no new physics used as an excuse for inability to predict the future.
The climate will no doubt continue to change whether Schmidt and Mann like it or not.
Cheers.
Mike Flynn, David Appell lives on AGW pseudoscience. It’s somewhat analogous to a fly larvae feasting on a dead carcass.
You’ve just sprayed insecticide all over his “papers”.
As you might say, “carry on”.
AGW does not exist that is what those of you who are so into this do not understand. Further the warming that did take place was all natural and it is coming to an end this year.
Solar rules the climate not AGW.
https://www.eike-klima-energie.eu/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/energ_1-768×754.jpg
To set the record straight David and others.
If you look at my website climatebusters.org which I did 5 years ago or so and look at the overview page, you will find the following:
I list the low average value solar parameters I think are needed to cause global cooling following x years of sub solar activity in general(changed it shortly after to 10+years). Then it says IF these low solar parameters ARE THE RULE going forward for the remainder of this decade expect global cooling.
The problem or reality is the low average value solar parameters that I called for necessary to cause global cooling did not even come close to being realized until very late year 2017.
So according to what I said I would not expect global cooling because the low average value solar parameters which I said are necessary for cooling did not come about until late 2017.
By the same token now that the two solar conditions I stated are necessary for cooling have arrived that I had called for, I am expecting global cooling with year 2018 being the transitional year and cooling thereafter. I put myself on the line and I also said if it does not happen now I will be WRONG. No excuses.
For GOLDMINOR and others my theory is DIFFERENT from all others in the following ways.
1. I list specific low average value solar parameters necessary for cooling.
2. I list the number of years needed for sub solar activity in general necessary for cooling.
3. I am just one of the few that states that when the geo magnetic field is in sync with solar like it is now it will compound given solar effects.
4. I am one of a few that says there is a solar /explosive volcanic connection and a galactic cosmic ray /cloud coverage connection not to mention UV light overall oceanic sea surface temperature connection.
5. I have the confidence to say 2018 is a transitional year to cooling. Who else has?
SDP, you are a legend !
You will forever be remembered for your efforts but, sadly, not for your successes.
I am sure you could keep going for a hundred more years, trying and failing until you got one right. By then, nobody will be listening.
Tragic!
My web-site and what I said on it is all the prove I need. That is why it is good to have a web-site because you can back up what you said and when you said it.
If you don’t accept those facts that is your problem.
Also the trends are down not up so far this year, which is the only year that matters for me because this is the year my solar conditions have been met.
I’ve just looked at the difference in sea surface temperatures between June and May:
http://www.bom.gov.au/products/IDYOC049.shtml
I don’t see much in the way of downwards trends.
What glasses are you wearing?
Also, note the warming in the eastern equatorial Pacific. That could be important.
You have to go back to last summer. Then the deviation for overall sea surface oceanic temperatures was around +.35c now we are around a deviation of +.165c or so that is a significant down trend.
Myki the ocean as a whole is what matters not one region over the other although certain regions due exert a larger influence on the climate due to geographical location .
How about changes over the past 3 months?
Check out the sub-surface anomalies along the equator.
http://www.bom.gov.au/cgi-bin/wrap_fwo.pl?IDYOC007.gif
Almost all cool anomalies have disappeared.
The chances of an el nino are increasing as we post.
Myki what happens underneath does not matter it is what happens on the surface that counts. If El Nino comes it is going to be very weak at best, and is not going to raise global temperatures.
Even if it did it does nothing to further AGW.
Overall sea surface temperatures are what counts.
That aside I wonder what you will think if the global temperatures
which are trending down this year continue moving forward?
In other words is there a degree of magnitude change and or duration of time of a global temperature/oceanic sea surface temperature change that would make you doubt AGW?
I said for my part that if global temperatures continue to rise now- next few years that AGW will be stronger then ever and on pretty firm ground right or wrong.
What do you say it the opposite should happen? I am curious.
“Myki what happens underneath does not matter it is what happens on the surface that counts.”
WRONG
“If El Nino comes it is going to be very weak at best”
YOU HAVE ABSOLUTELY NO WAY OF KNOWING THIS
” and is not going to raise global temperatures.”
YES IT WILL. AT LEAST FOR A YEAR.
I hope everyone checks out the link provided above–3rd paragraph, “memo”.
Amazing agenda-driven propaganda!
How do you suppose Roy feels about Koch money in politics and advocacy groups? Scaife money? The Mercers? Peabody Coal?
David Appell, you would have to ask him.
Then, you might want to reveal your sources of income.
Probably not, huh?
Inconvenient questions for you. Deniers are full of them. (Although you’re clearly too unknowledgeable for anyone to be paying for your replies here).
Me? Payment to comment anywhere = $0.
I do it out of the good of my heart, and because the deniers need someone to tell them they’re whacked.
And on and on it goes.
Amazingly, still no scientifically described GHE to be seen – which means that a disprovable hypothesis purporting to explain something non-existent is a fantasy.
Carry on, chaps – blather about “data”, and “evidence” – supporting a non-existent GHE?
Pseudoscience writ large. An endless series of gotchas, endless appeals to authorities in the form of “pay to publish” articles. No reproducible physical experiments – just an endless list of excuses why normal scientific methods don’t apply to “climatology”!
Delusion piled on fantasy! Good for a laugh, but little else.
Cheers.
Mike: So sadly true. And because this is all taxpayer money driven by selling hysteria through media to scare the public with, makes it so disgusting.
The Gavin clowns don’t get paid by politicians to tell the world everything is just fine. They lose their funding if that were so.
That’s why I call climate models the “Oz” machines. All magical, shrouded and protected with claimed sophistication that doesn’t exist. But who are we to say? How dare we challenge the great and powerful Oz!
It is easy for Toto’s realists to expose Oz as is being done, but Oz extends to the puppet masters of the politicians that control them and are mutually conflicted. This is a difficult bond to break, but it is purely political. Gavin relies on the funding of media blitzes and public education brainwashing of our youth to make it even more difficult to break the political bond.
It is as rotten as it gets. Unbelievable stink!
What sore losers!
Reminds me of the wicked witch:
“Ohhh… You cursed brat (scientist) ! Look what you’ve DONE! I’m melting! Melting! Oh… What a world, what a world! Who would have thought a good little girl like you could destroy my beautiful wickedness?!”
Myki,
Only the stupid, ignorant or truly deluded believe that facts have “winners” or “losers”.
Which are you?
What is being “lost”? What is being “won”? There is not even a contest!
There is no GHE. If there was, someone could no doubt describe it. The GHE is a more mythical entity than a unicorn – the mythical unicorn has at least been described – unlike the GHE.
Keep “winning” all you like. Nature doesn’t care.
Cheers.
As they say:
“Winners are grinners and losers can make other arrangements”
Chuck Wiese
I have been reading some of your interactions on this blog. You are a meteorologist and would have good knowledge of atmospheric physics.
The problem is that it seems you point of view is tainted by a Conspiratorial World View. You are assuming that a conspiracy of power and profit is in place (which could very well be the truth) and it will bias the scientific part of your mind.
I approach climate change from the scientific view point. What does the actual science show. The scientists have daily measurements of DWIR. It is something that empirically exists. Some posters torture science and come up with made up reality that this radiation cannot be absorbed because they hijacked the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics into a version no one ever claimed and try to force this terrible science upon all those who have not got a good grasp of science.
I have debated for a long time that Skeptics need to keep the science real and not make up their own versions. They do not accept this and continue to make the Skeptic world look like scientific illiterates peddling made up physics as if it were correct.
http://lidar.ssec.wisc.edu/papers/dhd_thes/img47.gif
In the linked graph you can see that CO2 (along with H2O) are emitting IR down to the Earth’s surface. If you increase the amount of CO2 this amount increases a bit. The man you debated has linked to empirical measurements carried out over several years to show a slight increase in the DWIR from increases in CO2.
There are other factors that also effect global temperatures. CO2 is a background constant source of added IR.
Norman, if you believe CO2 is emitting “down”, it would also be emitting “up”.
“Up” goes into space, never to return, and “down” has little ability to heat the surface, at CO2 wavelengths.
Are you letting your biases affect your “science”?
(And why are you still hiding your last name, Grinvalds?)
JD/Ger*an,
You are still criticizing people for being anonymous? When you were anonymous for so long here as Ge*ran, and still are on other blogs?
Wait, isn’t that hypocrisy at its finest?
JDHuffman
Ger*an I like just using my first name. I assume Nate is doing the same. Why are you obsessed with knowing the identity of every poster? It really does not matter, I don’t know you personally and you don’t know me. People who know me address me by my first name.
The CO2 down does not “heat” the surface. It is energy that is received by the surface added to the other energy the surface receives. Primarily solar input, some geothermal. The use of the term “heat” distorts the reality of IR energy emitted by CO2.
The CO2 is emitting up as well as down. I am not sure how that point affects any conditions of the surface energy balance.
CO2 contributes from 10 to 20% of the DWIR flux depending upon the water vapor content since the emitting wavelengths overlap. The average DWIR is 340 W/m^2 so CO2 would contribute from 30 to 60 Watt/m^2 energy to the surface. So the contribution is not large but the addition does have an effect. Scientists have some numbers for the increase in DWIR from additional CO2. It is small 0.2 W/m^2 per decade but it is detected.
https://andthentheresphysics.wordpress.com/2015/02/26/co2-forcing-observed-from-surface/
Norman, using your real name helps to prevent irresponsible comments. People that hide their identity often have little regard for accuracy. Now that you have revealed your full name, you seem much more concerned about correcting and clarifying your words.
1) Thanks for admitting that CO2 does not “heat” the surface.
2) Thanks for admitting that infrared from CO2 is emitted to space. As you don’t understand the significance of that, it means that CO2 is cooling the planet.
The only criticism might come from David Appell, who tried to teach you upthread that a blog is not science. So, he would declare your link irrelevant, as well as his own blog.
JDHuffman
YOUR POINT:
“2) Thanks for admitting that infrared from CO2 is emitted to space. As you don’t understand the significance of that, it means that CO2 is cooling the planet”
Not actually. CO2 emits to space but it also emits to the surface. If you stripped the atmosphere with the current Earth surface temperature, an average of 390 W/m^2 would be leaving the surface.
With GHG present the surface emits only about 40 W/m^2 to space directly. The rest of the 350 W/m^2 is all absorbed. CO2 absorbs between 10 and 20% of the UPIR (overlap from water vapor that also absorbs at some CO2 wavelengths).
Since the CO2 is emitting from a much colder region, it is not emitting nearly as much energy to space as it is emitting to the surface. So it would not be cooling the planet at all. Having an atmosphere forces the planet surface to a higher steady state temperature than without one.
So in 2, compared with a non GHG atmosphere (or even no atmosphere) CO2 does not cool the planet. Hopefully you think about it and you will see what I am stating.
Norman, infrared from CO2 that goes to space results in COOLING the planet.
CO2, at any altitude, would be emitting in all directions. It does NOT quit emitting less to space just because it is at a colder elevation, as you stated:
“Since the CO2 is emitting from a much colder region, it is not emitting nearly as much energy to space as it is emitting to the surface.”
You want to believe that, but “wanting to believe” is not science.
JDHuffman
My statements are not “beliefs” they are actually based upon empirical measured values.
Here is the measured downwelling IR. Note the Y-axis. Both use the same units so they are an apple to apple comparison.
http://patarnott.com/atms749/images/MeasuredRadianceReno.jpg
You can see that it emits at a 130 scale number on this graph
Here is the outgoing emission from CO2
http://lasp.colorado.edu/~bagenal/3720/CLASS5/EarthBB.jpg
It is around 50 on the same scale of units. I am not sure why you think it is my “belief” and that my correct information is wrong.
I am posting science (empirically measured values) yet you claim this is not science. What is the basis of your declaration?
The gas emits IR based upon its concentration and temperature. Colder gas will emit less IR even at the same concentration. This is very well established physics and even used in actual applications.
JDHuffman
You are not trying to understand my point. If you compare the energy emitted by CO2 at the TOA with the IR emitted by the surface, in the same wavelengths, the flux from the colder CO2 is less than the surface emission by a significant value.
The point is that having CO2 is lowering the amount of energy leaving the Earth system. Energy leaving is an overall cooling but it is less cooling rate with CO2. CO2 does not cool the surface, its emission from higher up cools the atmosphere. CO2 forces the surface to higher temperatures than if you removed all of it. You would have 30 to 60 less W/m^2 of energy reaching the surface. This energy would leave directly and you would have a large atmospheric window. The cooling would be greater.
If you compare Earth with CO2 vs Earth without any CO2 then you claim that CO2 cools the planet is wrong. The Earth would be colder with no CO2. If you have CO2 added the Earth temperature is warmer so how does CO2 cool the planet? The IR would be lost one way or the other (either direct surface emission to space). With CO2 present less IR goes directly to space.
Norman Grinvalds, you seem to be in denial of your own statements.
At 2:12pm, you tried to distract with links.
At 2:22pm, you tried to distract by claiming Earth would be colder without CO2. We can check that false belief by looking at the Moon. “Daytime” temperatures there can reach well over 100 C. Temperatures can’t get that hot on Earth because of the atmosphere.
Your believes continue to get you in trouble:
Since the CO2 is emitting from a much colder region, it is not emitting nearly as much energy to space as it is emitting to the surface.
You’ve tried distractions and false accusations. What’s next, insults and attacks?
JDHuffman says:
Norman Grinvalds, you seem to be in denial of your own statements.
At 2:12pm, you tried to distract with links.
You mean distract with evidence and support for one’s claims?
Yes, I can see how that might annoy you.
David Appell, Norman was trying to distract from dealing with his erroneous statement:
“Since the CO2 is emitting from a much colder region, it is not emitting nearly as much energy to space as it is emitting to the surface.”
Hopefully you will not be annoyed by this assistance with your reading comprehension, such as it is.
JD:
https://scied.ucar.edu/radiation-budget-diagram-earth-atmosphere
DA, you’re still having trouble with reading comprehension, I see.
JDHuffman
You are using a Mike Flynn tactic.
YOU: “At 2:22pm, you tried to distract by claiming Earth would be colder without CO2. We can check that false belief by looking at the Moon. Daytime temperatures there can reach well over 100 C. Temperatures cant get that hot on Earth because of the atmosphere.”
Your point is not valid. I said the Earth not a location or region at a given time. There are average temperatures of planets that take in all the surface temperatures. The Moon’s average temperature is much colder than the Earth’s (surface). The Moon reaches a higher daytime temperature but has a far colder night-time temperature. The average of these makes the Moon’s surface much colder than the Earth’s.
You are intentionally trying to annoy. Why? My statements are valid and correct and empirically proven. You are, in actuality, a disruptive troll. I still have strong opinion that you are the poster that went by Ger*an in the past and hiding your identity by avoiding “hilarious”.
JDHuffman
I am getting tired of trying to reason with you.
YOU: “Your believes continue to get you in trouble:
Since the CO2 is emitting from a much colder region, it is not emitting nearly as much energy to space as it is emitting to the surface.
Youve tried distractions and false accusations. Whats next, insults and attacks?”
It is not a belief. It is a factual statement supported by actual data.
CO2 emits much more energy to the surface (since the emitting CO2 is warmer and denser) than it emits to space. It is a factual reality. Calling it a “belief” of mine is not a supported conclusion. Making statements, like you do, without supporting evidence is a disruptive troll tactic. You are not even attempting to correct it.
That is why I have even stronger opinions that you are the troll Ger*an. This poster would make comments. I asked him for supporting evidence, he never provided any. You do exactly the same thing. You make unsupported declarations and will not support them even when asked to.
So find evidence to prove my claim wrong. Find evidence that shows Carbon Dioxide, in the atmosphere, does NOT emit more IR to the surface than it emits to space. If you make declarations that I am wrong and attempting to distract, then find evidence to support such claims. Ger*an why don’t you just stay on PSI site. They like you there.
Norman Grinvalds, you get tangled up in your own confusion to the point no one can straighten you out. You did this same thing when you could not understand that radiative fluxes generally do not add.
A layer of CO2, say at 5 km elevation, would actually emit MORE infrared to space than to the surface, due to the geometry. At lower elevations, the emissions “up” and “down” would approach equality.
You’re so confused, you are distorting science to match your confusion.
David Appell,
“You mean distract with evidence and support for one’s claims?”
No, JDHuffman means distract with links that mislead people stuck in the erroneously simplistic GHE hypothesis mentality. This is exactly what you do. Posting links that waste people’s time by providing irrelevant or incomplete information. Throwing everything at the wall to see if it sticks.
JDHuffman
Why in the world would you do a selective amount of IR emitted from 5 KM up and down and try to prove that CO2 emits more IR to space than the surface. A very pointless argument. I haven’t go a clue why you are doing it, it is just disruptive troll tactics. It has no bearing at all on what I am saying. It is really an ignorant point. It is unlikely any of the IR emitted from 5 KM up will make it to the surface, it will be absorbed.
The CO2 near the surface is emitting IR downward at a much higher rate than the CO2 at the TOA is emitting IR to space.
The empirical data shows this. You point is just basically stupid and troll like. You are a complete waste of time.
I did not want to communicate with you and now I know why. You have zero desire to discuss ideas. You only want to disrupt. Just a troll I think you are Ger*an come back. You do exactly the same things as he did. Stupid points that have no meaning. Never support you claims.
Norman Grinvalds, my “5 km” example clearly demonstrated you were wrong. You refuse to accept the simple evidence. You’d rather try to compare me to Gordon Robertson, Mike Flynn, or Ge*, trying to discredit me. You are obsessed with trying to discredit science. You hold to your beliefs, and anyone that tries to help you gets attacked, insulted, ridiculed, and falsely accused.
(BTW, I am honored to be compared to other skeptics.)
JDHuffman
Do you lack logical thought process or are you just trolling?
Your point about 5 KM is horrible and has nothing to do with my point at all.
YOU: “A layer of CO2, say at 5 km elevation, would actually emit MORE infrared to space than to the surface, due to the geometry. At lower elevations, the emissions up and down would approach equality”
And so? It is not what I am saying. It is an irrelevant point. Why do you persist in such stupid behavior? You don’t need to.
YOU: “Norman Grinvalds, my 5 km example clearly demonstrated you were wrong. You refuse to accept the simple evidence.”
NO! It does nothing to prove me wrong. It only proves you are a disruptive troll who cares little about truth or science. How does you stupid point prove I am wrong?
CO2 emits from all molecules in the atmosphere. Those closest to the surface are emitting much more energy to the surface than the ones at the TOA are emitting to space. Are you really that hopelessly stupid you are not capable of understanding this simple reality? Wow!
Also you never proved at all fluxes don’t add, you only proved you are not very intelligent and a waste of time.
It you take Snape’s cube from the other thread. You have each side exposed to a different flux. The cube is made of very conductive material so the energy will smooth out. You add each flux that each surface receives to figure out how much energy the overall cube absorbs. It is actually that way. I am sorry you are not bright enough to understand it.
NG, now as predicted, the insults, attacks, and false accusations begin.
In addition, you have resorted to one of your tricks. You’re denying what you said is what you said!
“Since the CO2 is emitting from a much colder region, it is not emitting nearly as much energy to space as it is emitting to the surface.”
Clearly, you were talking about CO2 all in the same region. You clearly got it wrong. But, instead of admitting your mistake, you try to make it look like you were referring to two different elevations.
Insults, attacks, false accusations, and tricks all symptomatic of a failed belief system.
And, fluxes don’t add, just as temperatures don’t add. But, maybe if you really, really believe, and tell yourself, over and over….
JDHuffman
You take my words out of context. You are a disruptive troll. You know you are taking them out of context. They are a portion of a longer explanation. You are just a stupid jerk. I am done talking to a low idiot disruptive troll. Please never respond to any of my posts. Go away and bother someone else Ger*an.
Grinvalds, you’re still playing tricks. I did not take your quote “out of context”. That quote was the first sentence of the paragraph where you tried to bend science to fit your beliefs. You were trying to “prove” that CO2 could heat the surface. You got caught, and then you became belligerent.
Here are some rules to practice, if you don’t want to trigger responses correcting your comments.
1) Don’t insult others, unless they insult you first.
2) Don’t bend reality to fit your beliefs. Bend your beliefs to fit reality.
3) When you make a mistake, admit it and move on. Don’t use tricks.
Hopefully your comments will show drastic improvement.
(I still think you have a cool surname.)
JDHuffman
Obviously you seem to want to keep communicating.
YOU: “Grinvalds, you’re still playing tricks. I did not take your quote “out of context”. That quote was the first sentence of the paragraph where you tried to bend science to fit your beliefs. You were trying to “prove” that CO2 could heat the surface. You got caught, and then you became belligerent.”
I was NOT trying to “prove” CO2 could heat the surface. You take it out of context of what I was talking about in a larger context.
Because I noticed you were not understanding my point I explicitly came out and told you what I was saying. The sentence was not a mistake or wrong, but it was not fully complete for your understanding so I actually posted to clarify the content of the sentence. The reason I call you a disruptive troll is because I did actually further explain it because I realized you did not get my point. Why do you ignore this?
Here if you missed it:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2018/07/summer-causes-climate-change-hysteria/#comment-311281
I will help you here:
With my sentence: “Since the CO2 is emitting from a much colder region, it is not emitting nearly as much energy to space as it is emitting to the surface.”
It may not be the best written sentence. I will clarify with better words.
Since the CO2, at the TOA, is emitting from a much colder region, it is not emitting nearly as much energy to space as the CO2, near the surface at a much warmer region, is emitting to the surface. \
The CO2 is the same in the atmosphere (which is implied in my sentence but not specifically stated).
It is all the same gas just in different locations. Colder locations are emitting less IR. The IR emitted to space is from the cooler regions so the CO2 is emitting less energy to space than the CO2 near the surface emits toward the surface.
This should clarify it for you. I will agree it was not a really well written sentence. I think with further reading of comments and looking at the linked graphs, you knew exactly what I was claiming and just pretend that a poorly written sentence means I am wrong. I am still right about the physics.
Well Grinvalds, you’re doing better. You’re no longer ruthlessly defending your statement, in fact, you’re backing away from it:
“It may not be the best written sentence.”
“I will agree it was not a really well written sentence.”
You didn’t apologize for all your attacks, but at least there were no new ones.
I think we can use the word “progress” here.
Norman: I have tried to reply to you three times now on the topic of radiation and just like when I did this with Gordon Robertson, the posts do not go thru.
I have save them all and so I have to defer to Roy Spencer and ask why this is happening.
What’s wrong with my replies about radiation and why do they not post here when everything else does, Roy?
Chuck Wiese says:
July 8, 2018 at 10:52 AM
Whats wrong with my replies about radiation and why do they not post here when everything else does, Roy?
Did you check for appropriate separation of
– d c letter sequences
– absorp tion
Especially links to NOAA NCD C pages are a problem, what led many of us to tinyURL these links :-))
Norman: “The problem is that it seems you point of view is tainted by a Conspiratorial World View. You are assuming that a conspiracy of power and profit is in place (which could very well be the truth) and it will bias the scientific part of your mind.”
Me: Not correct. You provided a nice graph that looks impressive when you look at the wavenumber that surrounds atmospheric CO2. ( Center of Q branch at 660cm-1). Any yes, looking at the sky which the plot does shows the surface completely opaque from the downwelling IR. And so as you add more CO2, the wing lines at the edges ( R & P ) become more opaque to surface radiation and the modelers who hijacked atmospheric science claim the result from this will cause warming. They accomplish this by generating a positive feedback with water vapor and increase opacity there at the many wavenumbers that H2O absorbs and emits IR from.
Continued below.
Norman: Breaking my response up into smaller portions isn’t working either.
Roy, what’s going on here? These posts are no larger than any other that successfully go thru.
Chuck, some commenters have found certain combinations of letters that do not work here. For example, never use “C” immediately after a “D”. Also, ab-sor-p-ti-on does not work, without the hyphens.
There may be other examples I am not award of.
aware!
Norman, you’re right. When things don’t go CWeise’s way, he falls back on his excuse of last resort: a long-term global conspiracy.
He thinks people are faking it.
From that I can only conclude that CWeise would ALSO fake it to get ahead in his job. CWiese thinks that’s the way to get ahead.
He’s retired now, I heard — I wonder how much faking it led to a higher pension for him.
Norman: “The problem is that it seems you point of view is tainted by a Conspiratorial World View. You are assuming that a conspiracy of power and profit is in place (which could very well be the truth) and it will bias the scientific part of your mind.”
Me: Not correct. You provided a nice graph that looks impressive when you look at the wavenumber that surrounds atmospheric CO2. ( Center of Q branch at 660cm-1). Any yes, looking at the sky which the plot does shows the surface completely opaque from the downwelling IR. And so as you add more CO2, the wing lines at the edges ( R & P ) become more opaque to surface radiation and the modelers who hijacked atmospheric science claim the result from this will cause warming. They accomplish this by generating a positive feedback with water vapor and increase opacity there at the many wavenumbers that H2O absorbs and emits IR from.
The problem with this is that it is nonsense. Incompetent arm chair experts like David Appell and many others use this claim because Appell thinks GHG’s warm the atmosphere directly by absorbing surface IR. They don’t. The ab-sor-p-ti-on coefficients of both constituents are very large so that what is ab-sorb-ed is re-emitted through the radiatve transfer equation. The surface radiation does not thermalize as people like Appell claim. It simply gets completely ab-sorb-ed and the GHG’s block its emission to space. That slows surface cooling rates and gives a surplus temperature of 33 degC when solar insolation is added in.
So what does this mean? It means much of the GHG’s radiate at their own local temperature once the surface emission is ab-sorb-ed and COOL the troposphere in exchange for a warmer surface. This enhances both dry and moist convection from the surface to give the realized surface warming back to the troposphere. But that becomes a NEGATIVE, not positive feedback on water vapor because the cooling in the mid and upper troposphere lowers the saturation vapor pressure of water, thereby limiting it’s growth potential and trimming optical depth back out where CO2 is trying to add it.
Founding principles empirically calculated these results years ago and modelers claim that the reverse is true is nonsense and the actual measurements of tropospheric water vapor with reference to optical depth prove the modeling is upside down and wrong. Not a surprise to those that studied founding principles in atmospheric science.
When you see the temperature records being tortured as NOAA and NASA GISS have done, thee is good reason to believe the hijacking of atmospheric science has become a conspiracy to cover up the gross failure of these models that cost taxpayers billions of dollars and are being used to make horrible public policy with.
CW, Your comment notes the fact that the IR energy absorbed by the various Greenhouse gases is re-radiated again. But, one must think in terms of multiple layers thru the atmosphere, because the re-radiated energy is split, on average, with half going upwards and the other half going back toward the surface. That’s the Green Plate effect, or back radiation, which results in a warming as the down welling IR EM from a higher layer is then absorbed by the layer(s) below.
The result of adding more greenhouse gases to the atmosphere warms the atmosphere above the tropopause, which, due to the lapse rate, then increases the surface temperature.
Chuck Wiese
Thank you for you thoughtful post. I am thinking about what you posted and will continue to investigate.
I find your brand of skepticism far superior to the usual group on this blog. You know the physics and atmospheric science. You are not making up physics with zero support of the claims.
You accept the reality of the GHE. This is one that most the unscientific skeptics cannot accept. They torture the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics to make ridiculous and unfounded claims that energy from a cold body cannot be absorbed by a warmer one. They make up twisted and incorrect Quantum physics to support their fantasy physics.
I am unsure of you statement about modelers and what they do:
YOU: “And so as you add more CO2, the wing lines at the edges ( R & P ) become more opaque to surface radiation and the modelers who hijacked atmospheric science claim the result from this will cause warming. They accomplish this by generating a positive feedback with water vapor and increase opacity there at the many wavenumbers that H2O absorbs and emits IR from.”
David Appell did send me a link to the math of an actual climate model. I am not sure they try to do any of this. I think they just put in several complex math equations and run the program and read the output. I am not sure they added a positive feedback for H2O or not. Maybe they have. The model was several pages long with involved math equations.
You are very correct that GHG do not warm the atmosphere directly. They absorb and emit at about the same rate and will produce little direct warming. Most atmospheric warming would be from latent heat when water vapor condenses (which lowers the lapse rate considerably), convection and near the surface from conduction.
E. Swanson, you continue to be confused by your own beliefs:
“The result of adding more greenhouse gases to the atmosphere warms the atmosphere above the tropopause, which, due to the lapse rate, then increases the surface temperature.”
Chuck wrote:
Appell thinks GHGs warm the atmosphere directly by absorbing surface IR.
“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
“Measurements of the Radiative Surface Forcing of Climate,” W.F.J. Evans, Jan 2006
https://ams.confex.com/ams/Annual2006/techprogram/paper_100737.htm
https://ams.confex.com/ams/pdfpapers/100737.pdf
CWiese wrote:
Founding principles empirically calculated these results years ago….
Who — Elsasser?
Elsasser’s 1942 paper relied on approximations and guesses that were the best that could be done at the time but were superseded by later calculations using better spectroscopy and radiation transfer codes.
If Elsasser’s work has been the final word, scientists would have said so a long time ago. I once asked a prominent scientist about Elsasser’s work, and he said he had never heard of him.
PS: Elsasser was the head of my undergraduate physics department, but about two decades before I was there.
CWiese wrote:
When you see the temperature records being tortured as NOAA and NASA GISS have done, thee is good reason to believe the hijacking of atmospheric science has become a conspiracy to cover up the gross failure of these models that cost taxpayers billions of dollars and are being used to make horrible public policy with.
Like others here, CWiese whines about adjustments, yet never says what’s wrong with them. Not one detail whatsoever. Nothing.
And he/they ignore the larger adjustments made to UAH’s temperature model.
The BEST project was formed specifically to take a fresh look at how temperature data is obtained and how it gives global averages. They were partly funded by the Koch brothers, and even had a Nobel Laureate on their project team. What did they find? THE SAME RESULTS AS EVERYONE ELSE.
Chuck Wiese wrote:
It means much of the GHGs radiate at their own local temperature
This is just ignorant. An atom or molecule radiates according to the energy difference of the quantum levels that it’s transitioning from-to, regardless of the temperature.
There is a small temperature dependence on ab.sorp.tion, and a much larger one for pressure.
There is no such thing as “local temperature.” It’s junk physics. Junk science is CWiese’s calling card. But then he gets his information from CO2science.org {giggle}.
Cwiese wrote:
This enhances both dry and moist convection from the surface to give the realized surface warming back to the troposphere. But that becomes a NEGATIVE, not positive feedback on water vapor
The water vapor feedback has been observed, and it’s positive, just as expected:
IPCC 5AR WG1 Ch2 Figs 2.30 & 2.31 documents positive trends in water vapor in multiple datasets.
http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg1/WG1AR5_Chapter02_FINAL.pdf
“Attribution of observed surface humidity changes to human influence,”
Katharine M. Willett et al, Nature Vol 449| 11 October 2007| doi:10.1038/nature06207.
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v449/n7163/abs/nature06207.html
“Identification of human-induced changes in atmospheric moisture content,” B. D. Santer et al, PNAS 2013.
http://www.pnas.org/content/104/39/15248.abstract
– continued –
– continued from above –
“How much more rain will global warming bring?” F.J. Wentz, Science (2007), 317, 233235.
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/317/5835/233
“Analysis of global water vapour trends from satellite measurements in the visible spectral range,” S. Mieruch et al, Atmos Chem Phys (2008), 8, 491504.
http://www.atmos-chem-phys.net/8/491/2008/acp-8-491-2008.html
Norman: It is well established with many complaints by those that have looked at “climate” model parameterizations that one of the things modelers did was to hold the relative humidity constant with rising temperature. This, of course, will increase atmospheric absolute humidity which they then build a grossly amplified optical depth with.
This is just one of many things that you could spend hours talking about concerning these overrated and unscientific heaps of junk created by Gavin Schmidt, James Hansen, Ben Santer and the likes have nothing they can be proud of.
The history of this says that somewhere, somehow, these clowns told the political class that they had the skills to model the climate. But they took this upon themselves without studying much of any founding work. To believe water vapor is amplified by a GHG like CO2 goes completely against founding principles but they went ahead with this stupid idea anyway. It looks like Hansen was far too enamored by Venus than Earth.
But even if you give these clowns the benefit of the doubt, to not have studied founding principles, or to get a different result without doing further research is unforgivable. These heaps of junk should have been beta tested in a basement before ever announcing results and lying to the public and political class that there modeling is accurate.
It just goes downhill from there.
CWeise wrote:
To believe water vapor is amplified by a GHG like CO2 goes completely against founding principles but they went ahead with this stupid idea anyway.
And yet that what’s the measurements show — links just above this.
You’d better start thinking about how you’re going to dismiss these measurements. Reminder, claiming a global conspiracy theory is always available to you (with no evidence!)(if you don’t mind being laughed at).
CWeise wrote:
The history of this says that somewhere, somehow, these clowns told the political class that they had the skills to model the climate.
Who specifically told whom? And when? And where?
It must have involved Lee Harvey Oswald, right? And Woody Harrelson’s father?
Appell, No matter what you are told about optical depth, you just don’t get it. You trott out the same stupid and worn out papers written by modelers and others who want to validate their failed modeling.
If the surface becomes any warmer, CO2 is not the cause. The physics of this were well established years ago as CO2, water vapor and the hydro cycle’s roles were defined as I told Norman.
What really counts in optical depth is whether you can expand water vapor’s influence to a colder pressure, such as where CO2 is at. But you can’t unless you add more energy from an external source. The sun is that source, but to date there is no amplification in optical depth by water vapor and this demonstrates that we don’t fully understand how the suns energy changes and affects the climate system if more insolation reaches the surface.
The absolute humidity at pressures lower than 700 millibars has been declining over time, except for the blip associated with the super El Ninio of 2015-16 that caused a significant increase in deep tropical convection like they all do. Water vapor is limited in the troposphere by its own thermodynamic and radiative properties.
If there is an increase at 1000 millibars near the surface, this will have no effect to amplify warming through the optical depth of the troposphere and was likely caused by more insolation reaching the surface.
Here are the NOAA graph’s, Appell. Real data. But no matter how many times you are shown this, you just keep on ignoring it like someone with a learning disorder.
http://www.climate4you.com/Text/Climate4you_May_2018.pdf
Chuck Wiese says:
If the surface becomes any warmer, CO2 is not the cause.
You completely misunderstood the Donohue paper, which is about outgoing IR at the *TOA*.
“In computer modeling of Earths climate under elevating CO2 concentrations, the greenhouse gas effect does indeed lead to global warming. Yet something puzzling happens: While one would expect the longwave radiation that escapes into space to decline with increasing CO2, the amount actually begins to rise. At the same time, the atmosphere ab.sor.bs more and more incoming solar radiation; its this enhanced shortwave ab.sorp.tion that ultimately sustains global warming.”
http://news.mit.edu/2014/global-warming-increased-solar-radiation-1110
PS Cweise – you really need to take some real science classes now that you’re retired, instead of relying on the propaganda of CO2science.org.
Appell: “This is just ignorant. An atom or molecule radiates according to the energy difference of the quantum levels that its transitioning from-to, regardless of the temperature.”
Me: Really?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balmer_series
Click on Paschen series to get the quantum formulas for infrared light. Does this or any quantum level have a temperature dependence on emission? The suns photosphere is radiating over all wavelengths at 5500K, ie 5.188E4 kWm-2, Earth 288K ie .39 kWm-2. Wavelength peak difference 9.52 um. So if the sun was a solid object that lost its fuel at 5500K, do you think the quantum levels in it would change if it cooled to the Earth’s mean temperature?
Appell: “There is no such thing as local temperature. Its junk physics. Junk science is CWieses calling card. But then he gets his information from CO2science.org {giggle”
Me: Really? Here is a version of the radiative transfer equation used in the atmosphere:
I = Io exp [ -k(rho)dz ] + B [ 1-exp( – k rho dz )]
The Plank function,B, is ENTIRELY dependent on the local temperature at the specified level at which ab-sorp-tion is calculated. The Right hand side deals specifically with radiative emission at the level selected, temperature dependent at the local level.
You’re an idiot, Appell. A lost cause for a guy with a graduate degree in physics.
CWeise wrote:
Me: Really? Here is a version of the radiative transfer equation used in the atmosphere:
I = Io exp [ -k(rho)dz ] + B [ 1-exp( k rho dz )]
First of all, the “dz” doesn’t go in the exponential.
Second of all, you forgot integral over the last term, that starts with “B”.
And there are two Scharzschild equations, one at the surface and one at the TOA. Both involve integrals.
—
Why don’t you get over your juvenile need to call me names whenever you feel threatened and stick to a direct and respectful discussion of the science.
Appell: “First of all, the “dz” doesn’t go in the exponential.
Second of all, you forgot integral over the last term, that starts with “B”.
And there are two Scharzschild equations, one at the surface and one at the TOA. Both involve integrals.”
Wrong again, Appell. Click on the link to see both versions of the Schwarzchild equation, one for the surface and one for the top of the atmosphere as they are derived.
http://www.met.reading.ac.uk/~ross/Science/RadTrans.pdf
In this example, ds=dz so the derivative dz most certainly belongs in the exponent of the terms rho and k that contain the density and ab-sorp-tion coefficient. It is as plain as it can be through the derivation, Appell and without it, you have a dimension 1/m which you cannot take an exponent of. The quantity has to be dimensionless.
This is undergraduate atmospheric science, Appell, and you don’t understand this concept with a PhD in physics?
Very lame and telling about you, Appell. I don’t see how you ever made thru graduate school.
Chuck, a differential ALWAYS appears behind an integral sign. That’s what you link shows.
Your’s did not.
Instead of your perpetual anger, why don’t you try again?
Appell: “Chuck, a differential ALWAYS appears behind an integral sign.”
Me: What absolute nonsense! Whether you’re using dz or ds in Beers Law by itself or in the Schwarzchild equation, this derivative has to integrated to get a change in Io. It is a path length and so if you place it behind the integral sign, you are not calling for integration. Quantities that are constants or derivatives that are in the denominator that will cancel are the only things that belong behind an integral sign.
Appell, I don’t see how you EVER made it thru graduate school if you don’t comprehend such basic operations in mathematics. There is no physicist or mathematician that would agree with this gibberish of yours.
Appell:
“You completely misunderstood the Donohue paper, which is about outgoing IR at the *TOA*.
In computer modeling of Earths climate under elevating CO2 concentrations, the greenhouse gas effect does indeed lead to global warming. Yet something puzzling happens: While one would expect the longwave radiation that escapes into space to decline with increasing CO2, the amount actually begins to rise. At the same time, the atmosphere ab.sor.bs more and more incoming solar radiation; its this enhanced shortwave ab.sorp.tion that ultimately sustains global warming.
http://news.mit.edu/2014/global-warming-increased-solar-radiation-1110”
No, Appell, I did not misunderstand this idiotic analysis. But you’re obviously gullible and incompetent enough to buy it.
The OLR thru time has NOT decreased from rising CO2 concentration. The records shows this. The long term trend has actually been increasing since the start of the record in 1979. This means THERE IS NO GHG FINGERPRINT IN THE RECORD, APPELL. I already showed you that the OLR is over 1.5 Wm-2 above the effective radiating energy at the end of this record in 2010 and CERES data since show a slight increase as well from then. Failed climate model RCP8.5 has us in a deficit to the effective emission by 3 Wm-2, so the difference is over 4Wm-2 in error.
So Donohoe and his associates are asking us to believe that CO2 radiation started melting snow and ice and is causing increasing absorbed solar insolation at the surface to cause solar warming and that explains why the OLR never dropped as the failed models have predicted all along. This is also wrong, and like you, Appell, this guy doesn’t bother to check facts before he opens his mouth. The NH snow and ice record remains static, Appell.
So this is the equivalent of saying the cart drives the horse and only a gullible fool would buy this garbage. I’ve already pointed out to you why this article is nonsense up thread, Appell, but even after a few days for you to think about it, you still believe this article which is why you continue to play the role of a fool very well. You’re a fool expert, Appell. Congratulations.
CWeise, while you’re still misquoting the Donohue et al study, it’s good to see you finally admit that global warming is happening.
CWiese says:
So Donohoe and his associates are asking us to believe that CO2 radiation started melting snow and ice and is causing increasing absorbed solar insolation at the surface to cause solar warming and that explains why the OLR never dropped as the failed models have predicted all along.
Where did this models predict this?
Specifically? Show us the published results where the models predicted this.
(My guess is you can’t.)
Read what the press release said, quoting Isaac Held:
“The paper is not challenging the physics of climate models; its value lies in helping the community interpret their output. While this study does not change our understanding of the fundamentals of global warming, it is always useful to have simpler models that help us understand why our more comprehensive climate models sometimes behave in superficially counterintuitive ways, says Isaac Held, a senior scientist at NOAAs Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory who was not involved in this research.”
http://news.mit.edu/2014/global-warming-increased-solar-radiation-1110
To emphasize: doesn’t challenge climate models.
I apparently wrote:
To emphasize: doesnt challenge climate models.
I don’t know where this sentence came from, but it was nothing I ever intended to write. Because I don’t think this at all. It might be something cut and pasted from the press release that I forgot to delete, but I did not intend to include it in my reply and I disown it.
Appell:
“Where did this models predict this?
Specifically? Show us the published results where the models predicted this.
(My guess is you cant.)”
Me:
Wrong again, Appell. Here is the reference to the radiative forcing predicted by RCP8.5. And RCP8.5 is where we’re at now. “business as usual” for the globe. CO2 concentrations rising steadily. In eyeballing it again, 3 Wm-2 might a tad high,I’d say it could pass for 2.8 Wm-2, but you get the picture. This is what it predicts as a deficit to the effective radiating temperature. So it is still off by over 4Wm-2.
https://judithcurry.com/2015/12/13/a-closer-look-at-scenario-rcp8-5/
Panic time for modelers. That’s why the asinine explanation, just like yours, Appell.
Chuck Wiese says:
And RCP8.5 is where were at now.
It is?
Prove that claim.
CWeise wrote:
While one would expect the longwave radiation that escapes into space to decline with increasing CO2, the amount actually begins to rise.
Why would one expect that?
The reason the Earth is warming is to emit more outgoing TOA IR, restoring equilibrium with incoming energy.
In fact, the current energy imbalance is only about 0.71 W/m2 from 2005-2015:
Improving estimates of Earths energy imbalance,
Johnson, G.C., J.M. Lyman, and N.G. Loeb
Nature Clim. Change, 6, 639640, doi: 10.1038/nclimate3043 (2016).
Chuck Wiese says:
“The OLR thru time has NOT decreased from rising CO2 concentration. The records shows this.”
What record?
Citation?
CWeise wrote:
Failed climate model RCP8.5….
CWeise doesn’t even understand what a projection is.
How are you supposed to discuss anything with someone who doesn’t even know what a projection is and that it’s not a prediction???
CWeise wrote:
THERE IS NO GHG FINGERPRINT IN THE RECORD
What a raw denier you are. I’ve given you Harries+, Philipona+, Feldman+, all of which you think you get to ignore.
Here’s another one you can ignore:
Identifying human influences on atmospheric temperature, Benjamin D. Santer et al, PNAS 2012
http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2012/11/28/1210514109.full.pdf
This is why I laid you out on the 28th — you are a liar who repeatedly denies the science as if doesn’t even exist. You’re so wrapped up in anger that can’t even reply to mentions of these findings. You seeth and think climate science ended in 1942 because that’s when you stopped trying to learn to learn anything. You fall for amateurish clowns like CO2science.org and Steve Goddard because you don’t know better, and you aren’t even ashamed of it. You think a meaningful response is to repeatedly yell “you’re an idiot” at someone for three minutes. You are woefully ignorant about what the science says and you toss out every dumb denier tactic from the Book of Denying. You aren’t even decent enough to shake hands after a debate.
You’re deeply angry and completely sure the science is all wrong, but don’t have the cojones to write even a simple paper to explain it all to the world. Can’t even take a tiny risk, because, poor thing, you might suffer a rejected. Because all the great scientists like you NEVER suffered any rejection, did they Chuck? You won’t because then all your fantasies of your superiority will come crashing down around you. No Nobel Prize for Chuck! Better for him to stick to the denier blogs that no one reads — that’ll show’em, for sure! Yep. A victory for CWeise. Stockholm will call any day now I’m sure, Chuck — you better keep your phone line open!
DA, it must be frustrating for you. All of your sources fail, in the revealing light of real science. CO2 is NOT a “toxic gas”. It is essential for all life on Earth.
David Appell,
“”I’ve given you Harries+, Philipona+, Feldman+, all of which you think you get to ignore.”
Those sources show increasing IR active gases in the atmosphere, that’s all. Calculations from selected spectra based on hypothetical equations predict possible forcings of some magnitude. However, there is no signature that those forcings result in any global temperature increase. Your continued un-scientific promoting of those papers as a signature of AGW and calling people deniers brands you as a shill for the propagandists promoting climate change hysteria.
Chuck Wiese says:
It is easy for Totos realists to expose Oz as is being done, but Oz extends to the puppet masters of the politicians that control them and are mutually conflicted.
More conspiracies again, the last resort of the ignorant and desperate.
How again does Woody Harrelson’s father figure into all this?
Tropical Storm Beryl in the Atlantic.
https://www.tropicaltidbits.com/sat/satlooper.php?region=02L&product=wv-mid
The best summer since 1976 in the UK, however, winters then were cold and are becoming the norm again in the UK. I stopped believing in Agw after working for a carbon management company in 2006, I found out the whole concept was fraud.
Please explain this massive fraud you claim to have found.
PS: Were you fired?
Tim says:
July 8, 2018 at 4:05 AM
I stopped believing in Agw after working for a carbon management company in 2006, I found out the whole concept was fraud.
A few words explaining what you really found out would be interesting!
bilybob says:
July 3, 2018 at 2:32 PM
“Is there a corresponding figure 5 for the world?”
Hello bilybob, as promised I generated data to show such a figure.
There are some differences: while fig. 5 edited by John Christy and presented by Roy Spencer
http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/US-extreme-high-temperatures-1895-2017.jpg
was created using the USHCRN record for the entire US, I use here the GHCN daily record for the CONUS and the Globe.
Moreover, I do not use Fahrenheit but Celsius instead. The two limits, 100 resp 105F became here 35 resp. 40 C.
1. Here is a chart corresponding to fig. 5:
http://4gp.me/bbtc/1531066690920/001.jpg
As John Christy noted, there is indeed no significant trend expressing a possible increase of daily maxima per station/year in the US.
2. And here is the chart for the Globe:
http://4gp.me/bbtc/1531066827229/001.jpg
You see a somewhat more significant, but certainly not dramatic trend (excepted for alarmists of course).
But something appeared strange to me: the plots in the two charts are too similar.
After a look at
http://4gp.me/bbtc/1531068330612/001.jpg
everybody understands that e.g. in 1936, we had for the Globe 5162 active stations, and for CONUS alone, 3582 of these. Thus the entire Globe minus CONUS had in 1936 only 1580 stations, i.e. 44 % of the CONUS set. No wonder the charts look so similar.
The idea was thus to subtract CONUS from the Globe, giving this, i.e. 98 % of the planet:
http://4gp.me/bbtc/153106726076/001.jpg
I won’t comment this graph: that is the job of the blog’s readers.
—
A few numbers to close: top tens for maxima per year/station, above 35 resp 40 C for CONUS and the Globe minus CONUS.
1. CONUS
Above 35 C
1936 25.9
1934 23.5
1954 22.3
1931 20.6
1980 20.6
1930 19.5
1933 18.7
1925 18.6
1952 18.6
1953 18.5
Above 40 C
1936 5.7
1934 4.4
1980 3.0
1954 2.7
2011 2.6
1930 2.5
1933 2.3
1937 2.1
1939 2.1
1952 2.0
2. Globe minus CONUS
Above 35 C
2010 14.9
2015 14.6
2009 14.3
2016 14.3
2012 13.7
2017 13.4
2014 13.0
2013 12.8
2005 12.7
2006 12.7
Above 40 C
2009 3.2
2010 3.2
2015 3.0
2016 2.9
2017 2.8
2005 2.7
2006 2.7
2012 2.7
2014 2.7
2013 2.6
Again: no comment.
Data source: https://tinyurl.com/yb3pr7jn
(over 29 GB)
Bindidon,
Thank you so much for doing this.
One question on the data used to make your graphics. Are these the averages for sites that go back to 1895 or are you adding in new sites as they come online? The reason I ask is that in Fig 5 Christy referenced 1114 USHCRN sites that I had assumed were available throughout the entire period. Usually there would be holes here and there for what ever reason, but the figure was based on just these sites. No new sites would be added so a apples to apples comparison could be performed.
I think this is important because the deniers out there will take a hold of this analysis and say the data is skewed because of the new sites. So I just wanted to confirm if it does add new stations or not.
Regardless, your first figure does show that CONUS had experienced a significant warming in the 30’s that has not been seen since. Though the data I have seen on the minimum side show a significant increase raising the average over that time period.
On the last figure (globe minus CONUS) that would surprise me significantly if that figure is using only sites that extend back to 1900. If you are including new sites as you move forward however, I am not sure what I can comment on. There would be two possibilities, 1) new sites are skewed to higher temperature extremes or 2) they are not skewed and the rest of the globe is achieving higher extremes while CONUS is not.
One last comment, since New York was singled out in this blog article, I took a look at Central Park NY. The record high was 106 in 1936.
Again thanks for your effort. I will be in and out for the next few days working on a few deadlines.
bilybob says:
July 8, 2018 at 5:24 PM
Thanks in turn bilybob for your convenient answer.
“One question on the data used to make your graphics. Are these the averages for sites that go back to 1895 or are you adding in new sites as they come online? ”
Please have a look at the blue plot in the graph
http://4gp.me/bbtc/1531068330612/001.jpg
It tells you all you need.
“The reason I ask is that in Fig 5 Christy referenced 1114 USHCRN sites that I had assumed were available throughout the entire period.”
No they of course were not:
http://4gp.me/bbtc/1531130791521/001.jpg
I scanned USHCN some months ago, and the scan reported a sum of 1218 stations (btw I don’t know how Mr Christy obtained 1114 stations). In 1895, only 609 of them were active, and 907 in 2017.
“Usually there would be holes here and there for what ever reason, but the figure was based on just these sites. No new sites would be added so a apples to apples comparison could be performed.”
If there were holes, you would see them in the graph above.
“I think this is important because the deniers out there will take a hold of this analysis and say the data is skewed because of the new sites. ”
Deniers looking at a temperature series generated out of only 300 stations having reported from 1895 till 2017 would say ‘What? Only 300 stations? Ridiculous!’.
“There would be two possibilities, 1) new sites are skewed to higher temperature extremes or 2) they are not skewed and the rest of the globe is achieving higher extremes while CONUS is not.”
Why should new sites be ‘skewed to higher temperature extremes’ ?
Manipulating over 30,000 stations to get the world look warmer? Jesus, bilybob. I thought only people like Robertson would think so :-((
So I think: yes, ‘the globe is achieving higher extremes while CONUS is not’.
CONUS is a warm country, but over the long term it is not warming so much.
The 0.18 C / decade registered over CONUS by Roy Spencer in 3-5 km altitude does not tell us anything about what happens 2 m above the surface.
It might be for example due to huge advection streams moving poleward from the Tropics.
—
A last thought: please be careful with daily maxima or minima counts. They have a meaning differing from averaging these maxima or minima.
A typical example is that in the CONUS, the year with the highest maxima average was NOT 1936, but 1934!
Bindindon Says,
“Why should new sites be ‘skewed to higher temperature extremes’ ?”
Bilybob says,
Location of new sites could skew the results.
Bindindon Says,
“Manipulating over 30,000 stations to get the world look warmer? Jesus, bilybob. I thought only people like Robertson would think so :-((”
My background is in data analysis, my comment was a statement that there is insufficient data to come to a conclusion on that last graph. However, if I knew more of the new sites, their distribution of their locations, I might be able to come up with a definitive opinion. As such, it is either the new sites are predominately in the warmer zones of Earth or they are distributed evenly across the globe. That would probably apply to rural vs. urban as well. Thus the result could be skewed. I just don’t know.
The word “manipulating” would suggest that actual data was modified in some way. Or, perhaps the site selection was somehow biased. My impression was either these are the set of sites that have data back to 1900 or it is all the sites. Are you saying it is in-between and specifically selected for your graph? I did not get that impression. I do not see any manipulation of the data or site selection, but if you have evidence I would look at it.
Bindindon Says,
“A last thought: please be careful with daily maxima or minima counts. They have a meaning differing from averaging these maxima or minima.”
BilyBob Says,
I believe we agree on this. And this has been my point for a while now. The discussion on GHE has been a bit one side, only looking at energy leaving the surface. However, the atmosphere impacts energy from the Sun, it may be a lower percent but it is a higher energy source. Thus, even though average temperatures are increasing, the data shows extreme cold and extreme heat events also decreasing.
This also in now way suggests that CO2 is the control knob for temperature. I believe most posters here agree that the proxy data going back 500k years or more show that even as CO2 is increasing that global temperature started to decrease (near peak global temperature periods. The data suggests that CO2 is simply ineffective in warming the planet above 300ppm. Perhaps, below 300ppm it does and it seems reasonable. I have been looking for such evidence
Some other insights for your consideration. The Earth does not receive an average amount of solar energy. One side of the planet receives the full amount and depending on the composition of the atmosphere, angle of refraction/reflection, albedo, photon interaction and surface conditions water/land/desert/forest/urbanized/agricultural etc. the energy can be processed differently. This is also true of the night side of Earth, where energy leaving is impacted by the composition of the atmosphere and surface material. Because Maxima/Minima are changing, it is either due to changes in these conditions or from the natural cycles or a combination of both. Currently, the data I have seen thus far is that changes are more likely driven by natural and some that is human induced. I do think deforestation and urbanization have contributed to this but nature is the driving factor.
Your thoughts?
Bindindon Says,
“A typical example is that in the CONUS, the year with the highest maxima average was NOT 1936, but 1934!”
I should have better explained, my bad. I was pointing out that Central Park NY which is in the middle of one of the most urbanized areas of the world, has a maximum temperature record dating from 1936. There was criticism by some, not you, that Dr. Spencer was being deceptive by using the whole state, which is very rural has high altitudes. However, the focus of this blog article was on this region so I don’t think it was intentional on his part to deceive.
However, with that said, if temperature extremes are significantly higher, why are a high percentage of old records still intact? I should have explained better where I was going with that, I apologize. I was not trying to link the Figure 5 to Central Park.
Thanks bilybob for the two replies.
But before commenting them, I would like to show you the results of your own interest in obtaining data similar to what I already sent, but based on stations active over the whole period, i.e. 1895-2017.
I move that downthread as usual.
Rgds
J.-P.
binny…”And here is the chart for the Globe:”
More amateur, creative curve plotting from Binny using Excel.
Gordon Robertson says:
July 8, 2018 at 5:18 PM
“And here is the chart for the Globe:”
More amateur, creative curve plotting from Binny using Excel.
http://4gp.me/bbtc/1531066690920/001.jpg
Why did genius Robertson not view that graph not as ‘amateur, creative curve plotting’ as well?
Argumentum Ad Ignorantiam; Exposing Climate Sophistry
Sorry, I intended to say Dr Spencer, your readers may enjoy this post. It is a rebuttal to the video I posted on another thread.
Argumentum Ad Ignorantiam; Exposing Climate Sophistry
https://co2islife.wordpress.com/2018/07/08/argumentum-ad-ignorantiam-exposing-climate-sophistry/
I think now moving forward will do much to put AGW believers to rest.
Salavtore…”I think now moving forward will do much to put AGW believers to rest”.
It appears that cooling is upon us at night in the Vancouver, Canada area. We are averaging 15C in the evenings, a might cool for this time of year.
Wonder what happened to ren?
Gordon thinks AGW is done because there have been a couple of cool nights in his backyard.
{eye roll}
“Canadas Outdoor Rinks Are Melting. So Is a Way of Life.” NY Times 3/20/18
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/20/climate/canada-outdoor-rinks.html
CO2…”Argumentum Ad Ignorantiam….”
Interesting to see David Appell stumbling and hemming and hawing over a simple question. He was rendered to muttering about Arrhenius in 1896 and clearly confounded by the question.
His co-panelist Chuck was all over it with a factual response. I can see all the alarmists groaning over Appell’s performance. He clearly has not learned the propaganda well enough.
At least I don’t hide behind a fake name — or a common, nonidentifying name shared by ~10^5 other Canadians, no doubt.
Mike Flynn
I gather that you were looking for this.
http://acmg.seas.harvard.edu/people/faculty/djj/book/bookchap7.html
Entropic man I thought a while back you favored solar as far as the climate goes? Am I wrong?
Salvatore Del Prete
Rather an oversimplification.
I think of climate as controlled mainly by seven forcings and tending to settle at one of five strange attractors.
I dont see how you can explain the last 700 million years using anything less.
E m,
If I didn’t know better, I would thin’ you are joking. Alas, you are only deluded.
“Some of this terrestrial radiation is trapped by greenhouse gases and radiated back to the Earth, resulting in the warming of the surface known as the greenhouse effect.” Except it can’t, of course.
Just the usual pseudoscientific garbage. Unfortunately, radiation from a body at a given temperature cannot be returned to that body causing a rise in temperature – that would be a magical effect.
Only the stupid, ignorant or deluded coukd accept such fantasy as truth.
Maybe you could try describing the GHE yourself? You might start by saying “The Greenhouse Effect is a natural phenomenon which is observed . . . ”
Complete and utter waste of time, isn’t it? Can’t be done, because it is a fantasy!
Keep trying.
Cheers.
Moving this down here:
DA…”The leader of RSS thinks surface measurements are superior:”
That’s why I think Mears is an alarmist and proof that RSS was set up to destroy confidence in UAH. How could anyone in his right mind compare fabricated surface data, that barely covers the 30% of land surface, to state of the art technology that covers 95% of the surface, including oceans?
Surface data is deceit. It is based on discarding most of the real data and using some of it in a climate model to fabricate the discarded data. In other words, the surface quacks at Had-crut, GISS, and NOAA have taken to guessing at what they think global temps should be and have manipulated data to realize that guess.
All of them are climate alarmists and have a political bent. That was exposed in the Climategate email scandal when several top IPCC scientists were caught interfering with peer review and adjusting time series to hide cooling. One of them, Mann, referred to that process as The Cause.
Another one, Phil Jones, head of Had-crut, claimed he and ‘Kevin’ would see to it that skeptics’ paper would not get to the IPCC review stage. Kevin seems to be Kevin Trenberth with whom Jones is partnered as a Coordinating Lead Author at IPCC reviews.
Another, Michael Mann, a good friend of Gavin Schmidt of GISS, has admitted to a trick in which cooling in data is hidden. Jones bragged about using the trick himself.
The IPCC is crooked and so is the entire alarmist movement, which is in control of Had-crut, NOAA and GISS.
Now it appears Mears is associated with that mob, which suggests RSS is just as corrupt as they are.
Gordon Robertson wrote:
Another, Michael Mann, a good friend of Gavin Schmidt of GISS, has admitted to a trick in which cooling in data is hidden.
You dummy, you don’t even know what “hide the decline” meant or its context.
DA…”You dummy, you dont even know what hide the decline meant or its context”.
I know the real version, not the political version you offer. When Mann’s hockey stick proxy data began showing cooling when the temps were actually rising, Mann cut off the offending data and spliced in real data.
That’s what hide the decline means, hiding the cooling proxy data. However, Phil Jones of Had-crut bragged about using Mann’s method on real data.
Pretty good. It means the proxy data stopped matching the temperature data in certain regions of the globe. (Mann et al used temperature data from about 1900 on, and used the 20th century overlap to correlate past proxy temperatures to real temperatures.)
What was wrong with doing that?
DA…”(Mann et al used temperature data from about 1900 on, and used the 20th century overlap to correlate past proxy temperatures to real temperatures.)
What was wrong with doing that?”
For one, when Mann et all were investigated by the National Academy of Science, NAS told them they could not use pine bristlecone for the 20th century. That’s all they had for 20th century proxies.
For another, they inferred an unprecedented warming during the 1990s from 1000 AD to 1998. If the proxy data was showing cooling, their data would not have shown unprecedented warming, since it was showing cooling. They could only claim the 1000 year unprecedented warming using real data representing a couple of decades.
The entire study was a scam. For one entire year, around 1400 AD, they only had one tree as a proxy. Mann et al had to eliminated the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age to get a flat shaft for their hockey stick. They had to splice in real data to get the blade.
Its context was the decline in tree growth at some high-latitude locations since 1960, an issue in climate science called the “divergence problem.” See http://www.skepticalscience.com/Mikes-Nature-trick-hide-the-decline.htm for a full explanation, and read
“On the Divergence Problem in Northern Forests: A review of the
tree-ring evidence and possible causes,” Rosanne D’Arrigo et al, Global and Planetary Change 60 (2008) 289305.
http://www.ldeo.columbia.edu/~liepert/pdf/DArrigo_etal.pdf
Then explain what Mann et al did wrong.
DA…”Then explain what Mann et al did wrong”.
It would be far easier to explain what they did right…nothing.
Mann et al set out to prove the propaganda that the 1990s were the hottest decade in 1000 years and they failed in every manner conceivable. NAS disagreed, a statistics expert disagreed, and ultimately the IPCC disagreed by amending the hockey stick graph to the spaghetti graph which applies from 1850 onward, which re-instates the MWP and LIA that Mann et al discarded, and which generally distances them from the embarrassment of the hockey stick.
Gordon Robertson says:
July 8, 2018 at 3:21 PM
How could anyone in his right mind compare fabricated surface data, that barely covers the 30% of land surface, to state of the art technology that covers 95% of the surface, including oceans?
It becomes, after dozens of ‘comments’ of that kind, more and more obvious that Robertson is dumb enough to believe that ‘surface data’ only means ‘land surface data’.
He manifestly never heard of HadISST1, HadSST3, ERSST4/5, COBE-SST2 (the coldest sea surface temperature evah), etc etc etc.
What an ignorant, pretentious boaster.
Look at this faked graph made out of fudged data, Robertson!
http://4gp.me/bbtc/1531091738941/001.jpg
binny…”It becomes, after dozens of comments of that kind, more and more obvious that Robertson is dumb enough to believe that surface data only means land surface data.
He manifestly never heard of HadISST1, HadSST3, ERSST4/5, COBE-SST2 (the coldest sea surface temperature evah), etc etc etc.”
Both you and your alter-ego, La P, are idiots. More evidence you are both one and the same.
“On August 15, 2017, GISS switched from NOAA/NCD-C’s Extended Reconstructed Sea Surface Temperature (ERSST) dataset version 4 to version 5 in their temperature analysis…”.
https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/updates_v3/ersst5vs4/
No matter how you look at it, the surface data in question is put out by the fabricators at Had-crut, NOAA, and/or GISS.
Note the reference in ERSST to reconstruction, another word for fudged. They don’t measure anything, they synthesize it using opinion, cheating based on alarmist political views.
Gordon, do you have an useful thoughts on GISS’s switch from NOAA/NCD-Cs Extended Reconstructed Sea Surface Temperature (ERSST) dataset version 4 to version 5? What was wrong with that decision?
Did you care when UAH switched from 5.6 to v6.0? (no.)
Gordo complains about computer models and claims that “UAH” is superior to surface data. He doesn’t indicate which “UAH” he thinks is better, nor why he thinks so, apparently unaware that the UAH products are also based on models. So, his attraction to UAH simply shows his duplicity, in which he both rejects and accepts atmospheric models. What a funny guy, his anti-science bias is so obvious that anyone can see it, yet he continues to pontificate, endlessly claiming his knowledge is superior, in spite of his ignorance.
E.Swanson, you are indeed the “funny guy”. Especially after your funny “experiment” and statements like:
“What a funny guy, his anti-science bias is so obvious that anyone can see it, yet he continues to pontificate, endlessly claiming his knowledge is superior, in spite of his ignorance.”
swannie…”apparently unaware that the UAH products are also based on models”.
There is a difference between a computer and the specific application of a computer as a model. Most alarmists don’t get that and it’s too difficult to explain that to someone who does not get it.
UAH uses computers to analyze the data they receive from NOAA from NOAA satellites. Roy has revealed how he has written programs to help analyze the data but such a program is not a model.
A model is a computer using a program that generates data. The program reflects a synthetic understanding of how a system works. Then it must be tested in order to validate the program.
That is, models synthesize data and produce an imaginary representation. UAH has real data from real satellites and they use computers to synchronize several different sets of data from several different satellites, with the data representing several different altitudes.
Comparing UAH data to climate models is like claiming heat can be transferred via back-radiation from a cooler surface to a warmer surface.
Gordo, I started programming computers when I was still an undergrad more than 50 years ago. My first job involved building dynamic simulations of electro-mechanical systems used to control satellites. I know the difference between measured data and simulation model results. I’ve attempted to read everything that Spencer and Christy have published and have published a couple of papers on the subject myself. You apparently have no clue regarding what the satellite “temperature data” actually represents or how it’s processed to give those lovely graphs which Roy posts every month.
Then too, you’ve repeatedly shown that you don’t understand physics, either.
I can’t wait to see how David reacts if the cooling trend which has now started continues year after year.
“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
My web-site shows what I really said and when. climatebusters.org
Be careful, Salvatore! El Niño is watching you :-))
http://ds.data.jma.go.jp/tcc/tcc/products/elnino/elmonout.html#fig2
Really and in the meantime the overall oceanic surface waters continue to cool which is what really matters not some half hearted transient El Nino.
By the way which is NATURAL.
It is now no longer “ho-hum, just more record warmth”, this is getting serious.
“The past seven days have set global heat milestones and sparked safety concerns from Quebec, where at least 34 people have died in the province from the heat and humidity, to northern Siberia, home to the coldest town on Earth, which recorded temperatures 40 degrees above normal on Thursday.
In Denver, the temperature reached an all-time high of 105 degrees. Just shy of 98 degrees, Montreal broke a 147-year-old record with its hottest measurement ever. In Bergen County, New Jersey, 81-year-old Rep. Bill Pascrell (D-N.J) passed out from the 90-degree-heat at a local fire department event. ”
https://www.motherjones.com/environment/2018/07/this-meteorologist-explains-why-the-extreme-heat-is-way-worse-than-you-think/
Glad to see some warmth. There’s record snow/cold in South Africa, and Greenland snow is well above average.
Above what average?
PS: If you want to live in warmer temperatures, move south, instead of expecting the entire world to heat up just so you’re comfortable in your backyard.
DA, you can relax. The entire world is not going to heat up due to burning fossil fuels.
With atmospheric CO2, it’s “the more, the better”!
The entire world is already heating up due to our burning fossil fuels. Proven.
Keep repeating that often enough, and maybe you will believe it.
Enough with you, troll. Into the MF bin you go.
DA runs out of ways to twist and distort reality, so it’s my fault!
There’s record snow/cold in South Africa…
—
In South Africa??
The coldest minimum there since beginning of 2018 was in VRYBURG on July 4 with -8.2 C. It is winter there.
What are you telling us, JDHuffman? News from the TricksZone?
Given the above, let me also say:
So-called luke-warmers have contributed ABSOLUTELY NOTHING in terms of :
1. contradicting the denialists
2. assisting the warmists in sounding warnings
3. contributing towards the calls for limiting emissions
4. providing a sensible discussion of the economics
Forgive me if I cant find the time to treat you seriously. You lot will forever be regarded as cowards by the rest of us.
Anonymous Myki can’t seem to get anything right.
So in frustration, he just goes to the attacks and insults.
Predictable.
Myki,
Regard as you wish. I presume the rest of you are equally as ignorant and stupid as yourself.
Can you think of a single cogent reason why I should take any notice of what a ragtag mob of completely impotent, ignorant and stupid dimwits might think?
Should I be concerned for my personal safety? Will you raise a mighty horde of capering climate clowns, bearing torches and pitchforks, and demand that Nature change the laws of physics to something more to your liking?
Throw a fearsome tantrum if you like – my care factor remains zero.
Cheers.
By the time we get to set up trials for crimes against humanity, I suspect most denialists will have died of old age (or frustration).
Anonymous Myki, CO2 is essential for ALL life. Burning “fossil fuels” just puts more of it back into the atmosphere, where it can do good.
Get over it.
I take it that you are happy to be cremated (adding back co2 etc).
I am happy to arrange that as soon as possible!
Veiled death threats further explain your need for anonymity.
Perhaps learning some science, getting a job, and moving out of your mom’s house would help you to mature.
“Veiled death threats further explain your need for anonymity. Perhaps learning some science, getting a job, and moving out of your mom’s house would help you to mature.”
You have given me a great idea!
Tomorrow I will tell mom I am going to apply for a job with the Mafia as one of their undertakers.
And don’t forget, I know who you are and where you live!
It wasn’t that hot. Gordon and CWiese have assured us that temperature data are fake and fraudulent. It was probably a nice 70 degrees and Rep Pascrell passed out when he saw a donor wanting to write him a six-figure check.
Or maybe he say some 17-year old girl. You know what I mean.
myki…more propaganda…”he past seven days have set global heat milestones and sparked safety concerns from Quebec, where at least 34 people have died in the province from the heat and humidity, to northern Siberia, home to the coldest town on Earth, which recorded temperatures 40 degrees above normal on Thursday”.
It claims temperatures were 40 degrees above normal. That would make it about 60C for a normal Quebec summer day.
In fact, the record in Quebec was set back in 1921. Look at all the records set in Canada back in the early 20th century.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_extreme_temperatures_in_Canada
Look at bottom half of page to see record temperatures in Canada, all in the 40C range.
You alarmists are delusional.
myki…”In Denver, the temperature reached an all-time high of 105 degrees”.
It was 105 in August 8, 1878. What was so special about 1878?
What was special? It was an unnaturally hot day.
What’s the long-term trend for Denver temps?
DA,
Whatever happens in the known universe is, by definition, natural.
What happens in your fantasies is also natural – ignorance, stupidity, and delusional thinking are part of the known universe.
Bizarre, not normal, but natural.
Carry on, David. That is obviously your nature.
Cheers.
MF wrote,
Your logic is impeccable, perfectly capturing the problem. Of course, humans are part of nature, since we live within the bubble of air which provides us life, liberty and the pursuit of happyness. So, extending your logic, everything which mankind does is natural, including world wars, genocide and total environmental destruction, and it’s all OK with the Big Guy in the Clouds. Lets go for it, lets kill everything which doesn’t look like us humans, we can solve any problem (so far), so “we” don’t need “them”. Species suicide, dead ahead!
Sad to say, that’s the logical conclusion of your world view.
E,
Thank you for confirming that my logic is impeccable.
Warmist fools wish to exterminate all life forms on the planet by removing CO2 (a perfectly normal and life sustaining gas) from the atmosphere.
All part of the nature of foolish Warmists. Man is indeed part of the environment, whether you like it or not. I might point out that more than 99 % of all species which have inhabited the Earth became extinct before the advent of Man, who you appear to value so lightly.
Go away, you silly fellow! Start a movement to Save the Dinosaurs if you want to appear warm, fuzzy and perfectly foolish. You are free to do as wish – so am I.
All part f the rich tapestry of life.
Cheers.
Mike…”Thank you for confirming that my logic is impeccable”
I second that, Mike.
MF, You raise an age old question. Is mankind exceptional, or just another dot on the 4.55 billion year time line? Or, are we the result intervention by some outside intelligence which made us different than the dinosaurs or the mice and rats which followed after their extinction? In either case, humans have progressed to our present state by thinking and planning, instead of being stupid. If we keep being stupid and ignore what science teaches us, then, yes, we are likely to vanish as a result.
Last July was +.29c above normal according to satellite data this July will be lower, as are all of the other months in 2018 versus year 2017.
Oh wait Mar of 2017 was higher then March of 2018.Exception.
CWeise thinks climate science stopped with Elsasser, because that’s when Chuck stopped learning about climate science.
It never occurred him to look beyond 1942.
Re: Elsasser
“Before the advent of numerical models of radiative transfer that included the detailed infrared spectrum of CO2 and water vapor, meteorologists used a simplified atmospheric radiation chart and tables developed by Walter M. Elsasser in 1942 and Arent Bruinenberg in 1946. The Elsasser Chart assumed that CO2 was a perfect black body absorber at all altitudes, but only for wavelengths between 13.1 and 16.9 microns. Other simplifying assumptions were made for water vapor.
“Plass used his more sophisticated theory to warm that accumulation of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere from anthropogenic sources could become a serious problem in the near future….”
Historical Perspectives on Climate Change, James Rodger Fleming (2005) p 122.
https://tinyurl.com/y9bkpsuo
Appell, you are full of crap. There was no “sophisticated” theory by Plass that was more sophisticated than Elsasser’s infrared radiation calculations and first developed non computerized IR transfer model that included the ability to compute CO2, water vapor and cloud IR fluxes.
The only change this many years later is the computing ability to go to LBL code which better defines the ab-sor-ption and emission spectra of the constituents.
The physical premise for Elsassr’s work was to demonstrate that CO2 in the presence of water vapor and the hydro cycle has no hope of controlling nocturnal radiation or IR downwelling.
Nothing has been discovered since that changes this meaning in spite of more accurate LBL code.
And with your previous stupid posts about quantum energy, “local temperature” being a farse in radiative transfer theory as well as demonstrating a complete lack of understanding of basic integral calculus, you are the last person that I believe could ever understand ANY of this.
David Appell used to be a physicist. Now he is a Climate Zombie.
Chuck Wiese says:
The physical premise for Elsassrs work was to demonstrate that CO2 in the presence of water vapor and the hydro cycle has no hope of controlling nocturnal radiation or IR downwelling.
Oh Chuck.
Sadly, you haven’t read past 1942. You think work in 1942 is accurate today, despite an enormous amount of work being done since then.
In any science, Chuck — any — show me where the work of 1942 is accurate today.
Check these charts for central Washington State:
Yakima temps
Try to not get excited. I know it will be hard.
Its funny, all the people here arguing about the CO2. The atmospheric response to additional greenhouse gases is the most WELL understood part of climate science, because it is the most amenable to traditional analytic methods of physics, and because he spectroscopy is very very well-known (see: HITRAN database).
The uncertainties lie in 1. the response of the climate cycle, 2. the response of clouds, and most of all 3. the socioeconomics of what humans will do in the future In terms of energy decisions.
David,
There is no such thing as climate science. Climate is the average of weather, no more, no less.
No GHE. Neither you nor anybody else can describe the GHE in any scientific fashion!
Give it a try – how hard can it be?
Cheers.
MF wrote:
Climate is the statistics of weather. There’s more to it than just an average, there’s the distribution of the extremes in the statistics as well. The data includes efforts to characterize the incidence of droughts and floods from extremes in precipitation, which describe either too much or too little rainfall. Extremes of temperature, either hot or cold, can life threatening in their impact. Short periods of extreme weather appear all the time, just this past week or so, there’s been examples, such as the heat wave in the US and the floods in Japan just last Friday which killed more than 112 people with many more still missing:
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/09/world/asia/japan-floods-rain-deaths.html
The study of climate change is an attempt to project how those statistics will change as humans modify the Earth. That includes things in Australia too.
E,
The climate changes because the weather does. It is fairly simple, as are people who think that climate determines weather.
The atmosphere appears to behave chaotically, and the weather (and hence climate) has been changing for four and a half billion years or so. You may believe that calculating averages of past events is science. I do not.
You may believe that future states of the atmosphere can be skillfully predicted. Not even the IPCC is that silly. Believe away. If your belief neither breaks my leg nor picks my pocket (to paraphrase Thomas Jefferson), then why should I care what you believe? You don’t care for what I believe, so we are even, I guess.
All I have to support my beliefs are physics, facts, and Natiure. You have belief.
Cheers.
MF, Of course, efforts to “predict” the future state of the atmosphere many years into the future are difficult, if not impossible, since the future emissions path of greenhouse gases can only be guessed at. That’s why there are several emission projections used by the IPCC for comparing the different models. As for facts, there are other indicators of changing climate besides the various temperature records and they tend to point toward warming, factual data which you apparently refuse to consider.
Then too, you apparently think that I’m relying on belief when I’ve presented factual data from my “Green Plate” experiments, yet, you’ve not yet presented another interpretation of my results based on physics. You are welcome to present such a critique, but, until you do so, I must conclude that my interpretation is the correct one.
E,
What observation have you made which cannot be explained without invoking the non-existent GHE?
You have demonstrated that objects can be heated using a heat source. You have demonstrated that reducing the amount of heat reaching an object causes a fall in temperature.
You have certainly not demonstrated that increasing the amount of CO2 between the Sun and a thermometer makes the thermometer hotter!
As a matter of fact, you cannot even describe the GHE, so I am not certain what your demonstration is supposed to show – if you are somehow attempting to show the existence of an effect which has never been a usefully described.
Press on. Keep believing in magic if you choose.
If the temperature of a thermometer increases, there is an increase in energy involved. CO2 provides none. No GHE. Have you thought of looking for increased heat as a reason for increased temperatures?
I thought not.
Cheers.
Mike “flapper” continues to ignore the implications of my Green Plate demonstration. Which is (to remind Mike), that the “back radiation” from the Green Plate results in warming the Blue Plate. It’s that same “back radiation” which is included in the S-B equation and which also causes the Greenhouse Effect that warms the Earth’s atmosphere above the temperature it would have without those gases. Of course, Mike F continues with another of his completely incorrect statements about the Greenhouse Effect, distorting the process in which the CO2 between the Earth and Deep Space causes warming, instead claiming the impact must appear between the Sun and the Earth’s surface.
Mike F had his chance to respond to my challenge and failed, yet again, to provide an alternate, physics based explanation for the warming produced by the Green Plate effect demo. So sad!
Reflectivity?
Halp-less one, There’s not much reflectivity with an emissivity which I measured at about 0.93.
E. Swanson, magicians can perform amazing tricks. They can saw people in half, and make tigers appear or disappear.
Often people, confused about science, conjure up “experiments” to support their false beliefs. They don’t even know they are deceiving themselves. “Flat Earthers” perform such “experiments” all the time.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HpyaMoBzFy4
Magic tricks and bad experiments are not science.
OK, so you dont think reflectivity can explain much of the temperature increase. Keep thinking though! I know you can get to the real reason for your temperature increase if you keep trying.
E. Swanson,
Mike Flynn is correct that your experiments do not show how additional CO2 is contributing to any further warming. The green plate does cause the blue plate to warm, but that is not the same as showing more CO2 causes Earth’s surface to warm.
Furthermore, CO2 is between the Sun and the Earth and your experiments do not incorporate that reality.
Instead of attacking Mike, why don’t you work on modifications to your experiments that address reality rather than analogy.
Chic Bowdrie, The Green Plate demonstration was intended to show that a cooler object when placed in the IR radiation field of a heated warmer object would cause the temperature of the warmer object to increase. This scenario does not violate the Second Law and the same applies to the effects of greenhouse gases. It’s directly analogous to the situation where the Earth is radiating IR EM thru the atmosphere outward to deep space. The inbound energy from the Sun is mostly short wave and this part of the process does not directly warm the Green Plate.
Of course, some of the incoming SW EM is absorbed by CO2, since the Planck distribution of the SW EM does extend into the long wave region. Some warming of the atmosphere results, but the biggest effect is on the IR portion of the outbound energy, during both day and night.
E. Swanson,
“Of course, some of the incoming SW EM is absorbed by CO2, since the Planck distribution of the SW EM does extend into the long wave region. Some warming of the atmosphere results, but the biggest effect is on the IR portion of the outbound energy, during both day and night.”
Are you assuming this or do you have measurements or at least calculations to back up that assertion about the “biggest effect?”
I know you are sensitive about 2LoT complaints. I have no problem with that. I do have a problem with you claiming your experiment is analogous to reality when you contradict yourself alleging “inbound energy from the Sun is mostly short wave and this part of the process does not directly warm the Green Plate.” Unless your experiment realistically accounts for the contrasting contributions of both effects, you are spitting into the wind.
CB, Sorry, I don’t see the point of your critique. My Green Plate demo wasn’t intended as a model of the entire atmospheric Greenhouse Effect. As it is, the heating of the Blue plate is the result of EM radiation from the high intensity light source. There’s both SW and LW EM emitted by that light, which heats the Blue plate and also heats the bell jar. Once the energy flowing thru the apparatus reaches steady state, the temperatures no longer change. I intentionally shielded the Green plate from the SW EM, though not doing so would probably not change the overall result, just produce different equilibrium temperatures for each configuration.
E. Swanson,
The point of my critique is you criticizing Mike for asking about CO2 reducing SW reaching the surface. Your model only illustrates the secondary insulating effects of an atmosphere on a planetary surface warmed by the sun.
“…the “back radiation” from the Green Plate results in warming the Blue Plate. It’s that same “back radiation” which is included in the S-B equation and which also causes the Greenhouse Effect that warms the Earth’s atmosphere above the temperature it would have without those gases.”
You admitted “some of the incoming SW EM is absorbed by CO2,” yet give no credence to the possibility that the absence of CO2 may cause more warming than its presence.
“Mike F continues with another of his completely incorrect statements about the Greenhouse Effect, distorting the process in which the CO2 between the Earth and Deep Space causes warming, instead claiming the impact must appear between the Sun and the Earth’s surface.”
I haven’t looked into the difference in IR gas effects on SW vs LW absorp-tion, so I don’t know one way or the other. But unless you have the data showing Mike is wrong, why continue baiting him with irrelevant arguments?
CB, MF has repeatedly presented a statement in which he implies that the CO2 Greenhouse Effect is related to the incoming SW from the Sun. That statement is a
Straw Man argument, which MF presents and then refutes, thus ignoring the real Greenhouse Effect on the outgoing IR EM.
That you “haven’t looked into the difference in IR gas effects on SW vs LW absorp-tion” just says you haven’t been paying attention to all the discussion on this blog these past several months. You should take the time to do your homework before you pontificate.
Would you kindly refer me somewhere “to all the discussion on this blog these past several months” where the evidence that the magnitude of solar radiation absorbed by CO2 is less than that from surface radiation? Do you have any idea how one would calculated that, let alone measure it?
CB, No, I’m not here to do your homework.
Assuming you are not just bluffing and don’t have a clue, do you remember the subject of the post or an approximate date where those discussions to place?
Furthermore, if you have done the calculations or know who or where they were measured or calculated, why not just share that knowledge?
My guess is you don’t have a clue and you are bluffing.
CB, There’ve been several threads in just the past few days on the subject. Previous posts dealt with spectral distribution of both incoming SW and outgoing LW at TOA and the surface. What I wanted to emphasize is that the absorbed SW by CO2 is a small fraction of the total SW at TOA.
ES,
“Previous posts dealt with spectral distribution of both incoming SW and outgoing LW at TOA and the surface.”
I don’t see what that has to do with quantitating the relative difference between how much CO2 absorbs incoming solar vs outgoing LW. Sure, there has been OLR and incoming SW discussions, but which of those deals with the relative contribution from CO2?
You may be right about CO2 absorbing a small fraction of total SW, but don’t just stop at the TOA. CO2 absorp-tion anywhere through the atmosphere prevents surface warming and that fraction, however small, could be larger than LW absorp-tion from the surface. You don’t know until it’s measured or at least calculated.
swannie…”Theres more to it than just an average, theres the distribution of the extremes in the statistics as well”.
How could there be extremes when it is all lumped under ‘climate change’? That implies clearly that one global climate is changing due to a global warming.
Gordo, Didn’t you get a chance to study statistics in college? You know, basic stuff like the mean and standard deviation of a batch of data. Here’s a brand new piece which gives a sense of how extremes apply in reality.
DA…”The atmospheric response to additional greenhouse gases is the most WELL understood part of climate science,…”
It’s only understood by climate modelers and other alarmists. Those of us raised on real physics (2nd law, Ideal Gas Law, scientific method, etc.) and engineering practicality don’t get it.
Makes no sense that a gas comprising 0.04% of the atmosphere could cause any warming, never mind catastrophic warming. We had around the same amount of CO2 before the anthropogenic propaganda emerged and there were no issues. Why is there suddenly alarm?
“The atmospheric response to additional greenhouse gases is the most WELL understood part of climate science…[except for] 1. the response of the climate cycle, 2. the response of clouds, and ….”
So the atmospheric response to additional greenhouse gases ISN’T so well understood after all.
Radiative-convective models constructed from first principles show that CO2 has a tiny effect on temperature gradient once the total pressure exceeds 0.1 bar. For example here is the link to a NatGeo letter that does just that.
https://arxiv.org/abs/1312.6859
The above letter contains sufficient detailed information to allow an amateur such as this camel to reproduce the Robinson & Catling model as explained here:
https://diggingintheclay.wordpress.com/2014/04/27/robinson-and-catling-model-closely-matches-data-for-titans-atmosphere/
The R&C model works on all seven bodies in our solar system that have surface pressures greater than 0.2 bar. Specifically, Venus, Earth, Saturn, Titan, Jupiter, Uranus and Neptune.
The model does not work on Mars where the surface pressure is 0.006 bar because collision broadening is not significant at such low pressures.
cam…”Radiative-convective models constructed from first principles show that CO2 has a tiny effect on temperature gradient once the total pressure exceeds 0.1 bar”.
The confirms the Ideal Gas Equation which suggests a CO2 warming factor of a few hundredths C based on the percent mass of CO2 in the atmosphere.
David everything they have said has never happened. Scam.
*warn, not warm.
Tropical storm will attack Puerto Rico.
Ren you have to like what is gong on of late. Keep the good info coming!
I like the way it is going thus far this year. Global temperatures and overall sea surface temperatures both continue to be lower.
July is looking quite cold in particularly in Antarctica.
One has to predict BEFORE it happens if it has any meaning. I say 2018 is the transitional year. I much rather be early then late when predicting. Late has no meaning it is after the fact.
Of course it is still to early to celebrate and more months have to go by but it has to start sometime if it is going to occur.
The climate when it does really shift or go to another regime does so abruptly not slow and gradual. Ice Core data shows this to be the case
The climate post Dalton shifted to the present climatic regime in a period of 10 years and has been in the same climate regime other then the climatic shift in the late 1970’s which was all natural and accounts for all of the rise in temperatures from the Little Ice Age.
If I turn out to be correct I will be on pretty firm because I would not have only pin pointed the transitional year(before it happened) but also the reasons why and how and my website climatebusters.org backs this up.
My website being done some 5 years ago way in advance of this potential change.
I much rather be early than late when predicting. Late has no meaning it is after the fact.
re CONUS and climate change.
Here are the climate divisions in the US according to NOAA. Is anyone trying to tell me these climate divisions are changing in unison due to global warming as inferred by the term ‘climate change’?
If so, where’s your proof?
*****
NOTE: copy/paste link to browser and remove hyphen from ncd-c
*****
https://www.ncd-c.noaa.gov/monitoring-references/maps/us-climate-divisions.php
sorry Debra, posted in wrong place.
What is going to be interesting to me is how Dr. Spencer will react if the cooling should continue.
He is not biased or close minded. Will he embrace solar more? Who knows.
http://notrickszone.com/2018/07/07/against-the-forecasts-sea-ice-grows-surface-temperatures-fall-troposphere-cools-polar-regions-stable/
Reality!
The most important change is the cold North Atlantic.
https://www.tropicaltidbits.com/analysis/ocean/natlssta.png
This is the current temperature.
https://images.tinypic.pl/i/00967/7efrx3w4cblt.png
Is America ready for even more cold winter?
ren…”Is America ready for even more cold winter?”
America is a continent. Do you mean the United States ‘OF’ America?
Sorry.
I mean the whole of North America.
http://sol.spacenvironment.net/raps_ops/current_files/rtimg/cutoff.gif
https://weather.gc.ca/saisons/animation_e.html?id=month&bc=sea
Agree Ren.
Mike Flynn
No point sending signals to a receiver whose noise-rejection system is preset to reject them.
entropic…”No point sending signals to a receiver whose noise-rejection system is preset to reject them”.
Good signals should get through.
E m,
It is obviously your nature to do it anyway, is it? Or are you just making another pointless and meaningless comment to divert attention away from the fact that the GHE does not exist?
CO2 (lovely stuff) heats nothing. Putting more of it between the Sun and a thermometer won’t make the thermometer hotter except in the modelling fantasies of people like Schmidt, Mann et al.
So sad.Too bad.
Cheers.
@Mike Flynn,
You are right to call out Schmidt & Mann for their modeling fantasies. You will find a real model base on physics rather than fairy tales discussed here:
https://diggingintheclay.wordpress.com/2014/04/27/robinson-and-catling-model-closely-matches-data-for-titans-atmosphere/
gallopingcamel
The only problem with your link is that the Duke University physics teacher, Robert Brown, destroys Mike Flynn’s basic assertion that there is no GHE.
Here is a comment by Robert Brown from you link:
Robert Brown: “In the end it still radiates energy down from greenhouse gases, as the spectrographs reproduced in Petty make absolutely clear. Anybody armed with a halfway decent IR thermometer can directly observe this radiation, and anybody with a good full-spectrum spectrometer can measure the entire spectrum and verify the thermal peaks in LWIR bands associated with e.g. CO_2, H2O, and Ozone (and with LWIR holes where they belong as well). These peaks match thermal holes observable in spectrographs made at the TOA looking down. This is direct, incontrovertible evidence of the greenhouse effect to anybody that can read a spectrograph.”
Mike Flynn is a complete science denier.
N,
One problem with Brown’s diversion is that nowhere does anyone state what the GHE does.
Direct, incontrovertible evidence supporting something which cannot be described is symptomatic of the delusions shared by Warmists!
Keep throwing out allusions to the Holocaust, and concomitant anti Semitic aspersions!
Try describing the GHE in any way that makes sense. Maybe you really are stupid and ignorant enough to believe that increasing the amount of CO2 between the Sun and a thermometer makes the thermometer hotter!
Yes? No? Be a man, and commit yourself one way or the other!
Cheers.
Mike Flynn
You have zero memory. I have answered you question and explained my answer and supported it with empirical evidence. Something you are not remotely capable of doing.
Yes, increasing CO2 between the Sun and a thermometer will make the thermometer read a higher temperature.
All has been explained to you before. Your lack of memory are only something you can address.
Why would you think that adding CO2 would not increase the temperature of a thermometer? You have never answered this. You pose this question countless times but never offer a solution or an explanation. Why is that?
Mike Flynn
Pick up a dictionary sometime and learn the meaning of words.
YOU RANT: “Keep throwing out allusions to the Holocaust, and concomitant anti Semitic aspersions!”
Idiot! I called you a science denier NOT a Holocaust denier. You are one stupid cow!
Here is actual word use dork!
http://www.dictionary.com/browse/denier
This is you. “a person who refuses to accept the existence, truth, or validity of something despite evidence or general support for it:”
Why are you such a stupid human incapable of even the simplest of logical thought?
N,
And what sort of science do you think I refuse to accept?
Science in general? Pseudoscience? So called climate science? The science of phlogiston, the science of the luminiferous ether?
As to your nonsensical statement that increasing the amount of CO2 between the Sun and a thermometer making the thermometer hotter, I just point out that CO2 is not perfectly transparent to radiation. It ensures that less than 100% of incoming insolation reaches the thermometer.
I leave it to you to explain how reducing the amount of energy reaching a thermometer results in the temperature increasing. Somebody might point out that the logical conclusion would be that blocking all radiation would result in literally astronomical temperatures being achieved!
Night would be hotter than ther day, and David Appell’s mad calculation of 750,000 K would be on the low side.
Off you go, Norman. Just copy and paste the GHE explanation you claim to possess, if you feel like it. I don’t believe you can – you just make unsubstantiated assertions, hoping nobody will query them.
Oh well, it takes all sorts, I suppose.
Cheers.
Mike Flynn
YOU: “As to your nonsensical statement that increasing the amount of CO2 between the Sun and a thermometer making the thermometer hotter, I just point out that CO2 is not perfectly transparent to radiation. It ensures that less than 100% of incoming insolation reaches the thermometer.
I leave it to you to explain how reducing the amount of energy reaching a thermometer results in the temperature increasing. Somebody might point out that the logical conclusion would be that blocking all radiation would result in literally astronomical temperatures being achieved!”
I have explained it to you numerous times already. The amount of solar energy that does not reach the thermometer is very small because of CO2. However the CO2 will absorb energy from the surface and warm up until it reaches a steady state temperature where it emits as much as it absorbs (classic physics). The amount of energy it emits back to the surface is much greater than the amount of energy it removed from the solar input. That means you have more NET energy reaching the thermometer and it will reach a higher steady state temperature. You have both the Solar energy reaching it (with a very small portion removed). You have IR emitted by CO2 reaching it as well which is greater than the amount of energy the CO2 removed from the solar input energy.
Norman,
“The amount of energy it emits back to the surface is much greater than the amount of energy it removed from the solar input.”
How did you measure or calculate that? Curious scientists want to know.
Norman,
RGB was my colleague for 12 years in the Duke physics department. Duke university had (has?) the highest “Brains to Weight Ratio” of any organization I ever worked for and Robert was one of the brightest.
Here is how our debate ended:
https://diggingintheclay.wordpress.com/2014/04/27/robinson-and-catling-model-closely-matches-data-for-titans-atmosphere/#comment-6075
Robert never replied. When I returned to North Carolina last year I tried to contact him without success. I plan to visit the Duke physics department this week in the hope of tracking him down.
cam…from your link…”…CO2 molecules in the stratosphere are much more likely to radiate a photon isotropically so half the radiation will return to the surface or the cloud tops…”
I have been trying to establish around here that molecules are nothing more than aggregations of electrons and protons. A molecule does not emit EM, it is the electron that absorbs and emits EM. Even during collisions it’s likely the electrons are doing the heat transfer. Protons are not involved in energy changes and there are no other particles of import in atoms/molecules.
There are rules for that absorp-tion/emission. When an electron drops an energy level it emits a quantum of EM equivalent to the difference in energy levels in eV, where E = hf.
It’s the same during absorp-tion, not just for CO2 but for any atom/molecule. The incident EM must match the frequency of the absorbing electron and that only happens when E matches a difference in electron energy levels.
The 2nd law must also be obeyed. I have proposed that EM from cooler bodies does not match the requirements of electrons in hotter bodies therefore it cannot be absorbed. That proposition satisfies the 2nd law.
In a reply to you, Stephen Wilde proposed that hot air descending after it rises can warm the surface. That is known in desert areas where moist warm air loses its moisture and descends as warm, dry air. That results in desert climates.
I agree with both of you that IR radiated from the surface does not reach space. Lindzen’s version of the GHE agrees with that.
R.W. Wood, a prominent scientist in the earlier part of the 20th century claimed CO2 could not cause the warming claimed. He was an expert in IR. He claimed it far more likely nitrogen and oxygen warmed at the surface and carried heat aloft. Both gases tend to retain heat because they are poor radiators at terrestrial temperatures, hence the GHE.
Wood also pointed out that due to the inverse square law, surface radiation would not be effective more than a few feet above the surface.
“A molecule does not emit EM, it is the electron that absorbs and emits EM.”
That’s wrong Gordon.
“R.W. Wood, a prominent scientist in the earlier part of the 20th century claimed CO2 could not cause the warming claimed.”
That’s not what Prof. Wood claimed; he performed & published an experiment to prove his claim. Gordon is an experiment free zone thus without experiment Gordon’s claims are baseless.
Gordon Robertson, the shorter wavelengths are emitted from electron transitions. The longer wavelengths come from the vibrations within a molecule. Essentially, LWIR comes from molecules. All emissions are quantized, as you mentioned.
JD…”Gordon Robertson, the shorter wavelengths are emitted from electron transitions. The longer wavelengths come from the vibrations within a molecule. Essentially, LWIR comes from molecules. All emissions are quantized, as you mentioned”.
JD…The word molecule means two or more atoms bonded together. An atom is essentially the relationship between the +ve charge on the proton in the nucleus and the equal and opposite negative charge on the electron. The form a harmonic oscillator that vibrates.
Electrons are the bonding agents. If two or more atoms are bonded together it is the electron bond that binds them. All vibrations in atoms and molecules are due to the interaction between the electron and the proton. The proton charge in the nucleus is trying to push away from the nearby protons in another atoms while the protons are attracted to the electrons. The give and take action causes vibration.
With a molecule like CO2, you have the following linear configutation:
O====C====O
The dotted lines represent the electron bonds. As the electrons absorb and emit EM, their energy changes and that tends to unbalance the dipole action as well as the orbital action, hence vibration. There are also issues with electronegativity, which is related to electron charge.
Normally with a CO2 molecule, when the charges either side of the C atom related to electrons in the O atoms are equal, the charges cancel out between the C and O atoms. However, if the charge on one side varies, say due to variations in the electron orbitals or energy levels, the unbalance between C and O atoms allows CO2 to absorb and emit EM.
I realize this is a gross over-simplification but I’m trying to show that the use of the word molecule is misleading. It makes it sound as if molecules have certain properties they don’t have. Vibrations in molecules are mainly related to the bonding electrons since they are the only particles that can move and change energy levels.
There is nothing else in a molecule that can cause vibration. Collision can produce rotation but it’s still the electrons emitting/absorbing EM.
ball4…”A molecule does not emit EM, it is the electron that absorbs and emits EM.
Thats wrong Gordon.”
I have demonstrated why it is correct, let’s see your explanation for why it’s wrong.
There is nothing in molecules other than electrons, excluding sub-atomic particles, that can emit EM. Only electrons can emit it since they have a moving electric field which carries a magnetic field.
Get it??? Electric field + Magnetic field = electromagnetic field. Where do you think EM comes from neutrons? Or maybe there’s a magical little box in there that emits EM.
ball4…”…Prof. Wood claimed; he performed & published an experiment to prove his claim”.
Yes, he did an experiment to prove that real greenhouses are not warmed by trapping IR. He concluded it was the blockage of convection by the glass that caused the warming.
GR, I agree with your explanation. What I was concerned about was your earlier statement:
“A molecule does not emit EM, it is the electron that absorbs and emits EM.”
If the wavelengths are LWIR, then it should be “electrons” (plural). It would take more than one electron to produce molecular vibrations that support LWIR emissions.
“(Prof.Wood) concluded it was the blockage of convection by the glass that caused the warming.”
Yes, and the blockage of IR by the greenhouse glass not the salt plate which transmitted more IR out of that box for a cooler temperature. You are starting to “get” his experiment. A farmer’s greenhouse made of rock salt plate would run much cooler than regular one with the ordinary glass.
The tropopause/stratosphere serve as the blocking of convection agent in an atm. starting up at about 0.2bar.
And you continue NOT to understand there is not enough collisional energy exchanged by molecules in the troposphere to excite or populate the electronic levels. For earth STP tropospheric atm. only the rotation and vibration quantum jumps can be excited to emit a photon upon returning to base unexcited energy level. No electronic levels involved.
norman…”In the end it still radiates energy down from greenhouse gases, as the spectrographs reproduced in Petty make absolutely clear”.
Spectrographs don’t measure heat transfer. Detecting IR from the sky tells you nothing about heat transfer. For that, we must turn to the 2nd law and it clearly states that heat can NEVER be transferred by its own means from a colder body to a warmer body/
It’s amazing how many scientists don’t understand that basic law of thermodynamics. It’s amazing how many don’t know the difference between EM and heat.
“the 2nd law and it clearly states that heat can NEVER be transferred by its own means from a colder body to a warmer body.”
That’s not the fundamental 2nd law as developed by Clausius & in use today, Gordon is wrong again. Heat is not EMR Gordon.
ball4…”the 2nd law and it clearly states that heat can NEVER be transferred by its own means from a colder body to a warmer body.
Thats not the fundamental 2nd law as developed by Clausius”
*********
It’s a word for word direct quote from Clausius.
It is not Gordon. Those are your words proven incorrect by Maxwell & Boltzmann. Look up what Clausius actually wrote on the fundamental 2LOT. Hint: Clausius’ fundamental statement will include the words entropy and universe.
And remember Gorrdon: EMR is not heat.
Norman Grinvalds, your quote from RGB just refers to IR from the sky. It does not conclude that that IR is then “heating the planet”. Infrared, by itself, is not the GHE. The false science promulgated by climate clowns claims infrared from CO2 “heats the planet”.
The false science is what Mike Flynn is referring to.
JDHuffman
I am not sure of climate clowns that claim that CO2 “heats the planet”.
The GHE is very similar to E. Swanson’s plate experiment that verified Eli Rabbet’s thought experiment.
Solar energy reaches the Earth’s surface and warms it. The Earth’s surface warms the atmosphere. An atmosphere with GHG in it will then emit IR based upon the gas concentrations and the gas temperature. This IR then is added to the surface energy budget and will lead to a higher steady state temperature for the surface. It receives the same amount of solar input but now has another input of energy from the emitted IR from the GHG. This leads to a higher temperature.
Read Robert Brown’s comment again. The DWIR is proof of the GHE. The Earth’s surface absorbs most IR (on average, I have read they place the number around 0.95..will absorb 95% of the incoming IR).
NG, you were doing fine until this:
This IR then is added to the surface energy budget and will lead to a higher steady state temperature for the surface.”
Remember, we discussed this before, radiative fluxes do not add.
You kinda continued downhill from there, with:
“The DWIR is proof of the GHE.”
That’s like finding an empty aluminum can and claiming it’s a Boeing 747. Yes, they both are made from aluminum, but the differences are too many to count.
JDHuffman
Other than a declarative statement from you: “Remember, we discussed this before, radiative fluxes do not add.”
I have seen zero supporting evidence from you to support this declaration. I do not agree with this at all and E. Swanson’s test demonstrates that they do indeed add and your declaration is incorrect. If you can find actual evidence or do an experiment to demonstrate your declaration I will consider it. At this time I think you are just wrong. I am not even sure where you come up with this idea. All heat transfer textbooks show that radiative fluxes do indeed add and you must add all of the fluxes reaching a surface to determine the NET energy gain or loss.
So until you find some evidence to support you incorrect thoughts, I will have to reject them.
You analogy is a very poor one and not at all related. If you have no DWIR you have no GHE. If you kept the air very cold and it emitted very little IR then your surface would be much cooler. It would radiate based upon its temperature but it would only absorb a feeble amount of IR from the cooled atmosphere.
If you would actually do experiments, like respected E. Swanson, you could cool the green plate and see that the blue plate steady state temperature would drop.
No you are wrong, there is no difference between DWIR and GHE. It is the source of energy that drives the surface steady state temperature to a higher level. Simple facts.
Robert Brown knows this, you don’t.
Norman Grinvalds: “I have seen zero supporting evidence from you to support this declaration.”
NG, the evidence is all around you. You just have to be willing to see and understand it.
Consider a basic AM radio. You can dial to one station, and then dial to another station. Both station antennas are emitting photons, but the photons do not interfere, because the wavelengths are different.
As I’ve mentioned, radiative fluxes in general do not interact.
JDHuffman
Your AM Radio has nothing at all to do with radiative fluxes adding.
Radiative fluxes do not interact with other radiative fluxes. Yes this is a well established fact but it has nothing to do with the addition of energy from various radiant energy fluxes.
Radiative fluxes can highly interact with matter and be converted from EM energy to kinetic energy of the surface.
No you have totally failed to support your declaration. There is no evidence around that supports it. Evidence around you rejects the declaration. It is a statement with no support. Your own opinion based upon nothing.
Again your declaration (to clarify): “Remember, we discussed this before, radiative fluxes do not add.”
If you have two radiative fluxes from two light sources hitting a surface, the radiative fluxes will not interact with each other and move through each other. Their energy will be added at the surface. Each light source contributes energy to the surface and to find the amount of energy the surface receives you must add the contribution for each light source. Maybe clarify what you are meaning by “radiative fluxes do not add”. The definitely add energy to a surface. What you mean by “do not add” must be explained in better detail.
NG, so that no one can accuse you of throwing up smokescreens and avoiding reality, let’s just stick with the simple example of AM radios, okay?
You seem to agree that the two stations will not interfere/interact with each other. But, you appear convinced the two different fluxes will add. So, if station 1 is off the air, and your radio is tuned to station 2, will your signal strength meter indicate a greater level when station 1 goes back on?
Of course the answer is “NO”, because radiative fluxes, in general, do not add.
JDHuffman
Sorry you are still wrong and will continue to be.
I have an experiment for you to perform. Please do it before posting again. It will prove to you that your point is wrong about fluxes.
Take two IR light sources and aim them both at a thin plate made with highly absorbing material (Roy Spencer uses some paints to achieve this).
Place a thermometer on the opposite side of the plate so it does not receive direct radiant energy but will demonstrate to you that you are just plain wrong, no matter how strongly you think you know what you are claiming.
Turn on one light and wait until the thermometer reaches a steady state temperature with the surroundings and light. Now turn on the other light. Based on your absurd notion, the plate cannot warm because fluxes cannot add. If you do the test you will find that the plate gets hotter with the second light on. The two fluxes reaching the surface add more energy to this surface. Sorry you are so wrong.
NG, so that no one can accuse you of throwing up smokescreens and avoiding reality, how about admitting that you now understand radiative fluxes do not always add, based on the simple AM radio example?
Then, we can move on to your example involving the light sources. I can help you with that also.
norman..”Turn on one light and wait until the thermometer reaches a steady state temperature with the surroundings and light. Now turn on the other light. Based on your absurd notion, the plate cannot warm because fluxes cannot add”
Fluxes are not adding, there is simply a higher density of flux when both lights are on. If you’re measure is W/m^2, you have more watts/m^2.
You would get the same effect from making one light more powerful.
This might be helpful:
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Willful_ignorance
nate
Are you the same as Capital “N” nate?
I read your link. I guess calling Gordon names will not help him. I am reading this and trying to figure out ways to reach him.
From the Link: “This means that the morally right way to treat such individuals is not to look down upon, ridicule or attack them, but to help them to be able to accept reality again. This is most easily accomplished by offering a way to transition without having to give up their own pride and sense of reality, by starting out with the individual’s own model of reality, and then slowly walking the way towards actual observed reality by fitting every piece inside of it in a sensible fashion that offers improved abilities to predict the future (which should not be hard, since that is by definition guaranteed).”
I need to seriously think about this when responding to Gordon Robertson.
Norman,
Yes same as nate. I was hoping Gordon would read it. I hadnt read the whole thing. My feeling was that Gordon’s comment
‘Fluxes are not adding, there is simply a higher density of flux when both lights are on. If you’re measure is W/m^2, you have more watts/m^2’
had some facts in it. But then he still insisted on denying a reality that agreed with those facts.
Seems like he is trying very hard to remain ignorant, for some reason. It is willful.
Maybe their advice will help, who knows.
norman…”The GHE is very similar to E. Swansons plate experiment that verified Eli Rabbets thought experiment”.
All three of you think you have found a way around the 2nd law, but you are all wrong. Heat can NEVER be transferred by its own means from a colder body to a warmer body.
Swannie’s conclusion was wrong. It was not back-radiation from a cooler body raising the temperature of the heated plate. In the 1st experiment it was blocked convection and in the evacuated experiment it was an altered radiation pattern affecting heat dissipation.
In neither experiment did anything warm due to radiation from another cooler body, the warming came from the heated body moving closer to it’s natural temperature based on the electrical current heating the plate in the first experiment.
Neither you nor Swannie understands that aspect of heating and how an electrically heated body has a natural temperature based on the power supplied to it. With natural convection, conduction, and radiation, the body cools below that natural temperature. If you interfere with any of the 3, the body moves closer to it’s higher, natural temperature.
“Heat can NEVER be transferred by its own means from a colder body to a warmer body.”
Actually Maxwell and Boltzmann proved you wrong about that Gordon & because EMR is not heat.
Gordo, I love it when you talk silly to us. Those three heat transfer modes you refer to are what set the “natural” temperature of your electrically heated body. Without their cooling effect, the energy supplied to said body would accumulate without ever reaching a steady state, perhaps melting or vaporizing said body. Each of those three modes transfers energy as a function of temperature and your “natural” temperature is that for which the energy being removed is equal to that being supplied.
Don’t forget, in the Green Plate demo, the back radiation from the Green plate which strikes the Blue plate can’t be “ignored”, as you’ve claimed. That would violate the First Law of Thermodynamics.
–Imagine the planet Earth with all of its water magically removed; are N&Z implying that this would not have a major effect on temperatures? —
Apparently, and why they are wrong.
As wild guess I say N&Z are just measuring temperature of gas, rather than why the atmosphere is as warm or cool as it is.
I think gravity would affect average air temperature, and so does greenhouse gas, but think largest effect upon Earth average temperature is Earth ocean.
This particularly true with a hothouse global climate, but in our icebox climate the ocean is causing Earth to have a higher average temperature and also in both interglacial and glacial periods.
Nikolov & Zeller explain the surface temperature of rocky planets in terms of total pressure. What they say makes much more sense than the “Climate Mafia” who claim that CO2 will cause a “Runaway Greenhouse Effect”. Fairy tales to frighten children!
One of N&Zs important contributions is to demonstrate that the 255 K “Consensus” estimate of the temperature of an airless Earth is false. N&Z say that the actual average temperature is 197.3 K.
While I agree with N&Z that 255 K is nonsense I claim that they have overlooked the effect of the rate of rotation. An airless Earth would have a temperature of ~ 209 K and my calculations are in close agreement with Scott Denning, Montfort professor of climate science at Colorado state university:
https://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2017/06/06/extending-a-new-lunar-thermal-model-part-iii-modelling-the-moon-at-various-rotation-rates/
“Nikolov & Zeller explain the surface temperature of rocky planets in terms of total pressure.”
They do not; N&Z use measured global surface temperatures of the planets with atm.s they chart so they include effects of the mixing ratios of the well mixed gas physics as your ref. to Catling explains.
“N&Z say that the actual average temperature is 197.3 K.”
If the Earth was airless & made of the moon’s regolith they write 197K would also be Earth’s measured brightness temperature, this is nothing new just Diviner brightness measurements.
bilybob says:
July 8, 2018 at 5:24 PM
Re: daily maxima averages per station for the Globe
Hello again bilybob, you were arguing that new stations were possibly skewed to higher temperature extremes. I recall here your own words:
“On the last figure (globe minus CONUS) that would surprise me significantly if that figure is using only sites that extend back to 1900.”
That was a good reason for me to check. Here are the same charts as in my previous comment, but with data restricted to GHCN daily stations having all a lifetime encompassing 1895-2017.
The scan over the data gave a total of 1058 stations (930 of them in the CONUS, 128 for the rest of the Globe).
The charts might well surprise you a bit.
1. The new chart corresponding to John Christys fig. 5:
http://4gp.me/bbtc/1531159766688/001.jpg
As you can see, moving from a grand total of 18000 CONUS stations down to 900 had a really great influence on the trend of the daily maxima per station, which moved from flat to strong negative.
2. The chart for the Globe
http://4gp.me/bbtc/1531159813164/001.jpg
shows similar, no wonder when considering the increased CONUS overweight:
http://4gp.me/bbtc/153118296958/001.jpg
But oh surprise at least for you, bilybob:
http://4gp.me/bbtc/1531159856270/001.jpg
You see that restricting the stations for the Globe minus CONUS from 35000 down to a bit over 100 did not change much, see the graph with the full station set for comparison:
http://4gp.me/bbtc/153106726076/001.jpg
Good night, it is now 3 AM here…
Correction needed, it was a bit late yesterday evening!
The graph
http://4gp.me/bbtc/1531159856270/001.jpg
must be replaced by
http://4gp.me/bbtc/1531211290411/001.jpg
(same plots, different heading).
Appreciate it Bindidon,
I think 100 is sufficient. My understanding of the network is that is concentrated in Europe/Japan/Australia, so a decent distribution.
I can conclude that CONUS and these areas are clearly different in terms of extreme heat events.
I also downloaded the data set from your previous post. So I may do some additional analysis if I have time. I think you are right that CONUS because of the number of continuous active sites skews analysis related to TMax. See these graphs explains why a high percentage of TMax records prior to 1950 are still intact.
Thanks again.
Here is a static list of all countries in which the 128 stations are located:
AG Algeria
AJ Azerbaijan
AS Australia
AU Austria
BE Belgium
BK Bosnia and Herzegovina
BO Belarus
CA Canada
CE Sri Lanka
EI Ireland
GG Georgia
GL Greenland [Denmark]
HR Croatia
KZ Kazakhstan
LG Latvia
LH Lithuania
MD Moldova
RO Romania
RQ Puerto Rico [United States]
RS Russia
SG Senegal
SZ Switzerland
TI Tajikistan
TX Turkmenistan
UK United Kingdom
UP Ukraine
UZ Uzbekistan
Among these countries, the same overweighting problem of course further exists, even if to a far lower extent than for CONUS wrt the rest.
The best would be to move the 2.5 degree grid averaging methods from the temperature corner to this newly installed maxima corner.
Then overweighting would uniformy disappear. In GHCN V3 for example, there are 1850 stations in the US, which are averaged to 160 grid cells.
But in fact this maxima counting would be far more interesting when applied to anomalies wrt some reference period (e.g. 1981-2010) rather than to absolute values.
Simply because regardless wether it is natural or manmade, higher surface warming is mostly not experienced in those corners where it is warm anyway.
binny…”In GHCN V3 for example, there are 1850 stations in the US, which are averaged to 160 grid cells”.
That’s a neat trick, NOAA has admitted to slashing their reporting stations from 6000 globally to under 1500. How do you manage to get 1850 stations in the US when NOAA uses less than 1500 globally?
https://web.archive.org/web/20130216112541/http://www.noaa.gov/features/02_monitoring/weather_stations.html
Gordon Robertson says:
July 11, 2018 at 12:21 AM
You are not only dumb enough to call J.-P. and me idiots.
You are dumb enough not to understand what NOAA meant at that time concerning giving up the 4,500 stations, while they at the same time acquired data of ten thousands of others.
And manifestly, you are also too dumb to download, unpack and process the GHCN data as J.-P. did years ago already.
But as opposed to you, bilybob will do that as you can see in his comment above.
You, Robertson, are only able to denigrate, discredit, deny, lie.
This posted in wrong place, trying again.
re CONUS and climate change.
Here are the climate divisions in the US according to NOAA. Is anyone trying to tell me these climate divisions are changing in unison due to global warming as inferred by the term ‘climate change’?
If so, where’s your proof?
*****
NOTE: copy/paste link to browser and remove hyphen from ncd-c
*****
https://www.ncd-c.noaa.gov/monitoring-references/maps/us-climate-divisions.php
Entropic man wrote –
“I think of climate as controlled mainly by seven forcings and tending to settle at one of five strange attractors.”
Pseudoscientific gibberish. Your thought processes have been affected by ignorance, stupidity and extreme delusion, unless you can produce evidence to the contrary.
It is obvious you have no clue about strange attractors, and why they deserve the appellation “strange”.
Anyone who cares can inform themselves from independent sources, if they are disinclined to accept that I am correct.
Cheers.
@gbaikie,
“I think gravity would affect average air temperature, and so does greenhouse gas, but think largest effect upon Earth average temperature is Earth ocean.”
Right on both counts. Gravity and oceans rool!
In the troposphere (pressure >0.2 bar) the temperature gradient is -g/Cp.
When oceans are present the temperature gradient in the troposphere is less. This means that the surface of Earth and Titan are cooler than they would be “sans oceans”.
The Robinson & Catling model includes the effect of oceans by introducing a constant that they call “Alpha”.
https://diggingintheclay.wordpress.com/2014/04/27/robinson-and-catling-model-closely-matches-data-for-titans-atmosphere/
I was playing with data and noticed that from 1894 to 1987 (see table below) cloud cover increased by 20%. I never saw any reference to this in what I have read about Global Warming Does anyone know why?
Data showing cloud cover at weather stations in the United States, by station, year and month.
http://cdiac.ess-dive.lbl.gov/ndps/ndp021.html
Year % Year %
1894 53 1978 64
1895 53 1979 64
1896 53 1980 65
1897 55 1981 64
1898 54 1982 65
1899 54 1983 68
1900 54 1984 65
1901 54 1985 65
1902 53 1986 65
1903 56 1987 66
Average 53.9 65.1
Difference 11.2
11.2 / 53.9 = 20.8%
With each passing day AGW theory will soon be relegated to the trash bin where it belongs.
My theory will be gaining popularity as the oceanic surface temperatures and global temperatures continue to fall.
It is the sun not CO2 which drives the climate and any one objective that has studied the climate and looked at the historical climatic record can clearly see this is the case. It is not even a close call
This sham of a theory was hatched at the expense of natural climatic drives in particular the climatic shift during the late 1970’s.
What AGW has done is hi jacked natural climate factors in a very clever fashion and tried to make it seem the warming was due to AGW.
The reality is it was natural and now -next few years is going to show this to be the case.
There are seven climate variables which can change independantly and act as forcings to drive temperature changes.
Plate tectonics, Milankovich cycles, solar insolation, albedo, vulcanism, land use and CO2
___________________
” a dynamic system with a chaotic attractor is locally unstable yet globally stable: once some sequences have entered the attractor, nearby points diverge from one another but never depart from the attractor.”
I think that matches my use of “strange attractor” in the context of climate.
The global climate tends to settle into one of four states with global averages spaced 5C apart.
Snowball Earth 4C
Ice Age Glacial 9C
Ice Age Interglacial 14C
Hothouse 19C
There is no evidence that Earth ever had average temperature of 4 C
or average temperature of -50 C.
Earth has two extreme global climates:
Icebox and hothouse.
And we are in a icebox [also called icehouse] climate.
Icebox climates have average ocean temperature of 1 to 5 C,
currently our the average ocean temperature is about 3.5 C.
We are presently in an Ice Age. There may have been colder ones.
A problem with snowball Earth, is the lack of enough land.
The tropics is 40% of earth surface, and land covers 30% of Earth surface.
The ocean floor is young, the land masses are old. The land masses get broken up or merge, but they stayed the same over last billion year, or we had 30% land mass or bit less over last billion years.
If earth had something like 50% land area, maybe one could get a snowball Earth, but evidence or mechanism of the granite disappearing. And some even imagine we had more ocean earlier, few imagine we had less.
Agree with all except CO2 which I maintain is still the result of the climate.
In the meantime have you noticed the cooling trend for the last year especially the overall oceanic surface temperatures off over .2c.
Salvatore Del Prete
“Agree with all except CO2 which I maintain is still the result of the climate.”
I think we’ll have to agree to disagree about CO2, perhaps another time.
Don’t let yourself be seduced into thinking that every short term change in temperature is the beginning of a long term trend.
Uncertainty in most dataset temperatures is an irreducible +/-0.1C, with ENSO producing larger changes in individual years.
Dr.Spencer estimates a long term trend of 0.13C/ decade. It is pretty pointless to read any statistical significance into any differences below 0.2C and see trends over any period less than 15 years.
On that basis a cooling of 0.2C over a year might be interesting if we did’nt already know that it included a La Nina period.
“Snowball earth describes the coldest global climate imaginable – a planet covered by glacial ice from pole to pole. The global mean temperature would be about -50C (-74F) because most of the Sun’s (Solar) radiation would be reflected back to space by the icy surface. ”
http://www.snowballearth.org/what.html
“First proposed in 1992 by Joseph Kirschivink at the California Institute of Technology, the idea of an icy Earth lay dormant for six years until Harvard colleague Paul Hoffman published an article envisioning a world with a totally frozen ocean.
But an Earth where the water was 100 percent solid was a hard sell to some. At a workshop in Switzerland in the summer of 2006, 65 scientists geologists, biologists, planet modelers and those in other fields came together to discuss the possibilities and problems with such a world.
“We spent a week thrashing through a bunch of things,” Sohl said.
Ultimately, the evidence seemed against a completely ice-covered world. ”
https://www.space.com/22501-snowball-earth-ice-ages-history.html
@Ball4,
Here is equation (8) from the Unified Theory of Climate Poster published by Nikolov & Zeller.
Ts = 25.3966 (So + 0.0001325)0.25 NTE(Ps)
Note that the main variable is pressure. Here are some comments that were made a few months after that poster appeared:
https://diggingintheclay.wordpress.com/2012/03/13/unified-theory-of-climate/
Ts is N&Z measured GMAT shown in Table 2 for each object & contains all the info from Catling eqn. S14. The various constants are from curve fitting to carry the Solar system information for the gas mass mixing ratios, grey opacity of each gas absorber for the various Table 2 objects as shown in Catling eqn. S14.
Wow! You are the first person to get down in the weeds with me.
Here is the eqn. S14 that I have:
d τ IR = − κ i
i
= 1
N
∑ w i ρdz. (S14)
Somehow that copy and paste did not work too well! Hopefully, enough survived to enable you to say whether we are looking at the same thing.
Take a look at the next equation which covers hydrostatic equilibrium,
dp/dz = − g(rho) (S15)
This is the key thermodynamic equation based that leads to the conclusion that the adiabatic lapse rate is -g/Cp.
I could not find “Table 2” so can you clarify?
Table 2 in the N&Z published paper. Possibly their earlier work had a different Table number; anyway their chart that lists all the global mean temperatures (their GMAT, Ts) for each solar system object they study.
@Ball4,
It is only fair to tell you that thermodynamics is not one of my strengths but with a little luck I will find RGB (Robert G. Brown) in the next few days and he will sort things out!
cam…”Note that the main variable is pressure”.
For all it’s worth, just as the GHE and AGW theories are wrong, I think much of the theory related to lapse rate is wrong.
Lapse rate cannot explain the decline in temperature and pressure with altitude. Only gravity and the Ideal Gas Law can explain that.
I realize there are dynamics acting on top of the gravity-invoked pressure gradient but it has to be the decrease in temperature with pressure that causes most of the cooling with altitude.
Lapse rate cannot explain the air pressure at the top of Everest (~30,000 feet) being 1/3 what it is at sea level, nor temperatures being up to 30 C cooler.
GC, this is a much simpler relationship than N&Z’s; here is a planet’s global mean surface temperature as a (precise) function of that planet’s radius:
https://davidappell.blogspot.com/2017/12/major-new-discovery-using-principle-of.html
Nikolov and I disagree on the best estimate of the temperature of an airless Earth. We spent 18 months exchanging information “Off Line” and several noted professional “Climate Scientists” participated.
While we have not reached agreement our estimates are converging. Scott Denning and I claim that the rate of rotation is a significant factor while Nikolov is not convinced:
https://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2017/06/06/extending-a-new-lunar-thermal-model-part-iii-modelling-the-moon-at-various-rotation-rates/
“the rate of rotation is a significant factor”
Not for Ts, GMAT. Catling shows no component for rotation. Unless rotation affects TOA balance (ASR, OLR) it can have no energy balance effect. Rotation is important for weather not climate.
Ball4,
The rate of rotation matters for airless bodies.
The R&C model is based on heat transfer in gases by means of radiation and convection. Their Natgeo letter has an appendix showing the equations they used and the computer code needed to produce pretty pictures. I was able to reproduce their work.
The mathematics of airless bodies is quite different. My model applies Finite Element Analysis to heat transfer by means of radiation and conduction. Thus in my model, thermal conductivity of the surface layers of bodies is a huge factor. Conduction is not included in the R&C model.
I can send you my detailed calculations if you doubt me. Scott Denning has arrived at similar results using more elegant methods than FEAs.
“The rate of rotation matters for airless bodies.”
Again not for climate, Ts and Teff eqn.s are unchanged due to rotation speed. Neither Catling nor N&Z eqn.s include rotation speed (search their papers for rotation). Catling:
“Although the rule works for Titan, which has a 16 day rotational period, it may prove inappropriate to apply globally averaged models to rotationally locked bodies, which could possess strong temperature contrasts between day and night hemispheres.”
Thus as in Catling, in my reading, the difference enters in the assumptions to begin with. For a tidally locked object illuminated by a sun, the common assumption is that the sunlight is as shown spread out over half the ~sphereical object (factor of 2) instead of the rotating object common assumption sunlight spread out over whole ~sphereical object (factor of 4).
Your analysis should be inspected for which common assumption is at work as the object spin rate is reduced to zero or increased from 0.
The Moon has very thin layer of surface which is warmed by sunlight,
and it cools quite bit, before the sun goes down.
If moon rotates faster, than thin layer warms more often, if warms 28 times vs 1 time, it effectively acts like it warms to deeper depth, so say 20 times deeper or absorbs 20 time more energy.
So each 24 hour day it does warm to as deep, but same area land warms many times.
With LRO they said in lunar eclipse during 2 hours it cooled about 100 K. Or from 120 to 20 C. But I would say that just few inches cooling by that much.
With faster rotation, probably it close to same surface temperature when sun sets, but warmer under surface, and with shorter night, it does cool down as much, and after 28 days of this you going increase the average temperature at meter depth, and accumulative effect is a warmer surface at the night.
And during day with faster rotation the surface temperature should get to same temperature.
So all doing is increasing night time surface temperature and largely doing this in tropics [or 30 north and south], where more energy can be absorbed, or half moon night will get significantly warmer.
But if want increase average temperature significantly, you need an atmosphere. Though not having highly insulative lunar surface also helps a bit.
This chart shows the effect of the rate of rotation on temperature for an airless body in the same orbit as planet Earth:
https://tallbloke.files.wordpress.com/2017/06/gc-fig2.png?w=614
The day time temperature changes very little until the rotation period is measured in minutes. The night time temperature is much more sensitive to rotation rate.
I should have explained that MOON1 shows temperature for a rotation period of one Earth day. MOON0.01 shows temperature for a rotation rate of 0.01 Earth days = 14.4 minutes.
Likewise MOON7300 has a period of 20 years.
“The day time temperature changes very little…The night time temperature changes…”
gc, that’s moon weather. Not climate. Changes in the moon’s global brightness temperature ~197K over climate timeframes will not occur unless ASR, OLR change with rotation.
There are at least four models of the Moon’s surface temperature that are in close agreement with the Diviner LRE observations:
1. Ashwin Vasavada (NASA) one dimensional model.
2. Tim Channon with a PSPICE model.
3. Peter Morcombe with a FEA model.
4. “br” with an LTSPICE model.
IMHO the Tim Channon model comes closest to observations:
https://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2014/04/18/a-new-lunar-thermal-model-based-on-finite-element-analysis-of-regolith-physical-properties/
Again, those are all moon surface weather not moon climate.
So according to model, 24 hour day increase average global temperature by about +5 K? With equator average being about 20 K warmer?
With 24 hour day one could do this by spinning Moon [so, not tidally locked] or have Moon closer to Earth [and could remain tidally locked].
Though 14.4 min rotation is not possible within context of Earth-Moon. And MOON7300 would be unlikely [or perhaps, not possible or very unstable]
If change lunar axis with 24 hour day, and spinning [rather than tidally locked] does model indicate any difference in temperature.
Or because the Moon is only a 1.5 tilt with regard to Sun, that is not needed to be modeled for equator [or anywhere].
” People may be tempted to compare Mercury and the moon because one’s surface looks much like the other’s.”
http://education.seattlepi.com/surfaces-moon-mercury-similar-4627.html
So for fun, if assume Mercury surface is exactly same as Moon,
what does model do if you give Mercury a 24 hour day?
I would think the very intense sunlight at mercury distance even though same insulative material, would be less of insulative effect due to this intense sunlight.
So can change the solar input to the Moon be around 14,000 watts rather around 1400 watts, and what are the results from model, if Moon has 24 hour day?
Our Moon is tidally locked to Earth on a 1:1 ratio. Mercury is tidally locked to the Sun on a 3:2 ratio.
Tidal locking has no effect on my model. The model works from Mercury just as well as it does for the Moon which suggests that the regolith on Mercury has similar thermal properties to the Moon.
The accuracy of the model is pretty good for the Moon. The model has an RMS error of 0.06 Kelvin for the night side. The accuracy is much poorer for the day side at 0.66 Kelvin RMS.
https://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2014/04/18/a-new-lunar-thermal-model-based-on-finite-element-analysis-of-regolith-physical-properties/
–Peter continues:- Most of the Moon’s surface is covered in debris created from the impact of meteorides. This material is called lunar regolith and it can be several meters deep. The first model represented the regolith as a single layer. This crude model (29 nodes) was able to reproduce the temperature at the Moon’s equator with good accuracy using credible values for the thermal properties of regolith. The same model worked well for Mercury too.
Eventually the model evolved into 50 layers (102 nodes) each 10 millimetres thick. Vasavada has estimated the thermal properties of lunar regolith and when those values were plugged into the model the night time temperatures were an almost perfect “fit” with an RMS error of 0.06 Kelvin. Close enough for government work!–
10 mm x 50 is 1/2 meter, and sounds right to me that about 1/2 meter depth is warmed and cooled per lunar long day and night.
As
Lunar equatorial surface temperatures and regolith properties from the Diviner Lunar Radiometer Experiment
Ashwin R. Vasavada, and etc
Say:
“The observed rapid cooling of the lunar surface at sunset, followed by slower cooling during the night, can be reproduced only by models with a highly insulating upper layer (a few cm thick) overlying a lower, more conductive layer [e.g., Keihm and Langseth, 1973].”
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2011JE003987
So it’s only top few cm which is highly insulative, beneath this thin powdery lay of regolith, is very compacted regolith which conduct heat a lot better- or something like solid rok
Or roughly speaking at 1 meter depth, one has constant temperature, and roughly it thought the temperature is about -35 C. But I think it’s considered this depth varies depending latitude and the constant temperature also varies with latitude.
And I imagine if Mercury closely resembles to lunar surface the depth of constant temperature at equator would deeper on Mercury and should have higher average temperature than the Moon.
I hope they keep pushing AGW theory. Push it harder then ever so you can have more egg on your face when it fails to come to fruition.
As we speak the climate is in a cooling trend but they are so caught up with their theory that they could not see it coming even if it hit them smack in the face. The blind leading the blind. AGW nonsense has set climate science way back but has given opportunities for guys like myself to come up with alternative theories and see how they play out.
The test is on and now-next few years will tell us much.
Nobody cares. Blog sites on both sides of the issue have mostly shut down. Most of the sites that remain attract less than 10 comments per post. Check out “Skeptical Science”. It is an Alarmist echo chamber that few people waste their time on.
The sites that still attract a significant number of comments are (IMHO) the honest ones such as:
1. Dr. Roy Spencer with >500 comments/post
2. Dr. Judith Curry with >300 comments/post
Can any of you point to sites that generate more interest than the two I listed above?
https://wattsupwiththat.com/
I dimly remember another, but I thought it could be hassle to log in, so it’s dim memory.
https://www.iceagenow.info/links/volcano-info/
Reality! AGW where are you!
https://www.iceagenow.info/warm-world-look-at-the-cold-all-over-the-map/
wrong post above meant to send this.
The conformal projection distorts the higher latitudes. It is always difficult to use this map to visualize if the globe as a whole is warmer or cooler. A prefer a mollwiede or similar equal area.
Time for a spot check of the polar ice extent. Let’s check the Northern Hemisphere:
09 JUL 2018 – 9,237,000 km2
09 JUL 2017 – 8,763,000 km2
09 JUL 2016 – 8,667,000 km2
The Arctic sea ice is running 570,000 km2 AHEAD of 2016. In fact, during the past 10 years, only two years, 2015 and 2009, had higher sea ice extent on this date than in 2018.
Now, let’s look at Antarctica:
09 JUL 2018 – 15,033,000 km2
09 JUL 2017 – 14,497,000 km2
1981-2010 Median – 15,320,000
All of the global warming alarmists chants of “MELT DAMMIT MELT” are not working.
The ice in the Beaufort Sea to increases.
https://files.tinypic.pl/i/00967/2ri4mx5ezrii.png
Rob Mitchell says:
July 10, 2018 at 10:39 AM
All of the global warming alarmists chants of “MELT DAMMIT MELT” are not working.
Yeah.
1. Arctic sea ice extent & area 1979-2018
http://4gp.me/bbtc/1531262580155/001.jpg
2. Antarctic sea ice extent & area 1979-2018
http://4gp.me/bbtc/153126269638/001.jpg
3. Average of Arctic & Antarctic 1979-2018
http://4GP.ME/bbtc/1531262781898/001.jpg
No, Rob Mitchell: I’m not an alarmist, even if this blog’s dumbest commenter pretends the contrary.
And no, Rob Mitchell: I don’t think it’s CO2 :-))
Data sources:
ftp://sidads.colorado.edu/DATASETS/NOAA/G02135/north/monthly/data/
ftp://sidads.colorado.edu/DATASETS/NOAA/G02135/south/monthly/data/
Hey Pango, if you are not an alarmist, and you don’t think its CO2, then what are you? Are you on Dr. Spencer’s side of the argument?
Go ahead. If you think you are so smart, tell me the significance of the polar ice data!
https://seaice.uni-bremen.de/sea-ice-concentration/time-series/
rob…”Are you on Dr. Spencers side of the argument?”
La P (aka binny) goes to great lengths to dumb-down the data provided by Roy and UAH. La P/binny create mythical graphs using Excel that compare Had-crut and NOAA fevourably to UAH.
As you see, I predicted it.
The dumbest commenter evah still ignores what are baselines and anomalies wrt them, and therefore can’t stop discrediting those who have that really tiny knowledge.
binny…”The dumbest commenter evah still ignores what are baselines and anomalies wrt them…”
I know enough about baselines and anomalies to know you cannot arbitrarily compare a series with a baseline from 1950 – 1990 with a baseline from 1980 – 2010. That’s especially true if you are a number cruncher who blindly plugs number into Excel then tries to manipulate the data.
You claim that you’re not an alarmist yet your MO since arriving on this blog has been to discredit UAH data by comparing it favourably to data from NOAA and Had-crut.
Any idiot can see that Had-crut and NOAA data have a steep positive trend from 1980 onward while UAH data shows relative cooling for the first 18 years of its trend. Then it goes flat for 15 years.
There is no way the series of UAH resembles the series from Had-crut or NOAA from 1980 onward. The UAH series has been centred around 0.25C from 1998 till 2015 whereas the data for NOAA and Had-crut was at least double that value.
Furthermore, NOAA data has been seriously fudged the past few years to show a positive trend where the IPCC found none from 1998 – 2012.
GISS is nothing more than a parrot for NOAA fudged data.
Gordon Robertson says:
July 11, 2018 at 2:33 PM
Download UAH’s data, Robertson
https://tinyurl.com/y997zl7w
and first learn to compute its Globe trend (column 3) for the period 1979-1998 before you write such pretentious, ignorant nonsense.
Gordon Robertson says:
I know enough about baselines and anomalies to know you cannot arbitrarily compare a series with a baseline from 1950 1990 with a baseline from 1980 2010.
You are an idiot.
A few blog posts down:
“Basically, the paper concludes that the amount of surface and deep-ocean warming that has occurred since the mid- to late-1800s is consistent with low equilibrium climate sensitivity (ECS) to an assumed doubling of atmospheric CO2. They get a median estimate of 1.66 deg. C (1.50 deg. C without uncertain infilled Arctic data), which is only about half of the average of the IPCC climate models. It is just within the oft-quoted range of 1.5 to 4.5 deg. C that the IPCC has high confidence ECS should occupy.”
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2018/04/new-lewis-curry-study-concludes-climate-sensitivity-is-low/
Anyhow, Dr. Spencer has view it’s probably lower ECS.
But if doubling of CO2 causes 1 C of warming, that quite bit of warming due to CO2.
Or continuum nuclear bombs being exploded is not going to do that much warming.
I expect a lower amount of warming from CO2 doubling, but Dr. Spencer is constantly arguing the CO2 would cause some warming.
I don’t think if CO2 caused as much a IPCC highest number of 4.5 C, that it is much of problem considering we are in an Icebox climate and when Earth had in past a average temperature of around 25 C, it’s not issue of being hotter, rather it a matter of being less cold. Or one get a cool tropical condition at poles and world is wetter [less deserts].
Mitchell
What does Bremen tell us more than Colorado?
And why should I think I am so ‘smart’?
All I wanted to show in reply to your pretentious pseudoskeptic blah blah is that
– absolute data is not so very appropriate for comparisons;
– the monthly sum of extent and pack ice is a more fair comparison too.
The next time you want to boast with some icy data, take the DMI ice volume instead, you will at least impress other pseudoskeptics.
http://4gp.me/bbtc/1531303832191/001.jpg
Ihre subkutane, vorpubertäre Aggressivität beeindruckt mich überhaupt nicht.
I’m not trying to impress anybody Pango. I was simply making a spot check of the polar ice to see if the ice is melting away to oblivion like the hysterical global warming alarmists say it is. Isn’t that the main scare tactic of the alarmists? The polar ice is melting away and the sea level will rise, killing millions of people and creating more millions of climate refugees? Well, let’s look at the polar ice and see if it is cooperating with alarmists’ predictions!
Arctic sea ice volume:
http://psc.apl.uw.edu/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/schweiger/ice_volume/BPIOMASIceVolumeAnomalyCurrentV2.1.png
@ Gordon Robertson,
Visible radiation can be emitted from atoms or molecules. Having spent 12 years building and operating Free Electron lasers I can tell you that molecules or atoms are not needed if you have an undulating magnetic field designed to make the electrons emit photons directly.
At Duke university FELs were used to generate radiation from 10 microns to 100 MeV (gamma rays). Here is a link to the HIGS (High Intensity Gamma Source) that was the world’s brightest source when we built it and may still be the brightest today. Enjoy the Inverse Compton scattering video:
http://www.tunl.duke.edu/web.tunl.2011a.higs.php
cam…”Visible radiation can be emitted from atoms or molecules. Having spent 12 years building and operating Free Electron lasers I can tell you that molecules or atoms are not needed if you have an undulating magnetic field designed to make the electrons emit photons directly”.
I am not debating that, it makes sense to me. I have worked with electron theory all my working life and I am aware that electrons can work independently of atoms. Electronics theory is dependent on that fact and I know that free electrons moving through a conductor produce an electric and a magnetic field.
I know that an electron beam is deflected by a magnetic field, that electrons boiled of a tungsten filament can be drawn to a high positive potential in a vacuum. I know that highly accelerated electrons in a high voltage coil in a TV receiver can emit x-rays.
What you claim does not surprise me in the least. Is that not the case in a fluorescent tube, where electrons accelerated through the tube collide with gas molecules and emit photons?
I am trying to address the quaint alarmist notion that molecules are something special and that they can secretly emit and absorb EM. I stopped thinking of physics in terms of molecules long ago when I took a course in organic chemistry and saw that any molecule is an aggregation of atomic nuclei with electron bonds.
When someone claims CO2 absorbs and emits IR, I want to know why. Actually, I know why, it’s the electrons forming the bonds that radiate and absorb it. Once that is understood, then one needs to try understanding the complexities of quantum theory that govern the absorp-tion and emission of EM by electrons.
There’s a reason why the 2nd law stipulates a one way transfer of heat from a hotter body to a cooler body, even featuring radiation. The situation is different at thermal equilibrium but in that case there is no heat transferred either way. Many alarmists argue that Kircheoff’s laws of emission/ansorp-tion, all formed at thermal equilibrium, apply to bodies of different temperatures.
I think the explanation is in quantum theory and the rules related to absorp-tion/emission by electrons of EM. Although I am no expert in the field, it seems plain that
E = hf must be satisfied for an electron to absorb EM and that is not possible with radiation from a cooler body reaching a hotter body.
I think the electrons simply ignore EM from a cooler body.
Gordon Robertson
Your post is complete garbage demonstrating you know very little science and absolutely don’t desire to learn any real science. You play in your make believe world and see yourself as this genius. It is easy to think oneself brilliant when they make up all their own stuff and think it is real and valid and the real actual scientists have no clue. Of course they have no clue about your make believe world and they don’t care.
For instance: “Theres a reason why the 2nd law stipulates a one way transfer of heat from a hotter body to a cooler body, even featuring radiation”
Yes it is because a hot body is emitting more radiant energy than it is receiving from the cold body so “Heat”, the net energy transfer, will always be from hot to cold. You are not capable of grasping this reality it does not fit in your made up world of false and phony physics.
Another one: “I think the electrons simply ignore EM from a cooler body.”
Yes you make up things that you have no knowledge of. Just make it up and think it is real and true. Reject empirical science (that proves time dilation or create your own definition of time) and you are okay with it. Sad that there are so many scientific illiterates like you out there that need to make up crap and peddle it.
Norman Grinvalds, it appears you are just insulting Gordon. You don’t like his opinions, but you can’t refute them with anything but your own opinions. It almost appears as if you like insults more than science.
Also, you left our discussion upthread. Did you mean to run away?
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2018/07/summer-causes-climate-change-hysteria/#comment-311649
JD…”Norman Grinvalds, it appears you are just insulting Gordon”.
It’s his MO, when you cannot supply a coherent, scientific explanation, offer insults.
JDHuffman
You seemed to be doing better but are reverting to disruptive troll tactics. Why?
You are jumping into a debate that has been going on for quite some time. I have linked Gordon Robetson to correct physics countless times on many threads.
So until you have some real knowledge of the conversation (which you were not invited to), please hold your opinions until you know more. If you desire go through past threads and you will find numerous times when I have linked Gordon Robertson to solid science (which he rejects in favor of his made up science).
You are about the same as Gordon Robertson with you knowledge of physics. You have just enough knowledge to be dangerous. You don’t know what you are talking about but give you opinions and declarations anyway. You are wrong about fluxes not adding, you just say it and think that makes it true.
NG, is your statement really the truth: “You are wrong about fluxes not adding, you just say it and think that makes it true.”
Remember rule 2: Don’t bend reality to fit your beliefs. Bend your beliefs to fit reality.”
Aren’t you doing some “bending of reality” when you ignore the simple example of fluxes not adding?
Insults, false accusations, running from a discussion, and irrelevant links are NOT science.
norman…”Yes it is because a hot body is emitting more radiant energy than it is receiving from the cold body so Heat…”, the net energy transfer, will always be from hot to cold”.
*******
How about two bodies in direct contact with each other? Heat transfer is by conduction and radiation plays no part. Do you have another pseudo-scientific explanation for that?
Where is your fictitious net energy transfer with heat transfer via conduction?
You are an amateur, norman. It is your personal definition that heat is a net energy transfer. Clausius, who created the 2nd law, said nothing about a net energy transfer, in fact, he stated explicitly that heat can NEVER be transferred by its own means from a colder body to a warmer body.
You are thoroughly confused by YOUR interpretation of Kircheoff on emission and absorp-tion. You fail to grasp that all of the work Kircheoff did was at thermal equilibrium.
You are also befuddled by the CONCEPT of blackbody radiation. Blackbodies, by definition, MUST absorb all energy incident upon them. No work has been posited about two blackbodies at different temperatures and that’s where BB theory would fall apart. Two bodies at different temperature mutually absorbing/emitting EM contradicts quantum theory and the 2nd law.
The basis of EM radiation calculations goes back to Stefan. If you’d take the time to read his work you’ll see that all the practical observations upon which he based his math involved hotter bodies radiating and/or cooling. None of the work upon which he based his math involved a mutual transfer of EM fluxes.
At no time did Stefan consider bodies of different temperatures radiating in the vicinity of one another. Therefore your theory is your own invention.
Gordon Robertson
Wow your post is horrible in so many ways.
I did not define Heat transfer as NET energy transfer, that is how scientists define it. You lie like a dog about Clausius and what he said. I have read his own words from his own writings. He definitely talked about mutual “heat” transfer between hot and cold. barry provided you with direct links. What a complete dishonest person you are!
So if you want to just keep lying what is the point of talking with you?
Do you have any support for you statement: “At no time did Stefan consider bodies of different temperatures radiating in the vicinity of one another. Therefore your theory is your own invention.”
Since you are very dishonest and I do not believe what you say, I demand proof. What text do you have of Stefan saying this. If you do not provide one I will consider you a dishonest liar. Provide one now!
Chuck,
So many wrong things in one post.
One at at time:
50 y to relax is not precise, e-fold is precise. They said e-fold 2-3 y. That is a direct quote.
Now it could be e-fold 6 y or 9 y. Doesnt change result for OLR that much. If it is larger than climate sensitivity is larger, so that will be a problem for you.
Tau = C*lambda. Lambda is sensitivity parameter, C is mixed layer heat capacity -usually taken as ~ 70 m layer of ocean.
If so, then tau = 7 y corresponds to lambda = 0.8 which gives climate sensitivity of 3 C for doubling CO2. Ok with you?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_sensitivity
chuck,
‘If you look at CO2 radiation at 15 microns with respect to a plane of water, the ab-sor-ption coefficient is so large (around 1000cm-1) that all the incident radiation is ab-sor-bed in just over 10 microns from the surface. ‘
You are replaying all the denier hits! Plus some conspiratorial notions as well.
That one has been discussed and debunked here and elsewhere many times. Here is a recent discussion:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2018/06/antarctic-ice-sheet-collapses-nobel-prizes-and-the-psychology-of-catastrophism/#comment-309795
The point is that experimentally LW radiation has no problem heating water. Why? Because conduction causes the heat to penetrate centimeters within a couple of minutes. Wind and waves mix it deeper almost immediately.
Second, LW radiation doesnt need to ‘heat’ the ocean, it simply needs to slow its cooling, particularly at night. It does!
Nate says:
The point is that experimentally LW radiation has no problem heating water. Why? Because conduction causes the heat to penetrate centimeters within a couple of minutes. Wind and waves mix it deeper almost immediately.
Second, LW radiation doesnt need to heat the ocean, it simply needs to slow its cooling, particularly at night. It does!”
Me: You are not comprehending what I said. I asked you if you could differentiate the RF from GHG’s on a plane of water compared to solar forcing when using the OHC to compute a claimed RF from CO2.
As I said, the ab-sor-ption of solar goes from 10-200 meters and CO2 RF 10 microns. How to you separate these in calculating a CO2 RF based upon OHC values?
Also, CO2 RF CANNOT directly warm anything unless coupled on the solar of a day ( daylight ) and the ocean heating is completely dependent on solar insolation to raise the temperature. On the night side it is just a cooling rate reduction.
Answer the question.
Chuck Wiese says:
Also, CO2 RF CANNOT directly warm anything unless coupled on the solar of a day ( daylight )
Ever stood in front of a fire at night?
Appell: “Ever stood in front of a fire at night?”
Me: Is the atmosphere warmer than the wood or coal burning in the fire pit, Appell?
You’re such a fool.
Chuck,
‘Me: Except this is nonsense. Right now the integrated OLR is on the wrong side of an RF from CO2, being slightly above the effective emission. Here is a more recent OLR graphing that adds the ERBE record to CERES and was provided by a blogger on Roys site here with a different topic that specifically addressed what the satellite records are telling us:
https://okulaer.files.wordpress.com/2016/06/uahv6-tlt-trop-x.png
This is in the tropics but you can clearly see there is no GHE signature in this record and you can see how temperature responds nicely from Pinnatubo and the El Ninios as the OLR drops and then recovers as temperatures rise. ‘
We have debated Kristian on these OLR records ad-nauseum. Kristian’s assumptions and biases make his plots questionable.
Recent published work disagrees with his 30 y OLR record.
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/2014GL060962
See fig 2b. Long term-nearly flat trend.
Nate: “We have debated Kristian on these OLR records ad-nauseum. Kristians assumptions and biases make his plots questionable.”
Who is “we”? If his assumptions and biases make his plots “questionable” why is this?
C: Who is we?
J: He means the coordinated and cooperative team of sophists that pollute climate blogs in order to defend AGW theory by any means necessary, including the goldfish memory technique Kristian mentions further downthread; attacking straw men; baiting, trolling and goading; using false analogies; obfuscation; use and abuse of every logical fallacy under the sun; hand-waving; pettifogging, and gish-gallops. I think that is everything…but there could well be more.
Nate: Your reference to refute Kristian are not with real data output They are model simulations of OLR. That is the MO of those that promote AGW.
Chuck,
No-real data combined with modeling data used to fill small gaps in the record where jumps may have occurred. K disagrees with them, but he has not published anything, nor opened himself up to expert critique, as they have.
Nate,
What do you mean “small” gaps? It only takes a gap of any size to adjust the before or after up or down. Kristian made an effort to make sure the splice was justified the way he did it. You may argue the way others did it is better, but you can’t say it is better just because it’s published in some pal-reviewed journal. The data is the data. That’s what you have to argue about, not where it was published.
‘pal-reviewed journal’
Even K recognizes that the people who are most critical are the ‘pals’. He has given examples of disagreements among the ‘pals’ in the literature.
IMO, the issues with the data are quite technical and complex, and require real expertise to fully understand.
He understands that co-authors of the paper that I discussed, are THE experts.
Even among experts, there remains uncertainty about gaps, jumps, artefacts in the data from 25 y ago, as can be seen in the papers.
What I have pointed out to K is that he has too much certainty in his choices about the data. More certainty than the experts have.
His analysis has never been exposed to the most knowledgeable people, through peer review. Any technical errors he has made will not be caught. Any biases he applies, cherry picking he has done will not be caught.
Nate,
If certainty was a criteria for publishing or claiming additional CO2 has any effect on global temperature, only 2 + 2 = 4 papers could be published and no warmist could make any such claim on this blog.
CO2’s effect on climate:
https://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/schmidt_05/curve_s.gif
Right on cue, Appell comes in with a plot that says absolutely nothing about the effect CO2 has on global temperatures.
‘If certainty was a criteria for publishing…’
Not sure what you mean. I am saying published papers on this topic do not generally have as much certainty about the data and analysis as K has about his.
IMO, he has an entirely too much confidence that he has done things right, while the experts have not. And he thinks people like you and me should just accept his views.
Look, let’s face it, if we had to decide on something important, like a serious medical issue, most of us would NOT choose to rely on an armchair expert on a blog, over a medical professional, ie a real expert with lots of experience and training.
I mean that someone’s opinion about how certain they are of the data is irrelevant. The data speaks for itself. That’s why statistics are used to obviate having to take someone’s self-evaluation of how good their data is. So if you want to object to Kristian’s data, do it by addressing any flaws in his presentation and not by comparing his opinion to someone else’s.
Chic Bowdrie says:
July 13, 2018 at 4:59 PM
Right on cue, Appell comes in with a plot that says absolutely nothing about the effect CO2 has on global temperatures
Then you don’t understand that plot.
I understand the plot represents a spectrum taken at one point in space at one moment. There is no scientist who can demonstrate any temperature change from that spectrum and not know he or she is lying. But I expect you will claim otherwise, because you are no scientist. If I’m wrong, please show me the experiments you have done showing how much the global temperature changes as a result of an incremental increase in CO2.
Curve fitting, correlations, and forcing equations are not experiments.
‘The data speaks for itself.’
Apparently not, because it needs to be analyzed and corrected for known and unknown artefacts. The data correction is not trivial, and is revised often.
I’ve been through it in some detail with K. But not being a real expert myself, I can only understand it so well.
What I see in the literature is a lot of uncertainty about data, offsets, drifts, gaps, while in K’s documents he has certainty.
IMO, he does not appear to have the proper separation between his hypotheses and the experiments.
“IMO, he does not appear to have the proper separation between his hypotheses and the experiments.”
You don’t have to be an expert to comment, but you should have a scientifically critical point to make. Your opinion doesn’t mean diddly-squat otherwise. Its troll-like behavior.
‘but you should have a scientifically critical point to make. Your opinion doesn’t mean diddly-squat otherwise. Its troll-like behavior.’
Ok so my opinions don’t mean diddly squat? And I’m a troll now? I guess if I’m a troll, and Mike Flynn is not a troll then it must have been redefined by you guys.
Have you read the lengthy back and forth posts on this OLR subject between me and K? Feel free, but there is plenty of scientific points in there. Im not going to repeat them all for you.
Both you and Chuck think that Kristian is simply presenting THE DATA.
My scientific point has been that NO it is not, THE DATA. It is one version of the data. There are others, and I’m the one who did the work to find them and point them out to Kristian.
Is that what a troll does?
He then wrote an entire new response to this, to show what he thinks they have done wrong. Then more back forth between us with more scientific points made.
Nate,
You missed that I said your opinion doesn’t mean diddly-squat OTHERWISE meaning if you aren’t backing up your opinion with justification. It seemed to me you were arguing that Kristian’s analysis was flawed because he sounded more confident than someone else with a different view. You can have that opinion, but it is not scientific. That’s my opinion. :>)
Not all of my opinions are purely scientific, nor is that required to post them. Some of yours are values-based. Are they then worthless?
Unlike Elon Musk apparently, I am not embarrassed to say that I don’t understand everything, and could use expert help.
When experts themselves disagree, it is near impossible for non-experts to judge correctly who is right.
But other evidence can help. Who has vast experience in the field? Who’s work has been vetted? Who seems to have strong bias? Who has shown hostility to stats (K)? Who seems hostile to non-supportive data?
And even, who is a trained professional and who is an amateur are valid questions.
AGAIN with this nonsense!? As if you have EVER refuted my 1985-2017 OLR record, Nate.
That is truly laughable! No, Nate. Allan et al.’s assumptions and biases make THEIR plots questionable. I don’t make any assumptions beyond the 1999-2000 calibration offset. And that one is firmly corroborated by ISCCP, HIRS, AVHRR, Loeb et al., 2012, and Allan et al., 2014.
As I’ve explained ad nauseam.
You can read about it here:
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/
Uhgghh, Kristian. Of course you make assumptions! Your record is different from Allen, Loeb et al..
It is different mainly because you assume everything is fine in 1993-leave it as it is. But that produces a clear jump at the gap.
Nate,
I’m not going to restart this discussion all the way from the beginning just because we’re on a new thread. I know you like to use the ‘goldfish memory’ tactic in order to tire out your opponents. You’re trying it again here, I notice. To PRETEND we haven’t been through this a dozen times already. To PRETEND we aren’t currently discussing this on the comment thread just before this one.
No, Nate. Won’t work. Go back and read:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2018/07/uah-global-temperature-update-for-june-2018-0-21-deg-c/#comment-311778
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2018/07/uah-global-temperature-update-for-june-2018-0-21-deg-c/#comment-311785
No. It is different because ALLAN ET AL. choose to change an official dataset simply to make the observations fit with their model. YOU (and Allan, and Trenberth) assume we CAN’T leave 1993 as it is. Even long after the ERBS team has made it abundantly clear we can and should. YOU assume Wielicki, Wong, Shrestha et al. are morons who don’t know and haven’t really checked their OWN dataset.
You are a clown, Nate. You can just continue denying reality all you want. It is all to obvious your cognitive dissonance on this particular issue is almost unbearable. So you HAVE TO deny the data in order to reduce it, to keep it at bay.
Go read.
Nate says, July 12, 2018 at 12:00 PM:
This is where your bias shows, Nate. You feel and think that this ‘jump’ is unnatural. Because you fell and think it looks better if there’s no rise (i.e. flat).
But this ‘jump’ (there’s no jump, Nate; there’s simply a natural progression in line with the progression of tropospheric temps over this period) is corroborated by ISCCP, by HIRS, and by AVHRR.
OLR goes up here because T_tropo goes up. The OLR simply follows TLT from 1985 to 1993 and from 1994 to 2017. So why not from 1993 to 1994!?
The OPPOSITE, a flat progression, is what would go against standard physics. THAT would look unnatural.
But not in Nate’s little world, no. There it MUST be flat. And therefore it IS flat, no matter what the data says …
The gap ‘You feel…’ Whatever I feel about the look of it is not the justification that Allan, Loeb et al used.
‘YOU (and Allan, and Trenberth) assume we CANT leave 1993 as it is.’
I did not work on this paper, K.
‘You can just continue denying reality all you want. It is all to obvious your cognitive dissonance on this particular issue is almost unbearable. So you HAVE TO deny the data in order to reduce it, to keep it at bay.’
It is their published work that you find fault with, but you seem to want to blame it all on me, and my bias, and my denial of the data, yada, yada. Very weird.
Again their analysis has been thru peer review, yours?
Their analysis is co-authored by some of the worlds experts on this measurement, yours?
Their analysis is published and left open for all other experts to critique. Yours?
‘I know you like to use the ‘goldfish memory’ tactic in order to tire out your opponents. You’re trying it again here, I notice. To PRETEND we haven’t been through this a dozen times already. To PRETEND we aren’t currently discussing this on the comment thread just before this one.’
I havent pretended about anything. I made it clear to Chuck that I’ve discussed this with you ad-nauseum. So I didnt intend to go over it again.
YOU wanted to. Even so, I don’t agree with your view, just as I’ve said to you.
Nate says, July 12, 2018 at 6:53 PM:
No. But YOU say it looks unnatural, as an artefact, Nate. Not Allan et al. YOU. So I have to ask: What do YOU base this ‘feeling’ of yours on? It can’t be reality, that’s for sure …
I have discussed at length the (lack of proper) justification for their change of the ERBS data: Trenberth’s words and model simulations. I discussed it in my blog post. Did you read it? You claim you did, but it appears you didn’t.
No, but I expect you’re able to read, Nate. Have you actually read their paper? Somehow it seems as though you haven’t. I must say I find it a wee bit suspicious, the fact that you’re so hellbent on defending a paper you haven’t even read properly. I can only assume (there, I said it!) that the reason is simply that their Fig2b happens to show a red reconstructed OLR “OBS” curve that doesn’t agree with mine. To echo the words of barry: Where’s your scepticism? You take and swallow their words on faith alone, seemingly without a single critical thought in your head.
READ their paper, Nate. Find out what they ACTUALLY did to construct that red curve in Fig2b. Yes, I’ve told you many times, but you’re clearly not listening to me, so better you just read for yourself.
See previous response.
Why is that weird? You’re the one who constantly and reflexively accuses me of being driven by bias. That’s your MO when it comes to me. You’re apparently not interested in what I actually do, in what I actually find, my results, and in how I actually justify/support those results. To you, if it goes against your “AGW” religion, then it’s by default biased and thus MUST be wrong. And because of this you come across as a cultist, a fanatic, Nate.
*Sigh*
And therefore it automatically conveys the Truth? Is that it? Are you seriously this naive!?
Their analysis is NOT co-authored by some of the worlds experts on the ERBS data, Nate. The specific data that is being changed. The peer-reviewed papers I lean on, however, ARE.
When will you start acknowledging this fact?
You aren’t by any chance driven by your own bias, are you?
Again, when will you acknowledge the above? Wielicki et al., 2002b. Lin et al., 2004. Wong et al., 2006. IPCC AR4 WG1, 2007. Shrestha et al., 2017.
Read ANY of them? Written by (or referring directly to) the actual EXPERTS on the ERBS data, Nate.
Why do you insist on favouring ‘your’ paper over these? Could it be a result of confirmation bias??
* * *
Nate says, July 13, 2018 at 5:59 PM:
Uhgghh, Nate. Of course you have! Will you ever admit that you have? Of course not.
No. You know that’s not what I referred to. You’re pretending again. You very specifically stated about me and my position, and I quote you verbatim:
“Kristian’s assumptions and biases make his plots questionable.”
THIS claim is what I commented on.
Yes, I realise that. For you carry with you an inherent bias that doesn’t allow you to ‘agree with’ any observational data from the real Earth system that shows the tenets of your faith to be wrong.
But they ARE wrong. YOU are wrong. And I am right. Nature, reality is right. The models fail. The data prevail.
Sorry to be the one to let you know, but your cognitive dissonance on this topic will only grow stronger as time goes by …
‘Kristians assumptions and biases make his plots questionable.’
Again that is my opinion. Mine. Based on what I know about your plots, how you got them, your strong biases, and what I know about the literature.
I’m not pretending it is anyone else’s, opinion.
Again, you represent your graphs as THE DATA, and other people reading this think, OK, that’s the data.
I am rightfully pushing back against your misrepresentation.
Yours is one version of a reconstruction of the data, done by you, an armchair expert.
There is at least one other one, that I found for you (and read), which means your discussion of other work in this field was far from complete.
Now you misrepresent this paper as forcing the data to fit their model.
” It is different because ALLAN ET AL. choose to change an official dataset simply to make the observations fit with their model.”
Wrong, an ‘official data set’ free of jumps, offsets, drifts, etc. does not exist. Even the experts have not produced ‘an official data set’
As they say in their paper ‘A strategy was required to homogenize the satellite data sets. From March 2000, CERES data are used. Prior to March 2000 we reconstruct monthly mean radiative fluxes as follows…”
Unlike you, they don’t have a prior idea of what the long term OLR record should look like.
They don’t have a prior belief that the data should track the UAH LT 6.0 data, as you do.
Then after your choices of offsets – it DOES MATCH! Amazing. Then you work to justify your choices.
Except it doesnt match RSS or RATPAC or UAH 5.6 or any other data set. But we don’t ever hear about that.
And the record of Allan does not match UAH. It does not fit your belief. So of course you think it is wrong.
Maybe your reconstruction is wrong. Maybe the ALLan reconstruction is wrong. Probably not the last word.
But if you claim yours is reality, that is a gross misrepresentation.
Nate says, July 16, 2018 at 5:36 PM:
Yes, I ‘got them’ through the deceitful trickster-method of using official DATA, Nate. Wow, if that isn’t horrendously biased, nothing is …!
Again, why are my plots questionable? Except by virtue of simply being in disagreement with YOUR “strong biases” … That you STILL somehow manage to project onto ME.
You keep ignoring the RELEVANT literature on this particular issue, Nate. That which is written by the actual experts on the data in question. Because you know full well that this literature doesn’t say what YOU want to see. Which is oh, so obvious.
And I’m not pretending you’re pretending it is someone else’s opinion, Nate. I’m addressing YOU and YOUR biases. But you keep referring to Allan et al., 2014, for support while at the same time, even after I have pointed them out to you repeatedely, ignoring the papers written by the ones actually responsible for the data Allan et al. took it upon themselves to simply change to match it with their model simulations, plainly stating and showing that Allan et al.’s “correction” was never called for in the first place …
Yes, that’s because it IS the data, Nate.
Why do you insist on playing the dimwit game? The data IS specifically what I’m representing. The ‘ToA All-Sky OLR anomaly’ products as officially published by the ERBS and the CERES teams, respectively. The ONLY thing I’ve done is establish the calibration offset across the 5-month 1999-2000 data gap between the two sets. And that offset has been corroborated/verified by other independent radiation flux datasets such as ISCCP FD, HIRS and AVHRR, plus by Loeb et al., 2012, using overlapping (1998-2000) measurements by CERES/TRMM, and by Allan et al., 2014, using both ERA Interim data (also matching) and Loeb’s input.
Yes, good. Because it IS the data. They can also go and read my blog posts on this subject to see what I have actually done:
https://okulaer.wordpress.com/2018/03/24/the-data-sun-not-man-is-what-caused-and-causes-global-warming/
https://okulaer.wordpress.com/2018/03/24/the-data-supplementary-discussions/
https://okulaer.wordpress.com/2018/06/26/verifying-my-near-global-1985-2017-olr-record/
WHAT MISREPRESENTAION!!!???
It’s the only one true to the actual data. And it does not ‘reconstruct’ any data. It simply combine to separate datasets covering two separate time periods (1985-1999 & 2000-2018) into ONE record. And the offset between them is ROBUSTLY verified using several independent sources. As you well know, Nate.
I don’t. They DO ‘force the data to fit their model’. This is what they write (main paper):
“There are notable gaps in the WFOV record which may introduce unrealistic variability. First, the gap between the WFOV and CERES period (1999-2000) exhibits a systematic difference. A secondary hiatus in the WFOV record during 1993 due to a battery failure may also introduce a discontinuity in the record [Trenberth, 2002]. To bridge these gaps, the reconstructed fluxes prior to 2000 are adjusted such that the 2000-2001 minus 1998-1999 global mean changes agree with UPSCALE simulations; fluxes prior to 1994 are similarly adjusted based upon simulated 1994-1995 minus 1992-1993 global mean changes.”
And from their SI document:
“(…) the reconstructed data is subjected to a homogeneity adjustment as described in the main text. The reason for this is that inaccuracies may be present during the period influenced by the gap between WFOV and CERES measurements in 1999-2000 and potentially also during a gap in the WFOV record during 1993 [Trenberth, 2002]. Since there is no way to know the true changes during these periods, we use the following method.
We compute changes in OLR, ASR and N from the UPSCALE [climate model] ensemble mean simulation over the following two periods: 1994-1995 minus 1992-1993 and 2000-2001 minus 1998-1999. The reconstructed fluxes are then adjusted prior to January 2000 and January 1994 so that changes in global mean radiative fluxes agree with UPSCALE simulations.“
IOW, they can come up with no real reason why changing the ERBS data the way they do is a move that is somehow required and/or justified. But they do it anyway. Because …? Look at what they write, Nate. Look at the words they use. And the sole source referenced.
Adjusting observational data to match with model simulations is NOT SCIENCE, Nate! Period. You said so yourself. You adjust your model output to match it with the observational data, not the other way around. And you KNOW this.
Continued.
Nate:
Hahaha! And round and round we go. Deny/dismiss/question the data whenever they disagree with your world view.
Why are you only sceptical to the CERES and ERBS data, Nate? Why aren’t you applying some of that scepticism to the results of Allan et al., 2014?
I’ll tell you why: Confirmation bias. And cognitive dissonance.
Dr. Leon Festinger once more:
“A man with a conviction is a hard man to change. (…) Show him facts or figures and he questions your sources.”
You only question the data sources I use, Nate, ERBS and CERES, because you don’t like what they’re telling you. Because they stir your cognitive dissonance. So you use the method of data/evidence denial/dismissal in order to reduce it. Classic.
Allan et al., 2014, however, tell you EXACTLY what you want to hear …! So you gladly choose “theory”, the “words of experts”, and “model results” over actual observational data.
This is what this entire quarrel boils down to: You CANNOT accept the data, because they directly conflict with your world view. And on this you will not budge.
For the millionth time, Nate: Allan et al. are NOT (!!!!) the experts on … the ERBS data! Wake up and come out of the fog …! You need to read what the data EXPERTS are saying about their own data!
Still you’ve got this all backwards. THEY have a prior idea that the long-term OLR record should be flat. Because that’s what the “theory” behind the idea of the “enhanced GHE” says, AND what their model will accordingly say. So when THEY see observational data that disagrees with this idea and with this model, they CHANGE THE DATA to make it agree. Not the other way around, which would be the SCIENTIFIC thing to do.
I, on the other hand, simply look at the data and see what it says. And it says that OLR simply tracks tropospheric temps over time, which is perfectly physically reasonable.
And you know all this, Nate. And still you cannot get yourself to accept it. You have to deny it. You have to deny reality. In order to keep your cognitive dissonance at bay.
It matches very well indeed with RSSv3.3 TLT. But AGW enthusiasts Mears & Wentz, who expressed their dislike of “denialists” (as they called them) using their data to “further their cause”, in the end decided to simply “update” the data, creating strong warming in the process, and thus the “problem” was effectively removed.
RATPAC is just laughable (obviously not climate calibrated):
https://okulaer.wordpress.com/2016/02/21/taminos-radiosonde-problem-part-1/
And UAHv5.6 was clearly flawed:
https://okulaer.wordpress.com/2015/03/08/uah-need-to-adjust-their-tlt-product/
No, according to the ERBS team, it’s wrong, Nate. Not according to me. The ERBS team. Got it?
K,
First of all, you need to calm down. You are coming off as a maniac.
Your objectivity about this subject can be questioned when you have an obvious need to attack and attack your perceived enemies, and defend your views at all costs. You are painting this as a black and white issue.
There is no need to be like that. As I said, maybe ALLan et al is wrong. They offer their version of the record. They are not representing it as the final word, or sacrosanct. It is a reasonable argument that they make.
You can disagree and put forward an alternative. But it is also not sacrosanct, and not peer reviewed by any expert (why not?).
“Adjusting observational data to match with model simulations is NOT SCIENCE, Nate!”
K, what have YOU done to get the 33 y record? You adjusted the data! Specifically in year 2000 where their is a gap. Because there was a need to do so. You argue that you have done it right, but you may not have.
What have Allan done? You know exactly what they have done, and why. They fill data gap in 1993, and 2000. There is a need to do so.
They use a simulation to help bridge the gaps. They make a reasoned argument about why there is a need to do this. They argue that we understand the general circulation well enough that over a short period, a few months, a good match to data is possible.
But they do not represent the resulting record as data. They call it a reconstruction.
It is misrepresentation for you to keep saying they are forcing the data to fit their model. I have said this many times, but you continually lie about this. The long-term record is not forced to fit any model.
Your LACK of adjustment in 1993 is a choice you have made. You and perhaps others argue there is no need. But clearly other experts disagree. (which paper should I read?)
Again, given the many problems with this data, having the kind of certainty that you have about this issue is unjustified.
Allan wrote a whole paper reconstructing the 33y TOA radiation record, because there was NO existing, reliable ‘established data set’ covering that period, as you imply.
You trusted RSS 3 but not RSS 4. You trust UAH 6 but not 5.6. You don’t trust RATPAC or surface data sets. There are no solid objective science reasons for these assessments of the different data.
This is a good example of what I mean when I say you have strong biases. Data is trusted if it agrees with your beliefs, otherwise not.
That is not objective science.
Kristian says:
Why should it be flat?
a) OLR is a battle between a decades old equilibrium catch-up and recent additional perturbations.
b) OLR will be determined by feedbacks which are uncertain:
https://tinyurl.com/y85s6pcv
Nate says, July 21, 2018 at 1:36 PM
Hehe, nice try. Your kind just annoy me, Nate. That’s it.
Focus on the DATA, Nate, not on me as a person. You don’t have to like me or the way I write or “come off” on this blog. All I want you to do is look at the data that I present and assess it OBJECTIVELY. It’s pretty clear you’re not able to.
It is not “MY” data, Nate. Not “my version”. I didn’t “create” or “manipulate” it in any way. I didn’t “adjust it according to my biases”. I simply present it the way it is OFFICIALLY presented.
You repeatedly accuse me of these things and refuse to retract any of it, refuse to apologise for misrepresenting me. I think I have the right to be ever so slightly annoyed at that. When you and I BOTH know that it is simply untrue.
No, Nate. Where did I adjust ANY of the two separate datasets used!!!??? There is no adjustment of data in my record. There’s a calibration offset BETWEEN two separate datasets. And, for the nth time: That calibration offset is CORROBORATED/VERIFIED by several independent sources: ISCCP FD, HIRS, AVHRR, ERA Interim, Loeb et al., 2012, and Allan et al., 2014.
What more do you want!?
You know perfectly well that the 1993 data gap and the 1999-2000 data gap are NOT equivalent! Stop acting like an obstinate child about this!
The 1999-2000 data gap is BETWEEN two distinct and uncalibrated datasets. The 1993 data gap is INSIDE one coherent (internally calibrated) dataset. Did you read what the ERBS data experts wrote about this particular issue!? The validation and calibration procedures across that data gap? I’m sure you did. You just manage to ‘forget’ it time and time again.
There is NO NEED to adjust the data across the 1993 data gap, Nate. That is the official conclusion reached, and repeated again and again, by the people actually responsible for the ERBS dataset that Allan et al. took it upon themselves to change. As pointed out now about two dozen times. The ERBS team specifically went back to double-check this when Trenberth raised his “concern” back in 2002. And found that no adjustments were needed. Wielicki et al., 2002b. Do I once more have to quote what they said?
Yes. IOW, they adjust the observational data to fit with their model simulation.
OMG! Hahaha! It’s like talking to a wall!
They do NOT make a “reasoned” argument, Nate. Again, this is what they say:
Main paper:
“There are notable gaps in the WFOV record which MAY introduce unrealistic variability. (…) A secondary hiatus in the WFOV record during 1993 due to a battery failure MAY also introduce a discontinuity in the record [Trenberth, 2002].”
SI document:
“(…) the reconstructed data is subjected to a homogeneity adjustment as described in the main text. The reason for this is that inaccuracies MAY be present (…) POTENTIALLY also during a gap in the WFOV record during 1993 [Trenberth, 2002].”
(My emphasis.)
Wielicki et al. refuted Trenberth’s implicitly stated “need for correction” across the 1993 data gap already in 2002! And this is not something that has changed since. So why on earth (!) do Allan et al. decide to reuse this refuted “concern” in 2014? Because that’s all they have, Nate. The ONLY source that they could find as tentative support to their changing the official observational data to make it match their MODEL simulation.
But the Trenberth source is inapplicable! And Richard Allan should know.
Yes, but such arguing constitutes perfectly circular reasoning, Nate. And therefore it does NOT belong in science. ‘We think our model is good, therefore we can freely change the actual observational data to make it agree with our model.’
Again, Nate, why are you ONLY sceptical to arguments that go AGAINST your belief system, and not at all to arguments based ON your belief system? You fully agree to the fundamental principle that you can’t change the observations to make them fit with your preconceived idea of what should happen, that this is the opposite of science. But as soon as someone promotes YOUR particular world view, YOUR particular preconceived idea about what should happen, THEN all of a sudden it’s all good; no problemo! We call that a “double standard”, Nate.
That’s because it IS a RE-construction. They REconstruct the official data, specifically the ERBS Ed3_Rev1 dataset.
No. It is a choice the ERBS team has made, Nate. Not me. Come on. You are not this slow.
You and perhaps others argue there is no need. But clearly other experts disagree.
Again, it’s like talking to a wall. Things (reality) simply do not sink in!
You’re playing dumb again, Nate. I have linked to the papers you should read many times. Go read my blog post. The links are there (also).
In 2018, what “problems” are there concerning the ‘ToA All-Sky OLR flux anomaly’ data? Do tell. You’re just picking things out of thin air just to avoid dealing with reality.
No, the data are there. They’ve been there all along. You just need to COMBINE them and align them. The fact is simply that no one has done what I’ve done, gone through the steps the way I’ve done, actually followed the data to construct a full 33y OLR record. (Well, Loeb et al., 2012, did, but without comparing it with TLTs.)
Allan et al. CHANGE the data to make it agree with the climate models. I simply let the data tell its own story …
Yes, for good reason.
Yes, again, for good reason.
Indeed. For good reason.
It’s not like I just dismiss these datasets offhand, Nate. I support my position. I explain thoroughly WHY I don’t trust them, and why it’s obvious they shouldn’t be trusted. It’s all there on my blog. I just gave you two links, but naturally you didn’t bother to read them.
Oh yes, there are. Go read my blog.
Hehe. Again, nice try.
Nope. I always follow the data. But whenever data is adjusted, I investigate what is being done, how it’s being done, and the justifications given for the adjustment being made in the first place.
The best way to evaluate data and especially data CHANGES is by compare it to OTHER data. That’s what I do.
You’re projecting again, Nate.
K: ‘It is not MY data, Nate. Not my version. I didnt create or manipulate it in any way. I didnt adjust it according to my biases. I simply present it the way it is OFFICIALLY presented.’
Then you go on to say well, I adjusted the offset between two data sets. I think what did is well justified.
“Theres a calibration offset BETWEEN two separate datasets. And, for the nth time: That calibration offset is CORROBORATED/VERIFIED by several independent sources:”
So this puts the lie to your first statement. You did MANIPULATE it. You think whatever way you touched the data is fine. It doesn’t really count. Because it is REALIITY.
Look, you can say all you want that YOU have done things CORRECTLY.
But again, no one has published the long term trend in the data as you have. If it were so obvious and easy, and clearly of interest and importance, why do we ONLY find it on a blog?
The point of doing science, is not to convince others on blogs, it is to influence the larger scientific community.
Again, IMO, it is a REAL problem that your record is the only one like it to be found. And yet it is only one that has not been exposed to the experts and gone through peer review.
People like me on blogs maybe scientifically literate, but they are not going to go pouring through a bunch of technical literature to figure out if you’re really representing it accurately, and understanding the errors and caveats (BTW, you don’t!). That is why we need expert peer review.
Like it or not, that is a genuine black mark on your work.
Why don’t you send it to Loeb or one of the others, and ask his opinion and show it here?
N: You don’t trust RATPAC or surface data sets.
K: Indeed. For good reason.
It’s not like I just dismiss these datasets offhand, Nate. I support my position. I explain thoroughly WHY I don’t trust them, and why it’s obvious they shouldn’t be trusted. It’s all there on my blog. I just gave you two links, but naturally you didn’t bother to read them.
N: There are no solid objective science reasons for these assessments of the different data.
K: Oh yes, there are. Go read my blog.”
Ok so I took the bait and went and read your ‘solid and objective science reasons’ for rejecting RATPAC.
What false advertising, and what a waste of time!
It is, as usual, 15 pages of conjecture about the conspiratorial reasons for adjustments, subjective opinion about the data not looking right (recall the FLAK I got for this from you!).
A whole lot of statements like “It all looks pretty spurious. Like a fundamental problem with how spotty weather data is assembled into a global climate dataset …”
and
“The radiosonde datasets do not represent “Troposphere Truth”. They rise much less steeply than the surface from 1979 to 2001 and much steeper than the surface from 1999 to 2015. This doesn’t make much physical sense, “
Subjective opinion about what the data should do or should look like is not objective science.
What ‘solid and objective science reasons’ do you have for favoring RSS 3 and UAH 6 over RSS 4.
Undoubtedly it will be more of the same.
Svante says, July 21, 2018 at 11:54 PM:
Because of the central principle of “GH” warming through the raising of Earth’s “effective radiating level, ERL” (Z_e):
http://www.climatetheory.net/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/greenhouse-effect-held-soden-2000.png
Is it? Says who? Shown by what observational data?
No. OLR will be (and is) determined mainly by tropospheric temperatures.
Nate,
You’re hopeless. A lost case. A clown, a troll and/or a proverbial brick wall …
I’ve said what needs to be said on this matter. I will not be drawn into an endless loop of “is nots” and “is toos”. You’re wrong, I’m right. That’s plain to see to all objective/neutral readers. But you’re a stubborn child who simply cannot and will not acknowledge defeat, who will instead just go on and on and on with his whining until everyone around him tires and lets him have the last word simply to shut him up …
My 33y OLR record is correct as far as the best available data is concerned. Nothing you say can change this simple fact. There is no spin you can put on Allan’s paper that will make my record incorrect, or even plausibly invalid.
You will have to SHOW that the datasets I’ve used are distinctly flawed. You are not even trying …
K,
This from an abstract of a paper,
Impact of data gaps on satellite broadband radiation records,
Norman G. Loeb Bruce A. Wielicki Takmeng Wong Peter A. Parker
A simulated 30-year climate data record of net cloud radiative effect (defined as the difference between clear- and all-sky net top-of-atmosphere radiative flux) based on the first 5 years of Clouds and the Earth’s Radiant Energy System (CERES) Terra measurements is created in order to investigate how gaps in the record affect our ability to constrain cloud radiative feedback. To ensure a trend estimate with an uncertainty small enough to constrain cloud radiative feedback to 25% of anthropogenic forcing in the next few decades, the absolute calibration change across the gap must be <0.3% in the shortwave (SW) region and <0.1% in the longwave (LW) region for a 1‐year gap occurring in the middle of the record. Given that current calibration accuracy of CERES is 2% in the SW and 1% in the LW (at the 95% significance level), a gap of any length anywhere in the record will significantly increase the time required in order to detect a trend above natural variability because data collected prior to and after the gap cannot be combined accurately enough to ensure trend detection at the required level. To avoid gaps, at least 6 months of global or 1 year of tropical overlapping measurements between successive instruments are needed, based on overlapping CERES Terra and Aqua data.
This paper makes it clear, it seems, that data gaps of the kind that we indeed have in the 30 y record, make judging trends well enough to test AGW very difficult if not impossible.
This is perhaps why no one other than you have tried to publish and draw real conclusions about such a record.
K,
Wong et al 2006 Reexamination of the Observed Decadal Variability of the Earth Radiation Budget
Using Altitude-Corrected ERBE/ERBS Nonscanner WFOV Data
concludes
The intercomparison of the corrected ERBS Nonscanner
WFOV with other radiation datasets reaffirms
the critical need for overlapped and continuous
climate data records. Figure 8 shows the new
version of Fig. 1 from Wielicki et al. (2002a) with the
new ERBS WFOV Edition3_Rev1 data. The Scanner
and Nonscanner records no longer agree as well
as before. The disagreement, however, is within the
absolute accuracy of the instruments for calibration
of SW and LW fluxes: 2W/m^2 for ERBE and
ScaRaB and 1W/m^2 for CERES. As a result, for
FIG. 8. Time series of deseasonalized tropical mean (20N to
20S) longwave anomaly (with respect to 198589 climatology)
between 1979 and 2001 based on the new ERBS Nonscanner
WFOV Edition3_Rev1 (red solid line), Nimbus-7 Nonscanner
(green dashed line), ERBS Scanner (blue solid line), CERES/
Terra FM1 Scanner ES4 Edition2_Rev1 (blue dashed line),
CERES/TRMM Scanner Edition2 (blue circle), ScaRaB/Meteor
Scanner (green triangle), and ScaRaB/Resurs Scanner (green
circle) dataset. Anomalies are defined with respect to the 198589
period.
nonoverlapped climate records, differences of up to
3Wm2 are within the absolute calibration uncertainty.
This is analogous to the same issue in solar
constant measurements and most climate measurements.
Even the most accurately calibrated instruments
are typically not sufficient to handle gaps in
the data record.”
Again, emphasizing their lack of confidence in ability to bridge gaps accurately
Kristian, Nate,
So we should really look at the ERL, has anyone done that?
One degree is less than 200 m, so I guess it’s hard.
Wikipedia says we may have 0.5 C in the pipeline:
http://tinyurl.com/ycgb722y
Complete ocean overturning may take a thousand years.
Ice sheets take much longer to melt.
I expect that’s where energy comes out, but what were the sources?
Feedbacks that raise ASR will cause a plain OLR increase, counteracting any GHE lowering.
Svante says, July 28, 2018 at 2:45 AM:
Yes, it is precisely what I’m doing, Svante. By comparing Earth’s T_tropo (TLT) and Earth’s T_e (All-Sky OLR at ToA =>).
If Earth’s ERL were in fact moving upwards as a result of a gradual increase in the atmospheric opacity to outgoing IR (an “enhanced GHE”), T_tropo and T_e wouldn’t track each other over time. We would rather see a systematic (consistent) rise (over years and decades) in the former over the latter. This specifically predicted scenario, of a steady divergence over time between two directly comparable parameters, would clearly and unequivocally have manifested itself in the observational data by now, after 33 years of monitoring. IF there were actually “GHE enhancement” going on …
However, it’s nowhere to be seen. Only in studies (like Allan et al., 2014) where the observational data is deliberately adjusted to match with model simulations rather than the other way around …
So when exactly did this “decades old equilibrium catch-up” start? What happened at what time that brought our planet so out of balance that still today we’re struggling to catch up with it? What was the event?
It makes absolutely no sense, Svante. And there’s exactly NIL data to support it.
You should read this post, Svante, where I discuss the models (Addendum II):
https://okulaer.wordpress.com/2018/03/24/the-data-supplementary-discussions/
The narrative that’s being served (or thrust upon) us is completely out of kilter with reality. It is so circular and conveniently self-serving (plus un-physical) that one cannot but laugh and shake one’s head at it.
The source of the energy (OLR) is temperature, Svante. For the most part tropospheric temperature.
A feedback that raises ASR would be warming. But there was no overall system imbalance creating warming during the 12 years leading up to the sudden rise in ASR in 1988-89. Therefore this rise couldn’t have been a FEEDBACK to directly preceding and overlapping warming:
https://okulaer.wordpress.com/2018/03/24/the-data-sun-not-man-is-what-caused-and-causes-global-warming/
The rise in ASR during the 90s was a result of internal circulatory (ocean-troposphere regime) changes, not of warming, and especially not of “enhanced GHE” warming …!
Kristian sez: “We would rather see a systematic (consistent) rise (over years and decades) in the former over the latter.”
Which the observed data does meaningfully show using beginning of UAH 6.0 TLT and Loeb 2018 CERES OLR results in essentially the same time period. TLT increasing and OLR not meaningfully different than no change i.e. a statistically meaningful systematic (consistent) rise (over years and decades) in the former over the latter.
Nate, Svante you are correct to suspect Kristian isn’t writing meaningful conclusions as self-citing Kristian is incapable of providing statistical significance levels and confidence intervals supporting any conclusions.
Nate: “50 y to relax is not precise, e-fold is precise. They said e-fold 2-3 y. That is a direct quote.”
Me: An e-fold is not a response time, t. Tau is the time it takes for 1 e-fold. If the response forcing from the ocean takes 50 year to reach equilibrium, then 1 e-fold takes 12.5 years.
Nate: “Now it could be e-fold 6 y or 9 y. Doesn’t change result for OLR that much. If it is larger than climate sensitivity is larger, so that will be a problem for you.”
Me: I just demonstrated to you what the difference between an e-fold of using a Tau of 2.5 for a 10 year relaxation vs. a 12.5 tau for a 50 year relaxation and they are significantly different. I am clueless as to what you mean in your last sentence.
Chuck,
The climate sensitivity parameter, lambda, as defined here
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_sensitivity
gives temp rise for a given forcing: DelT = lambda*F
Tau, the response time to a forcing is given by C*lambda, where C is heat capacity of mixed layer of ocean ~ 70 m, typical.
So if Tau is larger as you want, then lambda is larger, meaning sensitivity is larger-you get a bigger rise with doubling of CO2.
For tau = 7 y get 3 K rise for doubling CO2.
Nate, Chuck
Why would climate scientists expect to see a decrease in OLR as a result of GHG forcing? That makes no sense to me for a number of reasons.
Most basic is that an increase in temperature (increasing OLR and thereby restoring balance) would, in my mind, be occurring SIMULTANEOUSLY with more co2/water vapor being added to the atmosphere.
More GHG’s, resulting in a reduction in OLR, resulting in higher temperature, resulting in more OLR (offsetting the decrease)………all at the same moment.
Agree with you, as long as CO2 rise is slow and continuous. It is!
Snape: “Most basic is that an increase in temperature (increasing OLR and thereby restoring balance) would, in my mind, be occurring SIMULTANEOUSLY with more co2/water vapor being added to the atmosphere.”
Me: This is impossible according to the IPCC bible. The equations show the “imbalance” is over the oceans which researchers have claimed to have shown takes 50 years to respond to neutralize a RF in the long wave. If it is a shortwave solar driven event, surface temperatures respond much quicker.
But climate models are a fraud. The 50 year, 10 year, whatever coefficient they come up with for tau is an unsubstantiated guess based upon the bogus assumption they can model cloud and water vapor IR and change in solar insolation accurately and separate the two over the oceans, when founding principles demonstrated that CO2 RF is forever lost in the hydrological cycle and cannot control it.
Chuck Wiese,
CO2 RF is forever lost in the hydrological cycle
RF is lost well before, in limbo. It finds its origin in a theoretical trick that allows to circumvent thermodynamics. See the hypothesis expressed for example in Ramanathan and Coakley 1978, chapter Convective adjustment.
Chuck Wiese says:
…when founding principles demonstrated that CO2 RF is forever lost in the hydrological cycle and cannot control it.
Goo goo words that mean nothing.
Let’s see your citations.
Let’s see your equations.
Let’s see your data.
Let’s see your graphs.
Nothing CWEise?
Chuck,
‘time to reach 1/e = 1/2.71= 37% of original value. You can’t arbitrarily change it how you like.
Me: This is wrong. 1/e is not a physical equation.”
Ha! I am very surprised you would think basic math is wrong. Or confuse it with physics.
This is ordinary well known stuff.
Nate says: “Ha! I am very surprised you would think basic math is wrong. Or confuse it with physics.
This is ordinary well known stuff.”
Me : Yeah, except you don’t know what you’re talking about.
Mathematics is the language of physics so if you would have done this correctly based upon your apparent understanding of e-folding you gave to “snape” below and applied it to our discussion way up thread above where we were talking about ocean equilibrium response to a theoretical RF from CO2 being 50 years,you would write:
df/dt = .1e^-t/tau where tau is the inverse time constant. That must equal 12.5 years to reduce the forcing to 1.8% of an initial value by 50 years which you gave as .1Wm-2 and the linear growth of atmospheric CO2 RF is also given as .1Wm-2/year. (INT) stands for the integral sign with upper and lower integrands by \\.
Then (INT)df = (INT\50\0).1e^-t/tau dt
Which gives f = -1.25e^-t/tau -(-1.25e^-t/tau)
Which gives f = -.023 Wm-2 + 1.15 Wm-2 = 1.23 Wm-2
So at the end of 50 years the RF from CO2 should be a constant 1.23 Wm-2 on the OLR by 1.23 Wm-2 below the effective emission of 231Wm-2 with the integrated monotonic CO2 RF of 5 Wm-2. If it was true, temperature responds by increasing .92 degC with no feedbacks to BB radiation or climate sensitivity calculation.
Plug in 10 years to the upper integrand and you get a CO2 RF of .69 Wm-2.
It should be apparent to you by now that the reason why the IPCC claims the upper ocean feedback response to neutralizing a CO2 RF is 10 years. Plug in tau for 2.5 years to accomplish this and the result is the constant RF at TOA of only .25 Wm-2 at the end of 10 years with no further increase as long as the RF is monotonically increasing at .1 Wm-2 per year. This is something trivial enough to get buried in the OLR noise but yet allows them to claim it is really there but you just can’t see it.
You never answered my question about why the IPCC changed this from 50 years to 10 years in IPCC 2013. Perhaps you could enlighten everyone. There was no physical reason given and curious minds want to know. You and Ball4 seem to insist it is 10 years. It is obvious if it is 50 years as everyone agreed in 2005, you wouldn’t be able to get away with claiming the RF from CO2 is hiding in the noise.
Typo correction to above. The expression:
Which gives f = -.023 Wm-2 + 1.15 Wm-2 = 1.23 Wm-2
Should read
f = -.023 Wm-2 + 1.25 Wm-2 = 1.23 Wm-2.
mostly garbled-your quote of my equation is wrong. I don’t know what you are trying to say.
Chuck, I use mathematics and physics in my work every day. There is math. Then there is physics.
Mathematical expression of exponential decay is well known e^-(t/tau). It is understood that in 1 e-fold, time t = tau, that expression will be reduced to 1/e = 1/2.71 = 0.38.
This is math, not physics.
‘You never answered my question about why the IPCC changed this from 50 years to 10 years in IPCC 2013. ‘
First, as I said, 50 y is not the e-fold time. It is an approx of time to fully relax (whatever that means).
In papers, many different estimates of e-fold time have been made. Even in your Spencer papers, a small ocean heat capacity and e-fold time is assumed.
In reality the heat capacity of the ocean is not one number, it gets bigger over observation time, because heat penetrates to deep ocean over hundreds of years.
Chuck,
In the excel model I described, and another one solving the diffeq directly shows that the OLR initially drops then flatlines after ~ 2 * e-fold time (tau).
So if Tau = 7 y, OLR is flat after 14 y.
This is considering that forcing has been ~ linearly rising since 1970s.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiative_forcing
Of course in reality it had been rising long before that, so the initial drop in OLR would have happened earlier.
Nate: The 14 year “flat line” for a tau of 7y is only true if you are using a base of 10. In that case, the residual value of .1 Wm-2 at time t=0 is reduced to 1% of its initial value in 2 base 10 folds.
But the climate scientists use base e, not base 10. Therefore if the tau is 14y, then it takes 4 e-folds or 56 years to reduce .1Wm-2 to a value of 1.83% of .1 Wm-2 which for all practical purposes is zero to 2 significant decimals.
Your posts above the one I am responding to demonstrate that you don’t understand the concept of e-fold meaning and its relation to total response time, ( 50 years ) and the e-fold depletion of the initial value given over time.
Curious for someone who claims to use math every day. And this equation does contain physics. How do you think the monotonoc incresae in an assumed RF by CO2 was calulated? With just math, or were there physical concepts and realtionships involved that the math is describing?
Chuck W thinks physical results depend on one’s choose of a numerical base.
Which is insane, not to mention completely nonsensical.
Appell says: “Chuck W thinks physical results depend on ones choose of a numerical base.
Which is insane, not to mention completely nonsensical.”
Now this demonstrtaes that you don’t even understand the difference betweem a numerical base which describes processes in nature vs. base 10 calcukations and confuse the terminology with a choice that can be made in cgs or mks units that are merely scaling quantities.
You continue to be an incompetent fool expert, Apell.
Your continuing blather just digs you in deeper.
https://plus.maths.org/content/where-does-e-come-and-what-does-it-do
‘The 14 year flat line for a tau of 7y is only true if you are using a base of 10.’
There is no base 10 involved. You are quite confused, Chuck.
Tau is 7 does not mean tau is 14. It means tau is 7. Weird.
Re math vs physics, I have been very clear what I mean.
Exponential decay is math. It can be applied to finance, physics, biology, etc. It is not physics.
The 50y means what? It is vaguely defined, and not sacrosanct.
https://friendsofscience.org/assets/documents/OLR&NGF_June2011.pdf
This shows man made AGW has not had any impact on OLR.
ANOTHER FAILED PREMISE.
And I am being criticized with my theory give me a break.
@gbaikie, July 11, 2018 at 2:26 AM,
FEAs work really well when solving problems with complex materials. As you point out the physical properties of lunar regolith change with depth owing to compaction. Here are the values I used for the Moon:
Surface @0.5m Basalt Units
Specific heat 840 840 840 J/kg/K
Density 1,300 1,800 2,900 kg/m3
Conductivity 0.001 0.007 1.69 W/K/m
For more detail, my source can be found in Figure 8 here:
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2011JE003987
Nate
I just realized a big error in my logic. Now I think we SHOULD see a decrease in OLR!
*******
Here’s an improved analogy (I had used a “dam” previously):
*Let’s say you put on a very thin shirt. This will create an energy imbalance and cause you to warm. Suppose, after 5 minutes, balance is restored and your body’s T is steady again.*
8:00: put on a shirt. = imbalance
8:01: put on another shirt. = greater imbalance
8:02: put on another shirt. = greater imbalance still
8:04: put on another shirt. = greater imbalance still
8:05: put on another shirt. Imbalance from first shirt (the one you put on at 8:00) has disappeared, so total imbalance is no longer increasing. However, there is still a cumulative imbalance from the 5 shirts you have put on most recently.
8:06: put on another shirt. The shirt you put on at 8:01 no longer causing an imbalance. But again, there is still a cumulative imbalance from the 5 shirts you put on most recently.
8:07……the pattern continues. Imbalance is now steady and always based on the 5 shirts you have put on most recently.
******
If we apply this idea to climate science, the imbalance at the TOA will be based on the time delay between a decrease in OLR and when balance is eventually restored. The longer the time delay, the greater the cumulative imbalance. However, the imbalance should generally be at a steady state given that GHG’s are increasing at a relatively steady pace.
*****
Can anyone follow this?? Probably very confusing.
snape…”Lets say you put on a very thin shirt. This will create an energy imbalance and cause you to warm”.
The shirt won’t cause you to warm, it can only slow down the heat dissipation from your body. That’s all insulation can do, slow down the rate of heat dissipation to the surrounding air.
Your body generates its own heat internally. The normal body temperature is 98.6F(37C). The only way your body can exceed that temperature is through internal processes like the flu, or by having the body immersed in a medium that exceeds those temperatures.
If the body is exposed to solar energy for long enough, the skin will warm and eventually pass that heat on internally. That is, provided the ambient temperature is adequate.
If you expose your body to a lower temperature than it’s natural temperature long enough, with skin exposed, and without providing fuel, the body will start to cool. If those conditions are maintained long enough the body goes into hypothermia.
If you put on a shirt, all you do is slow down that heat loss but if you remain in adverse conditions long enough the body will continue to lose heat.
The notion that insulation warms a body is just plain wrong.
Snape,
Yeah, good analogy.
If a shirt is a small step in radiative forcing, f. We can think of the CO2 rise producing a regular series of steps.
The OLR will respond to each f by decreasing then exponentially recovering
OLR = -fexp^(-t/tau)
You can do this in excel (I did). Create a time column, 0,1,2..Create a column for that equation, with f=.1, tau = 5.
Now copy/paste these values into the next column but displaced down by 2. Repeat 10 or 20 times.
Sum all rows into a single column.
The sum initially grows fast and then settles down to a steady value.
Dont sum time column, only the OLR columns.
The sum initially DECREASES fast and then settles down to a steady value.
The rise in GHG forcing has been ~ linear since 1980. Hence the OLR should be ~ constant over that period.
Which is the very idea that you are wedded to. Which in turn is why you so fiercely and desperately oppose and try to bury anything that indicates reality might in fact be different. Like actual observational data from the real Earth system …
Kristian: So let’s finally see this “actual observational data from the real Earth system.”
Not just a graph you threw up. The data themselves. Provide a link to them.
‘Oppose and try to bury’
Exposing readers here and you to alternative OLR records is trying to bury??
Your version of the data is one version, your take on it. It is not reality.
Again, Allen et al. are showing what they call a reconstruction of the OLR record. They are not trying to represent it as THE DATA. They are acknowledging the uncertainties and unknowns, whereas you are not.
chuck wiese…for future reference.
You commented on a URL posted by norman, which is a graph favoured by alarmists as proof that CO2 absorbs significant surface radiation.
http://lasp.colorado.edu/~bagenal/3720/CLASS5/EarthBB.jpg
If you look closely at the graph, you see the vertical axis is in MILLIwatts. If you integrate over the notch you get something like 24 watts, which works out to about 5% of surface radiation.
This tired old graphic has been slipped past the unwary as proof that CO2 absorbs enough surface radiation to warm the atmosphere. CO2 accounts for 0.04% of the atmosphere and 95% of it comes from natural sources (from the IPCC based on the 1990s atmospheric concentration). They claimed in words that anthropogenic CO2 accounts for a small percentage of all atmospheric CO2.
The Ideal Gas Law confirms that. At 0.04%, CO2 lacks the percent mass to contribute significant heat to the atmosphere.
Gordon, last time I checked:
1) 24 W/m^2 would have a dramatic impact on energy balance. That is a 10% perturbation!
2) The ideal gas law says nothing about now gases absorb heat. As such, it is not germane to this discussion. (Besides, you had just acknowledged that 0.04% CO2 actually does have a ~ 10% impact on energy flows, which WOULD contribute significantly to the heating of the atmosphere.)
tim…”The ideal gas law says nothing about now gases absorb heat”.
You might want to rethink that statement.
PV = nRT
T = temperature which is a measure of heat. Most homes have a temperature gauge to tell you the relative level of heat in parts of the home.
The Ideal Gas Equation is a relationship between pressure, temperature, volume, and the number of atoms/molecules involved.
Pressure and temperature are directly related in the atmosphere since it is essentially a constant volume with a relatively constant mass of gases. Gravity stratifies the pressure into a gradient and as air thins with altitude, and molecules collide less, the atmosphere has to cool.
I did not say I agree with the 24 watt figure, my point is that it represents a small fraction of surface radiation. I think the entire theory of atmospheric windows and opacity is obfuscating hogwash.
If you cannot describe the situation using plain language and basic science, what’s the point of talking about it?
Gordon, what is the volume of the atmosphere?
Why should anyone think it is a constant?
DA…”Gordon, what is the volume of the atmosphere?
Why should anyone think it is a constant?”
I said ‘relatively’ constant, meaning its variation compared to the effect of gravity on pressure and temperature is likely insignificant. Obviously, the atmosphere must expand and contract with solar heating during the day and lack of solar energy at night.
I am only trying to demonstrate the relationship of temperature to pressure in a ballpark manner as the pressure decreases with altitude.
It’s obvious that atmospheric density is highest near the surface and if you could stratify the pressure gradient by altitude, the volume in each strata would of necessity be constant. Obviously convective forces are going to affect the pressure gradient by injecting parcels of air into the strata of different pressure. However, the steady state problem should be covered by the Ideal Gas Law in general.
Appell:
“Gordon, what is the volume of the atmosphere?
Why should anyone think it is a constant?”
Me: Because it is treated this way in many theoretical applications of atmospheric science. Someone like you, Appell, who shows confounding ignorance in atmospheric science and makes one blunder after another with stupid and incorrect assertions doesn’t seem to realize that in many IR radiative transfer applications, the atmosphere is scaled to an 8 Km height by the assumption that density remains constant which simplifies the effect of pressure changes in the vertical. It is called a homogeneous atmosphere, Appell.
Here is an example of just one of the many applications:
https://books.google.com/books?id=xyCRVsVKhP0C&pg=PA51&lpg=PA51&dq=homogeneous+atmosphere&source=bl&ots=_hw8b9_iiY&sig=OjKLM8eSCvR_MOEhOA2al_5u7Rg&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiCvIXiqJ3cAhVIrVQKHVJbCfs4ChDoAQg0MAQ#v=onepage&q=homogeneous%20atmosphere&f=false
What’s the quote from that book you think is irrelevant, CWeise?
Do you believe anything as long as it appears in a book? (I think you do, as with Elsasser 1942.)
If atmospheric volume is a constant, why do satellite operators move their satellites to higher orbits when solar storms approach?
Gordon Robertson says:
“Why should anyone think it is a constant?
I said relatively constant, meaning its variation compared to the effect of gravity on pressure and temperature is likely insignificant
Let’s see the math proving this….
Chuck Wiese says:
….the atmosphere is scaled to an 8 Km height by the assumption that density remains constant….
OMG.
Air density is *CONSTANT*?????
https://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/docs/documents/195/air-altitude-density.png
So so wrong.
Gordon Robertson says:
I am only trying to demonstrate the relationship of temperature to pressure in a ballpark manner as the pressure decreases with altitude.
I know you are — and you’re doing it all wrong.
What do the actual data show for the variation of pressure and temperature with altitude??
Appell says: “Chuck Wiese says:
….the atmosphere is scaled to an 8 Km height by the assumption that density remains constant….
OMG.
Air density is *CONSTANT*?????
https://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/docs/documents/195/air-altitude-density.png
So so wrong.”
Me: The bumbling incompetence of you continues, Appell. You got caught stating to Gordon why anyone would ever think the volume of atmosphere remains constant.
I just gave you an example of how atmospheric science scales tropospheric height to 8 Km for many IR transfer problems to simplify pressure change. To do this, the assumption that density remains constant is assumed. That is a theoretical application.
In the real world, denisty obviously changes with height. But your comprehenion being next to zero doesn’t allow you to differentiate what I said.
So you are wrong about nobody assuming a constant density or volume in atmospheric research and now you are trying to weasel out of this when I showed you you were wrong by claiming I said atmospheric density is assumed constant in the real world.
Like all the other AGW bloggers I run into, dissembling and distortion is necessary to cover up incompetence and statements made from those like you that can be shown wrong.
You are a seltzered out old bromide on its last fiz that is running out of excuses and explanations that you use to hide your incompetence with.
Weise, don’t lie. You wrote:
“the atmosphere is scaled to an 8 Km height by the assumption that density remains constant”
https://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/docs/documents/195/air-altitude-density.png
So so wrong.
And that is a horrible assumption. So what the hell do you even mean by it??
Appell: Here is what I said:
“Someone like you, Appell, who shows confounding ignorance in atmospheric science and makes one blunder after another with stupid and incorrect assertions doesnt seem to realize that in many IR radiative transfer applications, the atmosphere is scaled to an 8 Km height by the assumption that density remains constant which simplifies the effect of pressure changes in the vertical. It is called a homogeneous atmosphere, Appell.”
And like the good little weasel goon you are, you deliberately left out the context of my post by claimimg this:
Appell: “Weise, dont lie. You wrote:
the atmosphere is scaled to an 8 Km height by the assumption that density remains constant
Me: This is how you operate, Appell like the rat that always needs to have light shed on it.
Then you say:
“So so wrong.
And that is a horrible assumption. So what the hell do you even mean by it??”
Me: It isn’t wrong but there is no use in trying to explain atmospheric science to you, Appell. You show over and over and over and over that you just don’t get it.
Gordon Robertson
The graph you posted is not the energy CO2 absorbs from the surface. It is the amount of energy the colder CO2 at the TOA emits to space.
There is enough CO2 to absorb all the IR at the 15 micron wavelength emitted from the surface in a few meters.
The amount of IR the CO2 (near the surface) emits back to the Surface is much larger than the amount the IR that colder CO2 at the TOA emits to space.
https://geosciencebigpicture.com/2016/04/10/the-2-good-greenhouse-gas-iii-looking-up/
This gives many good graphs explaining the situation. Two graphs near the end of the post are of the same Arctic location at the same time. You can see that the energy radiated down from CO2 near the surface is about twice the amount as what is radiated by the colder CO2 near the TOA. Also temperature wise near the surface temperature.
The amount of IR CO2 emits to the surface varies from 10 to 20% of all the DWIR.
Norman Grinvalds, FYI:
1) Those two graphs are from a blog.
2) The two graphs are undocumented, incomplete, and open to mis-interpretation.
3) You have mis-interpreted them.
Why do you run from reality, yet adore fiction?
Look who’s now complaining about “undocumented graphs!”
Hi Gordon, yes, I noticed this. You can scale the graphs with whatever power of 10 you want. But I always thought graphs like this were misleading because wavenumber increases along the abscissa ( x axis ) and where water vapor ab-sor-bs significantly to the right of CO2. The quanta in wavenumber up there is way more that at 660cm-1 where CO2 absorbs and so many don’t realize that the integrated effect of this ab-sor-bs far more IR even though it has to radiate it at a higher emission temperature because of its own thermodynamic properties that limit its presence in the upper troposphere that CO2 is not limited by.
Water vapor, clouds and the hydro cycle control the optical depth of the earth, not CO2.
Chuck…”I always thought graphs like this were misleading because wavenumber increases along the abscissa…”
I did a post on wavenumbers a bit back and they are just the inverse of the wavelength. They make no sense to me and find a use primarily in atomic physics where absorp-tion/emission bands are being analyzed.
The focus for me, however, is on the depth of the notch at 15 microns which is only about 60 milliwatts. Surely they are not seriously suggesting such an absorp-tion is significant when surface radiation is measured in 100s of watts.
Gordon Robertson
http://lasp.colorado.edu/~bagenal/3720/CLASS5/EarthBB.jpg
You still have not made the slightest effort at understanding the units used in the graph. Why is that? You have been told how to use it but still refuse and post a stupid comment. Why?
The CO2 band is about 100 wavenumber/cm-1
You take the 50 milliwatts multiply it by 100 to
or 0.05 watts times 100 equal 5 watt/m^2. The way to use the steradian is multiply by 2pi (a hemisphere)
multiply 5 watt/m^2 times 2(3.14) = 31 watts/m^2 or so. That is how you would use this graph. Mine is an approximation but it is in the watt/m^2 range. Again the graph is not what the CO2 absorbs. It is known that CO2 in our atmosphere will absorb all the surface IR emitted at the 15 micron band (it is a band and not a single wavelength…study some spectroscopy). The energy you see in this graph is what the cold CO2 at the TOA is emitting to space. The higher energy IR comes directly from the surface through the atmospheric window.
Chuck Wiese says:
“Water vapor, clouds and the hydro cycle control the optical depth of the earth, not CO2.”
Wrong. Also out-dated.
Chuck seemed to stop learning with Elsasser’s 1942 paper.
He thinks that was the last word in climate science.
That’s absurd is you understand how science works, but Wiese does not understand how science works.
Elsasser made approximations that, although they were the best he could do at the time, were later shown to be insufficient.
Appell, your idiotic posts continue unabated and you simply don’t know what you’re talking about. For a guy with a PhD in physics, you don’t even know how to write basic equations using calculus. That’s what you showed everyone here in this blog.
And then yoour stupid posts about loval temperature and quantum levels in atmos not being related to tempertaure change is way over the top.
You have no credibility in atmospheric science, you never studied it, Elssaser, ot any of the other physics in it that tell us how this radiation behaves in the atmosphere.
THese references from Plass to not supersede Elsasser in any way with respect to the treatment of IR rdaiation from CO2, and only a fool like yourself would think so.
You remain a fool expert, Appell, not a climate or atmospheric science expert.
Chuck is angry that what someone told him as an undergraduate eons ago wasn’t the final word. As if it should be.
Having only a B.S. — that is, knowing only what someone told him, but not knowing how to learn and think for himself — Wiese doesn’t have a clue how science works.
“In recent years the carbon dioxide theory has had relatively few adherents. Most authors have dismissed this theory with a remark similar to the following quotation from C.E.P. BROOKS (1951): the carbon dioxide theory was abandoned when it was found that all the long-wave radiation absorbed by CO2 is also absorbed by water vapor. This often quoted conclusion is based on early, approximate calculations of the radiation flux in the atmosphere. The results of more accurate calculations of the radiation flux have recently become available. This it seems worthwhile to reappraise the CO2 theory of climatic change. A preliminary report of these results has been given by PLASS (1953).”
– “The Carbon Dioxide Theory of Climactic Change,” Gilbert Plass, Tellus VIII (1956), 2. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.2153-3490.1956.tb01206.x
Here is Gilbert Plass, writing in 1956:
“In recent years the carbon dioxide theory has had relatively few adherents. Most authors have dismissed this theory with a remark similar to the following quotation from C.E.P. BROOKS (1951): the carbon dioxide theory was abandoned when it was found that all the long-wave radiation absorbed by CO2 is also absorbed by water vapor. This often quoted conclusion is based on early, approximate calculations of the radiation flux in the atmosphere. The results of more accurate calculations of the radiation flux have recently become available. This it seems worthwhile to reappraise the CO2 theory of climatic change. A preliminary report of these results has been given by PLASS (1953).”
– “The Carbon Dioxide Theory of Climactic Change,” Gilbert Plass, Tellus VIII (1956), 2. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.2153-3490.1956.tb01206.x
Notice how “Chuck” is trying to ignore this passage.
Norman: Your calculation below is not completely correct. When we are talking about a GHE from a particular consituent, the calculation made that determines this is the diffrence between the spectrally integrated radiance from the surface that is ab-sor-bed by CO2 to what is emitted at the top of the troposphere, spectrally integrated over the same wavenumber interval. And the radiation is considered isotropic for the purpose of making this calculation, so that it is integrated over pi steradians, not 2pi.
In a standard earth atmosphere, the surface radiance over pi steradians given from Elsasser is 49.29 Wm-2. At the topopause in such an atmosphere, it is taken from -55degC, which is 19.63 Wm-2. The difference is 29.66 Wm-2, which is the GHE from CO2. That translates to a surfcae temperature of +3.62 degC. Inprovements have been made to spectral lines with LBL code, and the updates suggest closer to +5 degC if you could convert this GHE to sensible tempertaure. But in the presence of the hydro cycle and optical depth reset from this, you can’t.
In your example, you are using the spectral radiance near the top of the troposphere and calculating an effect solely from this, and the upper limit on the graph for some reason is cut off at 280K. The surface temperature in a standard atmosphere is 288K
But using the graph, in your assumption of 100 cm-1 then at 280K, that gives 37.70 Wm-2 of spectral radiance and at 240K it would be 18.84 Wm-2. The difference here is 18.86 Wm-2, not 31 Wm-2.
The fat that there is only a differnce of a litlle over 1 Wm-2 in you example vs. the true GHE is a coincidence. Be careful when using this. It is not a good chart when assuming the upper limit is 280K, 8 degK or C below the standard surfcae temperature at seal level.
“Calculation below” should read calculation above. I misplaced where I wanted this post to go.
Chuck Wiese says:
In a standard earth atmosphere, the surface radiance over pi steradians given from Elsasser is 49.29 Wm-2.
Citation?
Paper title?
Journal?
Page number?
Chuck Wiese says:
In a standard earth atmosphere, the surface radiance over pi steradians given from Elsasser is 49.29 Wm-2.
Why does your knowledge end with Elsasser?
Elsasser made approximates that, when more precise work was done, turned out not to be so good. Best he could do at the time, but hardly the last word on the subject.
Appell: “Why does your knowledge end with Elsasser?”
Me: It didn’t. But you’re not smart enough to realize his concepts in atmospheric are still as good as ever.
I would argue that your knowledge ended before you graduated with your PhD back in the 1980’s.
Chuck, have you actually worked through Elsasser’s 1942 paper?
It’s easy to see his approximations, as well as his erroneous conception (and your’s) that atmospheric CO2 can be treated as a blackbody.
That is, of course, wrong, and if you don’t see that it’s because you are purposely blind.
Plass did much better in 1953 and 1956. Try reading his papers. I dare you.
Chuck Wiese wrote:
“In a standard earth atmosphere, the surface radiance over pi steradians given from Elsasser is 49.29 Wm-2.”
Citation?
Paper title?
Journal?
Page number?
Appell: “Chuck, have you actually worked through Elsassers 1942 paper?
Its easy to see his approximations, as well as his erroneous conception (and yours) that atmospheric CO2 can be treated as a blackbody.”
Me: This is more idiotic writing from you, Appell. The assumption that CO2 can be treated like BB radiation in the ab-sor-bing wavelengths is justified by the ab-sor-ption coefficients. It’s very clear, and it is an accurate assumption that has not changed. The newer work is focused on the R&P branches of radiation that are treated differently because those coefficients do not resemble BB radiation. If you had a clue, Appell, you could cross check spectral radiances at the surface from CO2 by Elsasser and compare to LBL code. The difference ( and it is small with the extra ab-sorp-tion in the winglines ) which Elsasser could not consider as accurately in a band model with generalized coefficients.
Appell: “That is, of course, wrong, and if you dont see that its because you are purposely blind.
Plass did much better in 1953 and 1956. Try reading his papers. I dare you.”
Me: No it isn’t wrong and Plass’s work doesn’t disprove any of Elssaser. But a fool like you would think so because you don’t seem capable of knwing the differences and why.
You are a fool expert, Appell.
Chuck Wiese says:
“Plass did much better in 1953 and 1956. Try reading his papers. I dare you.”
Me: No it isnt wrong and Plasss work doesnt disprove any of Elssaser.
What a BRILLIANT take down, Chuck!
Not a gram of scientific reasoning, not any science whatsoever….
You just think that whatever your say HAS to be the truth….
Funny.
—
Clearly CWeise, you haven’t read Plass, or anything beyond Elsasser, and think that the last thing you learned must be true forever.
You can’t learn or think.
Chuck Wiese says:
“The assumption that CO2 can be treated like BB radiation in the ab-sor-bing wavelengths is justified by the ab-sor-ption coefficients.”
How, specifically?
PS: What is the definition of a blackbody?
Chuck Wiese says:
Appell: Why does your knowledge end with Elsasser?
Me: It didnt. But youre not smart enough to realize his concepts in atmospheric are still as good as ever.
Says who — YOU?
Hilarious.
Why didn’t climate scientists stop their research once Elsasser 1942 was published?
Why was’t Elsasser 1942 the last word in climate change?
CWeise: Trick question — where is there lots of CO2 but little water vapor?
Chuck Wiese says:
The assumption that CO2 can be treated like BB radiation in the ab-sor-bing wavelengths is justified by the ab-sor-ption coefficients
How so? Let’s see the math.
Gordon Robertson says:
I did a post on wavenumbers a bit back and they are just the inverse of the wavelength. They make no sense to me….
Wave numbers are proportional to frequency.
They are just scaled so you don’t have to keep saying “terahertz” or “gigahertz,” which aren’t very convenient to remember or communicate with.
DA…”Wave numbers are proportional to frequency”.
So is wavelength. The number of cycles per second determines the wavelength.
*********
“They are just scaled so you dont have to keep saying terahertz or gigahertz,”
Not the same. Gigahertz means a frequency of 1 billion cycles per ‘second’. In other words, the units are cycles per second.
Wavenumber is telling you the number of cycles per centimetre.
To convert 1 Thz = 1 x 10^12 hertz to a wavenumber, you’d have to find the wavelength using f x lambda = c
L = c/f
Or you could just invert this to 1/L = f/c
f/c = 1 x 10^12 (c/s)/300 x 10^6(m/s) = 0.0033 x 10^6 cycles/m
3.3 x 10^3 cycles/metre = 3300 cycles/metre
However, 1 metre = 100 cm
3300 cycles/100 cm = 33 cycles/cm
I don’t see the point in giving frequency in units per cm unless working with the larger number per second becomes inconvenient. Even at that, wave numbers do not lend themselves well to visualization and they turn the scales backwards from what we expect.
In engineering we use engineering notation that resolves large number into exponential values. I have never encountered a problem using exponential notation to deal with large numbers so gigahertz and terahertz don’t matter to me.
Gordon Robertson says:
“DAWave numbers are proportional to frequency.
So is wavelength.
OMG you are such an absolute idiot.
You clearly don’t understand the very first thing about physics. Go sit in the dumb boy’s room and shut up for about 10 years.
Gordon Robertson wrote:
I have never encountered a problem using exponential notation to deal with large numbers so gigahertz and terahertz dont matter to me.
Of course you have.
Have you ever expressed a distance in hours — the hours it takes to drive it?
Winnipeg is nine hours from downtown Vancouver — not 0.8 kilokilometers or 8 hectokilometers or 0.8 Megameters.
Appell said: “Gordon Robertson says:
DAWave numbers are proportional to frequency.
So is wavelength.
OMG you are such an absolute idiot.
You clearly dont understand the very first thing about physics. Go sit in the dumb boys room and shut up for about 10 years.”
Me: Looks like the idiot that needs to go the the dumb room and shut up for ten years is you, Appell. Wavelength is inversely proportional to wavenumber, meaning it has the same inverse proportionality to frequency.
https://www.google.com/search?source=hp&ei=umVJW5PmNISU0gKh_p0I&q=proportionality+of+wavelength+and+frequency&oq=proportionality+of+wavelength+&gs_l=psy-ab.1.0.33i22i29i30k1.1240.9056.0.11408.31.30.0.0.0.0.96.2069.30.30.0….0…1.1.64.psy-ab..1.30.2052.0..0j35i39k1j0i131k1j0i20i264k1j0i22i30k1.0.BFeJyOCSCIM
Sorry, I forgot that Global Warming means that you get to have your cake and eat it.
Scientists did predict that we’d not get snow or that the North Pole would be ice free or that Manhattan would be submerged by now. None of that happened. Not even close. Will you please get on record and denounce those scientists?
Now, as really nothing remarkable happened since those predictions were made, shouldn’t that be a sobering sign that just maybe there’s something wrong with Climate Science? What actually happened was dead on with what lukewarmers predicted.
You do cite new records being made as a proof of Climate Change. Lukewarmers never denied that the world would not warm. They just deny the rate, the severity and the predictions.
What are my predictions? Well, in my honest opinion, we don’t have enough good quality information to make a prediction worth its money. But if you insist, my money is on temperatures continuing to rise slowly. Pace? Pretty much the same as it’s been doing earlier. There just won’t be a hockey stick kind of dramatic rise.
What’s the probability of a +2C rise? Well, if it’s going to happen, it will happen. Will it take 100 years or 200? Nobody really knows.
You criticized lukewarmers for not “providing a sensible discussion of the economics”. That’s why I mentioned Jo Nova as she does it. Recently she has been writing a lot about South Australia’s problems with too much renewables. Things are getting so bad there that spot prices can soar to $14.000 per MWh.
Do you want to know why I am not worried about Climate Change? Even if we get to the +2C? Or +4C? Not even if all the predictions would be dead on? That’s because trying to mitigate is pointless. The methods that politicians are choosing are utterly insignificant and have no chance of solving the problem. So no matter what the earth throws at us, we just have to deal with it and adapt.
The only thing causing me grief is this: I don’t think it’s going to be easier to adapt after we have wasted untold trillions on failed renewables.
“You criticized lukewarmers for not providing a sensible discussion of the economics. Thats why I mentioned Jo Nova as she does it. Recently she has been writing a lot about South Australias problems with too much renewables. Things are getting so bad there that spot prices can soar to $14.000 per MWh.”
Jo Nova!. Give me a break!
“It’s been said a trillion times, but the core reason your electricity bill has ballooned in the past decade is due to network costs, NOT tech upgrades for decarbonisation”
https://twitter.com/KetanJ0/status/1016882023313444864
Myki, there is a strong correlation between renewables share and high electricity costs. Actually, there is not a single country in the world where a lot of electricity is generated with wind and solar and the energy is cheap. All the countries having most expensive electricity have lots of renewables.
Renewables doubling or tripling electricity prices are still not that bad a thing if people are ready to accept that. However, that’s not the worst thing about renewables. The worst is that they wreck havoc in the grid once their share grow too big. At that point they end up causing severe shortages. That’s exactly what happens when spot prizes rise to $14.000 per MWh. And this is happening while there still is reliable generation methods. Once they are a history, things can get really ugly.
NOT using renewable energy also has a cost. Did you add those into your claims?
DA: “NOT using renewable energy also has a cost. Did you add those into your claims?”
Please do tell, what those costs are. All the data points to renewables causing problems and costs instead of reducing them.
Xcel Energy receives shockingly low bids for Colorado electricity from renewable sources: Solar and wind generation with storage now competitive with coal power, Denver Post 1/16/18.
https://www.denverpost.com/2018/01/16/xcel-energy-low-bids-for-colorado-electricity/
“The only thing causing me grief is this: I don’t think it’s going to be easier to adapt after we have wasted untold trillions on failed renewables.”
When public policy is based on “Junk Science” resources are misdirected so that efforts to solve real problems are under funded.
For example Trofim Lysenko’s theories were ruthlessly applied in the old USSR leading to millions of people starving to death:
https://diggingintheclay.wordpress.com/2014/12/16/countering-consensus-calculations/
Lysenko’s scientific claims were wrong. No one has shown that with the CO2 theory of climate. On the contrary, it just keeps getting warmer.
I am writing this enjoying warm, lovely weather in a country that used to be covered by a glacier. We know for sure that climate does change. And we know for sure that the glacier did not melt due to anything that humans did. We also know that CO2 has a warming effect. And we know what a doubling of CO2 should cause if nothing else changes and nothing about that is actually alarming.
What is supposed to make climate change dangerous are the feedbacks – the things that actually do change due to increase of CO2. 20 years ago the global warming scare was caused by claiming that the feedbacks are big and that small changes in CO2 will cause effects that greatly amplify that warming. The claim was that the climate sensitivity is high.
However, measurements don’t support that claim. Also, during the latest years, estimations for climate sensitivity have constantly been going down in the scientific literature.
So, the scientific claims of high climate sensitivity are very likely wrong.
Nate
Thanks for that! I have zero experience with excel so I appreciate that you looked at my idea.
Nate
I only just now looked at the conversation between you and Halp regarding the blue plate/green plate.
“The only equation we have to determine the energy flow (net flux) between blue and green when they are at the same temperature gives 0 W/m^2.
There is no way to obtain 200 W/m^2 from any known equation. It is just asserted.
Does this make any sense to you, Snape? Gbaike?”
Of course. It’s absurd to think the two plates would ever be the same temperature. Not sure why Halp gets into these arguments.
S,
Why on Earth would anyone think that objects at different distances from a heat source should be the same temperature?
Are you stupid, ignorant, or just deluded?
If you can’t even properly describe the amazing GHE, blathering about green plates, blue plates, shirts, lakes, or anything else is rather pointless, wouldn’t you agree?
No GHE. No disprovable GHE hypothesis, therefore. All nonsense.
Cheers.
M: Why on Earth would anyone think that objects at different distances from a heat source should be the same temperature?
J: In real life, I would agree. But in E-Lie Rabetts silly green plate thought experiment the two plates are infinite in size, so should be treated as infinite parallel planes. Given that, it doesnt matter how far away the plates are from each other, they should come to the same temperature at equilibrium (same as when they are pressed together).
But in general I agree that blathering about plates, shirts, jumpers, lakes etc does not magic a GHE into existence.
“There is no way to obtain 200 W/m^2 from any known equation. It is just asserted.
Does this make any sense to you, Snape? Gbaike?
hmm.
Well, it seems a rabbit cut a baby in half.
There was surprising amount of blood and guts, and etc.
And this went on for quite some time.
But it seems if one going to say sunlight is 400 watts per square meter, it suggests that something could absorb 400 watts per square meter.
Or that sunlight adds 400 joules of heat per second, though maybe it might just add 200 joules of heat per second.
But why not pick a situation where something is absorbing 400 joules each second while the sunlight is shining on it?
Snape, your heroes all think the blue and green plate will both be the same temperature when pressed together. 244 K. Then they think, if you separate them by even one micron, the blue plate will raise in temperature to approx. 260 K, whilst the green plate will reduce in temperature to approx. 220 K. Did you realise that about their arguments?
The blue/green plate “experiment” is a great example of what can be done when the science is not understood. Beliefs, devoid of science, persuade the willing sheep. The process is evident in another false science, Flat Earth:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HpyaMoBzFy4
P.S: Heres what E Swansons experiment should be, to more accurately represent what the Green Plate Effect thought experiment actually tries to claim.
First, have the blue plate heated by the sun alone (no heater) since that would be closer to the original idea in terms of view factors between the source of heat and the object being heated.
Second, place the green plate in direct contact with the blue (underneath the blue, shielded from the sun) and wait for the two to come to a steady temperature (as these are real life plates instead of fantasy perfectly conducting, emitting and absorbing plates, they will not come to the same temperature).
Third, separate the plates. If in doing so the temperature of the blue plate increases whilst the temperature of the green reduces, I will believe the GPE is the correct physics.
But I already know that this will NOT be done, and every excuse under the sun will now be given as to why that either doesnt need to be done (they are already sure of what the result would be) or that this version of the experiment somehow doesnt more closely resemble the actual GPE thought experiment.
Indeed, that would be a more legitimate experiment.
But, as in real science, the experiment MUST include all details, such as the material the plates are made of, radiative energy flows, etc. The experiment MUST be repeatable by others, and falsifiable.
Halp-less One, FYI, there’s no “heater” for the Green Plate Demo. I used a high intensity light source to provide the energy to heat the Blue plate, thus simulating the SW IR from the Sun. As for your suggested modification, you are welcome to build your own device to perform this “test”, as I see no point in following your suggestion. By thermally connecting the two plates, the effective radiating area would be increased, thus it would be expected that the temperature of the combination would be less than that of the Blue plate alone. And, of course, there would be a temperature gradient from the heated Blue plate to the Green plate. Would that “prove” anything? Not that I can see.
E. Swanson, your enthusiasm, and your energy, appear to have waned slightly. You used to get up early to be the first to post after the monthly UAH updates, to parade your “experiment”. Now, you are not interested in re-doing it, correctly.
Perhaps reality has set in:
From J-Hapless: “Third, separate the plates. If in doing so the temperature of the blue plate increases whilst the temperature of the green reduces, I will believe the GPE is the correct physics.”
My predictions were proved to be correct.
Halp-less Huffingman, You are free to repeat my experimental demonstration any time you want. Or, do any other experiment. As the old saying goes, what ever blows your dress up.
E. Swanson, I’m content that you are no longer pretending knowledge of physics, and are now resorting to juvenile remarks.
Reality sets in.
Hapless Huffingman, You call my comments “juvenile”. But, you wrote:
Compared to that bit of bile, my comment stands out as quite adult.
No, that was me. Try to distinguish between commenters. And what would stand out as more adult is if you would repeat your experiment, as outlined, rather than clutching at straws to avoid this difficult situation…
Halp-less the Troll wants me to perform another experiment which sounds rather like a variation on that suggested from another post a few months ago. However, said Troll’s description of it’s desired experiment is a bit garbled, which is understandable, given it’s moronic lack of scientific understanding. Surely said Troll is able to perform such an experiment by itself. Perhaps is should consider my reply to the earlier comment before wasting it’s time and money.
Really desperate stuff, Swanson.
J-Halp: But I already know that this will NOT be done, and every excuse under the sun will now be given as to why that either doesnt need to be done (they are already sure of what the result would be) or that this version of the experiment somehow doesnt more closely resemble the actual GPE thought experiment.
Halp-less the Troll apparently can’t understand that the proposed modification wouldn’t change anything. And, he wants something for nothing, expecting that I should put in the time and money to Perform it’s experiment. Another old saying for the troll, “If you want something done right, do it yourself”.
E. Swanson
Yes it seems there are a few unscientific trolls that invade this blog. As soon as one is banned for attacking Roy Spencer directly, two more fill the void.
I have found you can’t reason with them at all. I am choosing to ignore them. They are a complete waste of time and mental effort.
Your experiment did verify the long debate about Eli Rabbet’s thought experiment. People questioned your initial attempts and you actually refined them and created vacuum conditions and they still will not accept what you clearly demonstrate.
After what you have done, and the results from the unscientific trolls, who only desire to disrupt actual scientific debates, I conclude it is a waste to even attempt to reason with these types. They are not interested.
But I already know that this will NOT be done, and every excuse under the sun will now be given as to why that either doesnt need to be done (they are already sure of what the result would be) or that this version of the experiment somehow doesnt more closely resemble the actual GPE thought experiment.
J Halp-less
I am not sure if one micron is enough but a macroscopic distance and the effect will take place. If you are far enough away to prevent conduction the green plate will cool to reach a steady state temperature based upon how much energy it can absorb and emit.
I have explained this to you already and you act like no one has. When the green plate and blue plate are in direct contact, the green plate only has one radiating surface. When you move it away from the blue plate you double the radiating surface, it will emit twice the rate of IR as it did when the plates were in contact. It is not so hard to figure out except for the unscientific skeptics who hate all things science. You are one of those science haters. You claim all science is wrong but the version you believe in. Go learn some science and then be a knowledgeable poster. You have a couple of posters, gallopingcamel and Chuck Wiese. You are not at that level. Not even close. Go study, go learn. Grow a little.
See, Snape? They actually DO argue this and they actually DO believe it is true. Normans contribution: OK, well maybe more than a micron…
LOL
J Halp-less
Rather than LOL and pretend you have some knowledge of physics or in any way understand heat transfer, why not do an actual experiment?
E. Swanson showed you the way and gave his setup. Do a test with two plates in a strong vacuum with one of them heated on one side by a radiant energy source. Have them touch until they reach steady state temperatures then move the green plate away a bit and see what happens. Those who understand physics know the green plate will cool. You will be surprised by the results, I won’t be.
Grinvalds, you are “moving the goal posts”. You are changing the experiment.
The experiment is not about the green plate cooling. It is about the blue plate temperature rising above equilibrium because the green plate moves away.
Why do you run from reality?
norman…”Do a test with two plates in a strong vacuum with one of them heated on one side by a radiant energy source. Have them touch until they reach steady state temperatures then move the green plate away a bit and see what happens”.
You don’t even understand swannie’s experiment. He had the green plate in a lower position using pulleys. He allowed both to stabilize and noted the resting temperature of the blue plat. Then he raised the green plate so it was close to the blue plate but not touching.
BTW, I don’t know how he accomplished that maneuver without disturbing the vacuum.
He noted that the blue plate warmed with the green plate near it then concluded the warming was caused by radiation from the cooler green plate warming the blue plate.
Poor conclusion. Without the green plate nearby, the blue plate was allowed to reach a state state temperature with the incoming radiation. It freely emitted EM to arrive at an equilibrium temperature. When the green plate was raised in front of it, the BPs radiation field was cut off and the parameters were changed regarding what temperature gradient it saw.
The green plate was not warming the blue plate via radiation, it was interfering with its cooling via it’s own radiation. The BPs temperature rose to a temperature closer to the input radiation that was warming it. It was, in fact, the input radiation that caused it to warm.
N: It is not so hard to figure out except for the unscientific skeptics who hate all things science. You are one of those science haters. You claim all science is wrong but the version you believe in. Go learn some science and then be a knowledgeable poster. You have a couple of posters, gallopingcamel and Chuck Wiese. You are not at that level. Not even close. Go study, go learn. Grow a little.
N: Rather than LOL and pretend you have some knowledge of physics or in any way understand heat transfer, why not do an actual experiment?
J: Norman, has anyone ever told you to go fuck yourself? If not, they should. Somebody here should tell you that every single day. Hope that helps with your lousy attitude problem.
J Halp-less
YOU: “J: Norman, has anyone ever told you to go fuck yourself? If not, they should. Somebody here should tell you that every single day. Hope that helps with your lousy attitude problem.”
Making such a stupid statement still does not help the fact you are indeed a helpless moron when it comes to science. There is a poster who goes by “Idiottracker”. You are certainly one of those science hating illiterates he tracks.
So will you do the experiment or just pretend you have knowledge that you don’t?
You are one really messed up poster. Seek therapy for you ills. It won’t help how stupid your posts are but it will help your weak and fragile emotional make-up.
Gordon Robetson
You again want to torture physics with your completely made up crap! Wow you just won’t stop with false and fake physics will you.
This statement is really ridiculous! YOU: “BTW, I dont know how he accomplished that maneuver without disturbing the vacuum.”
How do you think you disturb a vacuum?
This is pure made up physics. You will never find a supporting piece of evidence for it. You smoked some weed and posted crap!
YOU: “Poor conclusion. Without the green plate nearby, the blue plate was allowed to reach a state state temperature with the incoming radiation. It freely emitted EM to arrive at an equilibrium temperature. When the green plate was raised in front of it, the BPs radiation field was cut off and the parameters were changed regarding what temperature gradient it saw.”
Where do you get this nonsense from? Put down the bong and read real science.
Wow. Rabid. And hilarious. Keep up with the whole being a complete asshole your entire life. Its going great so far!
J Halp-less
You are a coward.
Simply because you misuse this site’s tolerance by posting disgusting comments.
Never and never would you be courageous enough to post your dumb, insulting shit at Anthony Watts’ WUWT, let alone at Judith Curry’s Clmate Etc.
There you would be snipped and banned within one or two hours.
J'ai horreur de la lâcheté.
Shut your face you stupid piece of shit.
J Halp-less
It is becoming obvious reading your latest idiot posts you are the loser physics hater Joseph Postma come to this blog to spread your horrible physics. Did you even pass a physics course? I did. Your blog is one of the sorriest cult minded crap blogs around.
You should have studied real physics instead going off with your own bad science. You have corrupted a lot of minds with your nonsense.
Norman Grinvalds, when you finish your insults and paranoid delusions, do you want to return to the reality you fled from two days ago?
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2018/07/summer-causes-climate-change-hysteria/#comment-311649
Norman, despite my occasional recent use of bad language, you are by far the most regularly insulting commenter on this blog. So in fact, apart from your lack of knowledge, you more closely resemble Postma than anyone else here in that regard. But instead of trading insults, how about you respond to JD Huffmans comments here:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2018/07/summer-causes-climate-change-hysteria/#comment-311824
and here:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2018/07/summer-causes-climate-change-hysteria/#comment-311883
and for the first time in your life, try not to use any phrases such as:
You are a helpless moron when it comes to science
It is becoming obvious reading your latest idiot posts
come to this blog to spread your horrible physics.
Did you even pass a physics course? I did.
You should have studied real physics instead going off with your own bad science.
You have corrupted a lot of minds with your nonsense.
It wont help how stupid your posts are
Put down the bong and read some real science
Go study, go learn. Grow a little
You are one of those science haters
You again want to torture physics with your completely made up crap!
You are one really messed up poster
You smoked some weed and posted crap
Wow you just wont stop with false and fake physics will you
Hilariously, all of these examples are just from this one tiny subthread. And Bindidon was so biased that he directed his remarks about *dumb, insulting shit* to me, instead of you!
Which is why he deserved the response he got.
J Halp-less says:
Norman, despite my occasional recent use of bad language, you are by far the most regularly insulting commenter on this blog.
Ha ha, said the pot to the kettle.
—
J Halp-less says:
July 12, 2018 at 5:15 PM
Shut your face you stupid piece of shit.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2018/07/summer-causes-climate-change-hysteria/#comment-311862
The key word was *regularly*.
Now shut your face you stupid piece of shit.
🙂
David Appell
I read through my “insults” and I would say they are very accurate descriptions of the posts made by some.
They make up physics. It is torture to read it. They post really stupid things and when corrected they don’t change but post more stupid things.
I guess you are supposed to tell them how wonderful they are when they post nonsense. I don’t mind the nonsense, it is when they keep going with it.
The idiot you responded to was one of those that could not understand the Moon can rotate and keep the same face to the Earth. I sent video links to this poster showing how it works. If you were not stupid, they would view the video, realize their error and correct it. This one persisted for several posts and I believe maybe carried on this nonsense on other threads.
This same belligerent moron also can’t seem to logically understand E. Swanson’s experiment. A stupid person is one who is unable to learn, an ignorant one is someone who lacks knowledge but can learn. This poster is just really stupid and incapable of logical or reasoned thought.
This one is just a disruptive troll with no value except in the ability to disrupt a good conversation.
Norman, instead of trolling, is there any chance of you responding to this?
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2018/07/summer-causes-climate-change-hysteria/#comment-311824
Or this?
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2018/07/summer-causes-climate-change-hysteria/#comment-311883
Norman, I totally agree that they can be frustrating.
But… you should completely ignore MF, in my opinion. He is nothing but a troll, will never respond to you in any sensible manner, won’t address challenges to his claims, and is only seeking attention.
I mean, this is a man (presumably) that writes the exact thing here day after day after day, for many months, and (above all) considers this a useful expenditure of his time.
Norman, MF will never respond to you on scientific grounds.
Ignore him. It’s not so easy at first, but it gets easier the longer you do, and his lunacy (and sadness) becomes more apparent the longer you do.
Eventually your brain will automatically skip over his name as you scroll.
David, would you mind trolling somewhere else please? Im trying to actually get Norman to respond to the criticisms to his comments.
Good work Dr. Roy… always nice to see clear facts instead of biased filled agenda.
The ice in Hudson Bay remains.
https://images.tinypic.pl/i/00967/clhqjffug5sn.png
Ice is very strong throughout the western Arctic.
ren, When will you learn about the factual data? The annual sea-ice coverage of the Arctic doesn’t reach minimum until around the end of September. That includes Hudson Bay.
https://tinyurl.com/ydxc4xn
E. Swanson, ren is just providing updates. It’s not his fault the sea ice is ahead of recent years, at this time.
There’s no need to lash out at everyone just because your beliefs are not supported by reality.
“HELSINKI, Finland — A senior designer with the China Academy of Launch Vehicle Technology has presented updated details for an upcoming series of new rockets to expand China’s launch capabilities, including super-heavy-lift and reusable rockets.
…
The Long March 9 will be a Saturn 5-class super-heavy-lift rocket comparable in capacity to the Space Launch System currently being developed under NASA.
…
The Long March 9 is slated to be ready for a test flight around 2030, with Long adding that progress on the project includes successful forging of 10-meter-diameter alloy rings and breakthroughs related to 500-ton-thrust kerosene-liquid oxygen and 220-ton-thrust hydrolox engines.”
https://spacenews.com/china-reveals-details-for-super-heavy-lift-long-march-9-and-reusable-long-march-8-rockets/
Linked from:
http://www.transterrestrial.com/
Oldest Tools Outside Africa Found, Rewriting Human Story
…
“By comparing Shangchen’s sediments to well-dated African soils that preserved the same magnetic reversals, Zhu could accurately assign ages to each Shangchen layer. Six of the 96 tools discussed in the study were found in a layer dating back 2.12 million years.”
Also:’ “I’ve always said that once the Chinese researchers start looking for evidence on a similar scale as all the money spent in Africa, things will turn up!” exclaims Gerrit van den Bergh, a paleoanthropologist at the University of Wollongong who wasn’t involved with the study.’
https://www.nationalgeographic.com/science/2018/07/news-china-human-tools-africa-shangchen-hominin-paleoanthropology/
Linked from:
https://www.drudgereport.com/
Halp
In real life, the left side of each plate would be warmer than the right, if only slightly. If pressed together, the blue would be warmer than the green.
To keep things simple, Eli wanted to remove any temperature gradient (based on rate of conduction) from the discussion. We were instructed to PRETEND both sides are the same.
In keeping with that premise, we should likewise PRETEND the two plates would be the same temperature if pressed together, even though such a situation would be unnatural.
Poor old Snape. Always believes he has a point.
snape…”To keep things simple, Eli wanted to remove any temperature gradient (based on rate of conduction) from the discussion”.
Eli does not have a clue what he’s talking about in thermodynamics. He was told that by two specialists in the field, Gerlich and Tscheuschner.
Eli is trying to apply EM radiation to the 2nd law and as the experts told him, the 2nd law is about heat transfer not EM radiation.
Eli is of the ilk who believe that a mysterious net balance of energy can satisfy the 2nd law. There is only one situation that can satisfy the 2nd law in normal heat transfer, and that is heat being transferred exclusively from hot to cold.
There is no demonstrable situation in which heat can be transferred both ways between bodies of different temperatures.
Ever sat in front of a fire?
EM is heat transfer.
Gordon Robertson says:
There is no demonstrable situation in which heat can be transferred both ways between bodies of different temperatures.
The Earth emits radiation in all directions. What happens to the subset of that radiation that reaches the Sun?
S,
Feel free to PRETEND that increasing the amount of CO2 between the Sun and a thermometer makes the thermometer hotter!
Or PRETEND that Gavin Schmidt is a scientist.
Or PRETEND that Michael Mann won a Nobel Prize.
You still can’t even describe the GHE, let alone find a disprovable GHE hypothesis, can you?
Time to PRETEND something else, eh?
Cheers.
Mike
Feel free to PRETEND that increasing the amount of CO2 between the Sun and a thermometer won’t make the thermometer hotter!
http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/UAH_LT_1979_thru_June_2018_v6.jpg
Ms Snape, Mike may be along to explain the difference between a thermometer and a satellite. You should pay close attention.
Here is a YT playlist showing the regional temperature percentiles in the US for each of the first six months of 2018:
https://tinyurl.com/USTempPlaylist
Gordon
IR is transferred from cold objects to warm objects all the time. IR is not heat.
S,
Oh so sciency. Oh so completely meaningless.
Try and explain what you are trying to say. Waving around meaningless words such as IR and transfer without defining what you mean shows your lack of understanding of physics.
What a foolish person you are! Carry on – you can PRETEND that you know what you are talking about, but you appear as clueless as Gavin Schmidt or Michael Mann.
Still no GHE. Still no miraculous heating properties of CO2. The Earth has cooled since its creation. No energy balance to be seen.
Have fun – toss in some more meaningless sciency assertions. If that fails, how about some pointless and irrelevant analogies?
Cheers.
Mike Flynn
I think Snape’s comment is correct and very simple to understand. Not sure what your specific problem with it is. Maybe you should read some actual physics books and it would be fairly clear what he is stating.
Here I will help you with an actual science site.
Maybe read this and learn something. It won’t hurt you.
“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.”
Source of quote:
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/thermo/seclaw.html
N,
S did not explain what he meant by IR. I presume he meant an unspecified frequency band of light with magical climatological properties, but of course he did not understand what he was talking about, so he was incapable of expressing himself in normal physical terms.
His use of the word “transferring” was similarly pointless, due to its vagueness, and the obvious lack of physical knowledge.
You cannot define heat in any way that supports Snape’s implied (but unstated) assertion that it can be transferred from a cold object to a warm one.
Feel free to appeal to the authority of someone as stupid and ignorant as yourself. It won’t transmute fantasy to fact. Bad luck for you – you can’t use the energy in all the ice in the Universe to heat a teaspoon of liquid water, can you?
Still no GHE. Providing pointless links to irrelevant information will not make you appear any less stupid and ignorant than you are.
Maybe you could describe the GHE in some useful form? That would be more miraculous than the heating properties of CO2!
Cheers.
Mike Flynn
You seem to have deep problems with physics ideas. I have discussed it before with you. View Factor. The ice can only transfer its energy to what the spoon can view. You are not able to understand real physics and refuse to learn what you don’t know.
There is really nothing vague about the word transfer. IR is infrared energy and a band or wavelength is not needed for what was written.
If you had the ability to reason you could put Snape’s post: “Infrared energy is transferred from cold objects to warm objects all the time. Infrared energy is not heat.”
Transfer means the Infrared emitted by a cold object does move to a warm object. Nothing to stop it. You really should learn some physics. You know very little science.
The sad thing is only a small amount of the Skeptics know any real science. You and the others have some hybrid made up version of mixed up distorted physics and you think you know something. Then when people who know actual science try to explain things to you, you are incapable of following the logic. Lack on knowledge on your part not their’s.
Norman: As climate scientists sometimes say, ‘the world needs better skeptics.’
And J-Hapless is clearly weak and way out of his element. Ignore him too, and spend that added time studying.
Wow, I must be doing something right.
You took away the wrong lesson, sonny.
Pretty sure I didnt, infant.
“Infant??” That’s the best you can do, “infant?”
Sorry, foetus. I didnt mean to upset you,
sure
Sure about what, zygote?
You know I have never seen you post a single scientifically meaningful comment here.
In fact, nothing that wasn’t snark.
Now, now, twinkle in your fathers eye, theres no need for fibs. Besides, you telling Norman that I am weak and way out of my element doesnt sound like a scientifically meaningful comment from yourself, does it? Seems a bit more like you were just trolling again. You do that a lot. In fact, basically you just sit back for a day or so, then pop up and vomit over as many of other peoples conversations as you can, demanding this or that from them, asking gotcha questions that you have asked 1000 times before, generally throwing your weight around and being unpleasant…then you leave. Then after a little while, you come back. Then you do this over and over again, day after day, week after week, and presumably you consider this a useful expenditure of your time. Pretty much like what you were saying about Mike Flynn, wasnt it?
And the trend continues…. 🙂
Yeah but you can turn that trend around any time you want. Just learn some science, then start talking about it. Its easy.
“Winters in the U.S. are cold. They always have been. Some are colder than others.”
Mr Spencer, why don’t you say this next time the US has a below average winter month?
He may get the chance to do just that, this winter.
Joe Bastardi is already hinting this upcoming one could be bad.
It might be, or it might not be. One thing is certain … if it turns out to be cold, Bastardi simply got lucky.
Indeed.
https://davidappell.blogspot.com/2012/03/joe-bastardi-idiot-liar-or-both.html
Nobody reads your blog, Appell.
“It might be, or it might not be. One thing is certain if it turns out to be cold, Bastardi simply got lucky.”
Funny thing, I look at AGW hysterics the same way. They got lucky the climate warmed some from 1979 to 2000 and is nearly at a plateau now, and was (temperature stasis) before the El Ninio.
One thing is for ceratin, when the climate begins cooling again, the AGW camp will be caught in a cunundrum they can’t escape. Looking forward to seeing the hand wringing,excuses and blathering to try and defend their failed hypothesis.
AGW hysterics or ice age hysterics it seems to me to be more or less the same thing.
And there was one option, the no change hysterics.
And since 1979, it has roughly been the no change option.
And will roughly continue to be the no change option.
So AGW hysterics or ice age hysterics are same group of fools- alarmists, they had 2/3rd chance of getting it right, and they were not lucky.
Whether there was personal profit from their hysterics, it is difficult to say. And for in terms of public well being, one could say it had some degree of entertainment value.
But if one wants to do something about “poor people” or increase the well being of all people, we can say it was large and continuing failure.
BTW … it is noted that you and Mikey yet again began posting at pretty much exactly the same time.
You might enjoy comparing notes with Norman Grinvalds. He has paranoid delusions as well.
Birds of a feather….
bob…”Mr Spencer, why dont you say this next time the US has a below average winter month?”
Why don’t you stop your nitpicking alarmist rhetoric?
When was the last time a USA48 winter (DJF) was below the 30-yr mean?
A further comment on John Christy’s Fig. 5 in Roy Spencer’s head post
Fig. 5 is centered around the USA.
This is understandable: Prof. Christy is not just an American citizen but is also a scientist who regularly presents testimonies to the US Senate concerning the climate affairs in USA.
For all of us citizens outside of the USA, the interest concerning data showing the Globe rather than 2 % of it is not less understandable.
A few ping pong exchanges with commenter bilybob who asked for a Fig. 5 for the Globe have shown upthread that such a figure can’t be simply built up out of a single, global station data averaging.
The reason is that e.g. for the GHCN daily record, a majority of data is provided by US stations (over 50%).
Thus it makes no wonder that a simple averaging of daily maximas over e.g. 35 C or 40 C will give for CONUS
http://4gp.me/bbtc/1531434474570/001.jpg
and for the Globe an incredibly similar
http://4gp.me/bbtc/1531434876862/001.jpg
But if you now perform an averaging of all stations worldwide into e.g. 2.5 degree grid cells, the overweight of (not only) CONUS disappears: instead of having about 7000 US stations competing with 14000 stations worldwide, you move to about 170 grid cells competing with about 2000. The same happens with lots of other corners (Europe, Japan, Canada, etc).
Now, CONUS looks like this
http://4gp.me/bbtc/1531434361627/001.jpg
and the Globe like this
http://4gp.me/bbtc/1531434949535/001.jpg
This is something like a version of ‘Fig. 5 outside of the Great Historic Countries’.
binny….”But if you now perform an averaging of all stations worldwide into e.g. 2.5 degree grid cells, the overweight of (not only) CONUS disappears: instead of having about 7000 US stations competing with 14000 stations worldwide, you move to about 170 grid cells competing with about 2000. The same happens with lots of other corners (Europe, Japan, Canada, etc).”
You are talking total theory. In reality, NOAA used to have 6000 reporting stations globally and now they have less than 1500. They fabricate the data for over 4500 stations in a climate model.
The numbers you are crunching in Excel do not exist in the real world because they are not used.
Gordon, if you bin stations by a chosen grid size, why isn’t 1500 worldwide stations sufficient?
Totally “Off Topic” but for the fact that Professor Dennis Whyte believes that replacing fossil fuels must be addressed on an urgent basis. He is an impressive physicist yet he is dumb as a pet rock when it comes to “Climate Science”. It makes sense to “Stick to Your Knitting” no matter how bright you think you are.
Forty eight years ago I set up a company called “Electro-Photonics” building lasers and high speed cameras. Our cameras had a temporal resolution of 2 pico-seconds.
Who the heck needs cameras that fast? Answer…..anyone working on thermonuclear fusion be it weapons or power generation. In 1970 physicists like me believed that full scale fusion power plants would be on-line in 40 years. Fast forward to 2010 and that milestone was still 40 years in the future.
Yesterday I decided to check up on technical progress relating to thermonuclear fusion and was gobsmacked to hear about a potential breakthrough that may bring the “Pot of Gold at the End of the Rainbow” nearer.
The leading thermonuclear experiment today is ITER which is huge because it relies on superconducting solenoids capable of achieving at best about 12 Tesla (120 kilo-Gauss). The size of such machines is inversely proportional to the cube of the magnetic field.
Professor Whyte at MIT is using magnets based on REBCO to produce fields up to 26.5 Tesla. This implies machines eight times smaller than ITER for similar performance. Here is the amazing video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KkpqA8yG9T4
So what happened to my company (Electro-Photonics)? It merged with John Hadland and became “Hadland-Photonics”. Much later Hadland-Photonics was acquired by DRS Technologies located in Florida. Given that I lived very near the DRS headquarters I dropped in hoping to see the latest version of my high speed camera.
I was shown the door because I lacked a security clearance!
So get a security clearance.
One more ‘potential breakthru’ at the end of an endless list:
https://tinyurl.com/yaawtp45
Not that I would be against fusion! Not at all.
I hope and hope and hope.
At least such experiments like
https://www.popularmechanics.com/science/energy/a27961/mit-nuclear-fusion-experiment-increases-efficiency/
sound good because they leave the traditional D+T way which makes tritium breeding out of lithium and beryllium (with the inevitable blanket waste) a conditio sine qua non.
Interesting update on fusion, GC.
Whyte sort of lessened his stature by using the false fear of CO2 to seemingly hype more funding for fusion. Is he really “dumb as a pet rock”, or just another barker at a carnival side show?
For those not savvy about magnetic field strengths, 26.5 Tesla is about 530,000 times as strong as Earths’ average surface magnetic field! IOW, a human exposed to such levels would be “toast”!
Every three years researchers have to “sing for their suppers” which means they tell DARPA, AFOSR, NRL or other agencies what they want to hear. I suspect Whyte is aiming his “barking” at the DoE and/or the EPA where the carbon mitigation mantra can help win project funding.
I used to bite my lip every time we did that at the Duke FEL lab. Not many people have the courage to speak out when it will undermine the funding of the project that is paying their salaries…….certainly I never did.
Notice how emeritus professors like Will Happer speak against carbon mitigation. They can no longer be blackmailed by government funding committees.
What is it that agencies “want to hear?”
And why?
Don’t assume everyone would act like you did just to keep a job.
PS: Did you find your missing 150 W/m2 yet?
Salvatore!
The oceans have stopped cooling and are warming!
What say you?
https://www.tropicaltidbits.com/analysis/ocean/global.png
Here are the data on ocean heat content. Where is the cooling?
http://tinyurl.com/jbf2xco
Wow! Love that warming. How is your El Nino ?
Like this:
http://ds.data.jma.go.jp/tcc/tcc/products/elnino/elmonout.html#fig2
overall oceanic sea surface temperatures were averaging around +.34 c deviation a year ago in contrast to around +.15c deviation now.
-.2c in a year is quite a drop.
Natural variations, primarily a La Nina.
No it is not the very weak La Nina it is less UV light from the sun that is causing overall oceanic sea surface temperatures to cool.
Not to mention La Nina is long gone.
“…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
Salvatore Derl Prete says:
No it is not the very weak La Nina it is less UV light
Data?
Global temperatures and sea surface temperatures down, Reason very low solar modified by the weakening geo magnetic field. My theroy said if two solar conditons were met which are 10+years of sub solar activity in general followed by a period of time of very low avg. value solar parameters overall sea surface temperatures will fall and the albedo would increase slightly.
Albedo increase due to an increase in explosive major volcanic activity and an increase in global cloud/snow coverage.
Less UV light equates to lower overall sea surface temperatures.
I think the next real EL NINO may happen in year 2019.
I was playing with data at WoodForTheTrees and came up with this.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah5/from:1979/to:2019/trend/plot/uah6/from:1979/to:2019/trend/plot/none
Could someone please explain why Dr Spencer and Dr Christy adjusted UAH to reduce the rate of warming?
UAH v5.6 global LT has data up to July 2017. By my calculations, the trends for v5.6 and v6.0 up to that month are
v5.6: 0.16 C/dec +/- 0.014
v6.0: 0.13 C/dec +/- 0.015
I blogged about this at the time; here are the differences between global LT v6.0 and v5.6. Some of the data for global months were adjusted as much as 0.8 C.
https://davidappell.blogspot.com/2015/04/remarkable-changes-to-uah-data.html
Nope – that graph is for the continental US.
(But still huge changes.)
RSS made some big changes to when they went to v4.0
https://davidappell.blogspot.com/2017/07/more-about-rsss-large-changes-to-their.html
David who cares about the past?
What people want to know is where does the climate go from here and the answer (sorry David) is colder.
Because, Salvatore, without understanding the measurements of the past, the measurements of the future are meaningless.
entropic…”Could someone please explain why Dr Spencer and Dr Christy adjusted UAH to reduce the rate of warming?”
A much better question is why you have presumed to disprove their good work using an amateur toy from w4t?
Gordon, have you analyzed the difference between v5.6 and v6.0?
Entropic man says:
July 13, 2018 at 11:22 AM
Could someone please explain why Dr Spencer and Dr Christy adjusted UAH to reduce the rate of warming?
That certainly was not their intention. Otherwise, they would not have introduced UAH5.6 in 2011 which showed a trend way higher than its predecessor.
We are all in agreement there.
No.
“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 my website done 6 years ago vindicates what I said.
“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
CORRECT GLOBAL COOLING HAS STARTED.
“Don’t 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 ,let’s 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/
Sal, should have been: “La nina cooling has started…….”
Salvatore del Prete, December 31, 2010
http://origin.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/ensostuff/ONI_v5.php
Next BS Snape.
“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
I can make predictions too:
********
“Global cooling will begin in 2020”.
– Salvatore del Prete, December 31, 2018
fine
Salvatore, when are you going to realize that you are being made fun of here and no one gives a f**k anymore what your predictions are. You’ve been wrong all along, so just shut up and try to learn something from your continual bad predictions.
DA…”Salvatore, when are you going to realize that you are being made fun of here and no one gives a f**k anymore what your predictions are”.
Surely you are not under the delusion that anyone here with intelligence values the opinion of David Appell? Salvatore appeals to the intelligent mind, not your incessant ramblings.
my web-site vindicates me
Salvatore Del Prete says:
May 4, 2017 at 5:42 AM
“I was wrong on the solar activity it was way higher then I thought it was going to be back then. 2011 – mid 2016”
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/05/uah-global-temperature-update-for-april-2017-0-27-deg-c/#comment-245576
Yes David, solar activity did not hit the criteria needed to cause cooling until late 2017.
snape…”There is no way to obtain 200 W/m^2 from any known equation. It is just asserted”.
This is actually a better question than you might think.
Back in the bad old days when Stefan and his student Boltzmann were formulation their famous equation, which is applied liberally these days without much thought, the situation was quite different. They believed that heat was emitted from surfaces as ‘heat rays’ and somehow traveled through space via an aether.
It was actually Stefan who came up with the equation and it was corroborated later by Boltzmann. Stefan got the equation from work done by Tyndall, in which he heated a platinum wire electrical till it began radiating visible colours.
Another scientist arbitrarily assigned temperature to the colour range between red and white hot and Stefan used those temperatures to arrive at the conclusion relating what we now know to be EM radiation to the 4th power of temperature.
There were assumptions made that may not stand up under scrutiny. They assumed heat was flowing through space and that it could be measured in W/m^2. Obviously, those units apply to the heat in the surface of the platinum wire and not to the EM flowing through space.
I mean, if you touched that platinum wire while it was glowing any colour it would scorch your finger but holding your finger an inch away would cause no deleterious effect. Therefore, how can one imply that the radiated EM is carrying that much power?
Clearly, EM units should not be in W/m^2. Right at the radiating surface, it can be claimed there are so many W/m^2 but that applies to the measured heat before it is converted to EM.
The statement above that the power is ‘asserted’ is closer to the truth. There is little doubt that EM from a hotter body can be converted back to heat by a cooler body but the EM in between cannot be measured by any known instrument.
There is no instrument of which I am aware that can be stuck in a space which will read EM as a phenomenon. All that can be determined is the effect the EM has on electrons in a material AFTER it is converted.
Of course, it’s the same with a thermometer. It is the expansion of mercury that is measured in a mercury thermometer. However, no one is overly concerned about the W/m^2 of air in a room only the effect the air molecules have on the mercury.
I think there is far too much bs surrounding EM. It is given properties in relationship to heat it does not have.
Gordon Robertson wrote:
Clearly, EM units should not be in W/m^2.
This is pure stupid idiocacy from Gordon.
Tell us, Gordon, what units SHOULD electromagnetic radiation be measured in?
Gordon Robertson says:
I think there is far too much bs surrounding EM. It is given properties in relationship to heat it does not have.
Ever gotten a sunburn?
Ever sat in front of a campfire to get warm?
DA,
Ever wondered why the radiation in a microwave oven can boil water, has no effect on materials such as paper and many plastics, but will have disastrous effects on most metals?
The radiation is definitely infrared, (much longer wavelengths than visible red), but doesn’t seem to create heat all the time!
Maybe the climatological pseudoscience needs a bit of revision, do you think?
Cheers.
Appell: “Ever gotten a sunburn?”
Me: Appell,sunburns are not caused by infrared radiation. They aree caused by UV, the next step up in a shorter wavelength from visible light. Wrong side of visible light, Appell.
Not surprising you wouldn’t know the difference.
Gordo, As usual, your deviant physics could get you in trouble. Even you should be able to understand the error of your comment about holding your finger close to a white hot platinum wire. The surface area of the wire is quite small, thus the total watts of energy being radiated is similarly small.
Now, if you are serious, try holding your hand next to a white hot slab of steel. In that situation, the large radiating area provides an intense field of IR EM, i.e., lots of watts of radiant power, which would burn your hand rapidly. The same would apply with cooler red hot coals in a wood fire. Ever broiled a steak in an electric oven using the top element? Will your hand respond any differently?
swannie…”Now, if you are serious, try holding your hand next to a white hot slab of steel. In that situation, the large radiating area provides an intense field of IR EM, i.e., lots of watts of radiant power, which would burn your hand rapidly.”
I doubt it. Workers in foundries work close to molten metal all the time and nothing happens from radiation. I have poured molten lead into molds and nothing happened from radiation.
On the other hand, highly concentrated radiation from a 10,000 watt radar sail can affect your organs. You won’t get that kind of radiation from hot steel.
besides, what about a 1500 watt electric stove ring. It has sufficient area to cause damage but holding your hand a few inches above it will do nothing. In an oven, however, the air heats as well and that can cause your meat to cook.
I suppose you think that if I held my hand a few inches from the ring my hand would back-radiate IR to the ring and cause it to warm.
Gordo, Workers in steel mills wear protective clothing, including hoods and face shields. The clothing is coated with reflective material, such as aluminum. And, they usually aren’t exposing bare flesh within a few inches of the white hot slab. In a foundry, protective clothing is also common and the workers aren’t exposed for long, as the molten metal must be quickly poured before it solidifies.
Your next comment about an oven misses the fact that in a broiler oven, the coil is on the top, where IR EM thermal radiation heats the food. Convection in that situation moves heated air upwards and away from the cooking surface. The steak still can become burnt, if left there too long. And, the cooking tends to be only on the top, thus the steak should be turned for even results.
“I mean, if you touched that platinum wire while it was glowing any colour it would scorch your finger but holding your finger an inch away would cause no deleterious effect. Therefore, how can one imply that the radiated EM is carrying that much power?”
The wire is small. It like a incandescent light bulb- except the glass of bulb gets hot [and the hot glass can hurt your finger].
“The statement above that the power is asserted is closer to the truth. There is little doubt that EM from a hotter body can be converted back to heat by a cooler body but the EM in between cannot be measured by any known instrument.”
Platinum in air or tungsten without oxygen in the air, can reach a high temperature [though no where close to temperature of the sun at it’s surface]. And one measure it’s spectrum and see some similarities with sunlight [which spectrum one also measure].
And one measure how much the sunlight can heat something. And if you magnify sunlight it can melt bricks. Anyhow the sunlight is 136O watts per square meter because it can something by 1360 joules per second- which can be measured by how quickly it absorbs energy.
Another aspect of how warm sunlight is to determine temperature at sun surface and consider that energy being emitted at much larger radius. And if that radius was at earth distance, it would be like a blackbody surface radiating about 1360 watts and at temperature of about 120 C.
If sun expanded to earth distance and was 120 C, it would heat Earth at that distance much more than the sun would, but if instead you were at Jupiter distance it would be about the same amount heat reaching Juptier.
Or edge of sun near earth would be huge vast wall of heat which would wrap around Earth. And at Jupiter distance this expanded sun, would be quite big in the sky but would much cooler as compare to sun at present size.
And with this expanded sun, it’s light could not be magnified to melt brick or light a piece of paper on fire.
So it certainly different and one could call it a model which has some uses.
And of course that expanded sun, does not have visible light, or even near IR light, but it’s a dark sky of heat effecting more than 1/2 of the earth surface.
gbaikie…”Or edge of sun near earth would be huge vast wall of heat which would wrap around Earth”.
That’s a more complex situation than it appears. The Sun would be spitting great wads of plasma at the Earth as raw electrons and protons, and that would convect heat directly. It would very likely overwhelm our magnetic field and produce direct heat as convection.
Heat cannot be transferred directly via radiation. In other words, heat as energy is not flowing through space unless it is by convection as described.
“If sun expanded to earth distance and was 120 C, it would heat Earth at that distance much more than the sun would, but if instead you were at Jupiter distance it would be about the same amount heat reaching Juptier”.
I don’t follow you.
–If sun expanded to earth distance and was 120 C, it would heat Earth at that distance much more than the sun would, but if instead you were at Jupiter distance it would be about the same amount heat reaching Juptier.
I dont follow you.–
Jupiter gets 55.8 to 45.9 watts per square meter.
Jupiter is 4.950 to 5.458 AU from the Sun
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunlight
If sun were blackbody sphere 1 AU in radius and emitted 1360 watts,
I would guess Jupiter would still get about 55.8 to 45.9 watts per square meter from this “dark star” which should putting about same energy as our sun.
gbaikie…”If sun were blackbody sphere 1 AU in radius and emitted 1360 watts…”
That’s 1360 watts/m^2 at 1 AU. You’d have to calculate over the entire sphere at 1 AU to get the total power at that diameter.
Mind you, if you have the power/m^2 at 1 AU, it would seem simple enough, using the inverse square law, to calculate the power at 4 or 5 AU.
I am getting a good view of Jupiter every clear night in the southern sky. It’s the brightest object by far in that region. After midnight, Mars comes up just as bright in the south.
It’s a rare treat with Venus in the west with Jupiter and Mars in the south, all shining very brightly.
gbaikie…”And if you magnify sunlight it can melt bricks”.
I’m well aware of the heat that can be produced by EM from an intense source, my point is that no means is available to measure the EM itself, therefore assigning it unit of W/m^2 makes little sense.
What is measured is heat, before it is converted to EM or after EM is converted to heat. In other words, the EM has to be converted before it can be measured. In free space, EM has potential energy but unlike electrical energy EM has no kinetic form.
EM is transmitted from a radar sail at energy levels around 10,000 watts. However, the units refer to the electrical power that produces the EM.
If you have electrical energy as potential energy stored in a battery, you can convert it to kinetic energy by forming a closed circuit. You cannot do that with EM, it has to be converted to another form of energy.
Even the visible portion of EM is converted to electro-chemical energy by the eye.
Visible light is rated in lumens, which is related to candle-power. It is essentially rated by the human eye as to how much it affects the eye electro-chemically.
As I claimed, the W/m^2 units for EM were assigned to it in the days when it was believed that heat was flowing from a surface through space. They thought it was heat flowing through the air and knew nothing about how Em is converted from heat by electrons.
“Im well aware of the heat that can be produced by EM from an intense source, my point is that no means is available to measure the EM itself, therefore assigning it unit of W/m^2 makes little sense.”
Perhaps, but you would have to provide a system which make more sense- if wish to convince me, that it makes little sense.
“EM is transmitted from a radar sail at energy levels around 10,000 watts. However, the units refer to the electrical power that produces the EM.”
That might be easier as one can know how much electrical power is used.
But lasers are reaching about 50% efficiently [or they increased in their efficiency, and in future probably will improve further].
So 10 kw lasers is not consistent in how powerful it is, as efficiency improves, and one could say, “that makes little sense”.
Practically in terms of electrical power needed, yes, but not in the power of laser.
gbaikie….EM is an electrical ‘wave’ with a magnetic wave traveling perpendicular to it. One EM wave is distinguished from the other by its frequency.
The EM wave is not carrying heat just as a radar wave does not carry electrical power, nor a communication signal the audio or video information it transports.
How do you give EM a unit?
The point I have been trying to make is that EM was mistaken for heat circa 1870 when Stefan and Boltzmann were deriving the famous formula. It was given the units W/m^2 thinking it was heat.
gbaikie….EM is an electrical ‘wave’ with a magnetic wave traveling pe.rpe.ndi.cular to it. One EM wave is distinguished from the other by its frequency.
The EM wave is not carrying heat just as a radar wave does not carry electrical power, nor a com.mun.ica.tion signal the audio or video information it transports.
How do you give EM a unit of W/m^2?
The point I have been trying to make is that EM was mistaken for heat circa 1870 when Stefan and Boltzmann were deriving the famous formula. It was given the units W/m^2 thinking it was heat.
Gordon Robertson says:
There is no demonstrable situation in which heat can be transferred both ways between bodies of different temperatures.
The Earth emits radiation in all directions. What happens to the subset of that radiation that reaches the Sun?
Has Spencer been trying to hide the warming? (Sarc.)
What he wrote then: “The global-average lower tropospheric temperature anomaly soared to +0.72 deg. C in January, 2010. This is the warmest January in the 32-year satellite-based data record.”
What we see today:
2010 1 0.50
Climate change is about the long-term trend.
What does your calculation give?
Gordon Robertson wrote:
There is no demonstrable situation in which heat can be transferred both ways between bodies of different temperatures.
The Earth emits radiation in all directions. What happens to the subset of that radiation that reaches the Sun?
DA…”Gordon Robertson wrote:
There is no demonstrable situation in which heat can be transferred both ways between bodies of different temperatures.
The Earth emits radiation in all directions. What happens to the subset of that radiation that reaches the Sun?”
********
2nd law: Heat can NEVER be transferred by its own means from a cooler body to a hotter body.
That’s quite the bastardization of the 2ND Law.
David
What calculation?
Usually responders quote what they are referring to, and just beneath the original comment.
I can’t read your mind.
Well Snape cant do that because his iPhone wont let him do anything but comment at the bottom of the comments every time. For Gods sake David, pay attention and stop being so unpleasant to everybody. Smarten up your act, sonny Jim. Come on little one. Smarten up.
His or your iPhone isn’t my problem. If you can’t be decent enough to give a clue what you’re referring to, I will ignore you.
Of course not. You are far too important to consider anyone elses problems. So, you will just ignore that person…by talking to them.
When you can include results, data, papers, and studies like I do, then you may speak. Until then, Your words are irrelevant.
Ill speak whenever the hell I want to. How about that?
Youre an amateur. Move along.
Youre right. Ill leave the master troll to his work…
David, do you think it might be this comment Snape was referring to?
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2018/07/summer-causes-climate-change-hysteria/#comment-312062
You know, the one immediately above your pointless, 17,000-times-asked gotcha question to Gordon Robertson that you posted completely out of the blue for no reason at all? Where you said:
D: What does your calculation give?
You know, I think it might be that one, David. But, youre the genius.
I have no idea what comment of mine he was referring to. You dont either. Why couldnt he have made that clear in the first place?
Yeah, its a real puzzler. He commented at 8:16 and you responded at 8:18 asking *what does your calculation give?*.
Then at 8:30 pm Snape wrote, *what calculation?*
Ill call Sherlock, shall I?
David
My comment was too cryptic. Sorry about that.
In 2010, Dr. Spencer reported that the LT anomaly for January of that year was a record, + 0.72 C. Today, if we look it up, we instead find + 0.50 C.
I assume the disparity was part of a necessary adjustment, but I sarcastically asked, “Has Spencer been trying to hide the warming?”
I was trying to poke fun at skeptics like Gordon who constantly accuse NOAA of fudging their data.
snape…”I was trying to poke fun at skeptics like Gordon who constantly accuse NOAA of fudging their data”.
There is a big difference between the way NOAA manufactures data in a climate model statistically and revising the long term interaction of real data from several satellites over time.
The revisions are related to orbital anomalies.
https://phys.org/news/2018-04-weather-satellite-space-stray-contaminate.html
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/01431161.2018.1444293
Thank you.
snape…”Gordon
IR is transferred from cold objects to warm objects all the time. IR is not heat”.
************
Major problem with your statement, although IR is not heat it must be converted to heat if it is absorbed. The only way IR can be transferred, as you call it, is through electrons in the receiving atoms. That means the IR must be absorbed and converted to heat as the electron jumps to a higher energy level.
How does IR get transferred from a colder body if the electrons in the colder body transmit it at a lower frequency hence an energy that is insufficient to move the electron in the receiving body to a higher energy level.
The presumption that IR from a cooler body must be absorbed by electrons in a hotter body is simply incorrect. It contradicts the 2nd law as well.
This misinformation is based on the theory that all blackbodies must absorb an energy incident upon them. It’s just not true with real bodies of different temperatures.
Gordo, One more time, the absorp_tion follows Kirchhoff’s Law. There’s no temperature dependence on absorp_tion by a body. The energy isn’t “ignored” nor is it reflected.
E. Swanson is one of those that believes the Earth warms the Sun.
Funny!
Great entertainment, but it’s NOT science.
E Swanson: “the absorp_tion follows Kirchhoff’s Law. There’s no temperature dependence on absorp_tion by a body. The energy isn’t “ignored” nor is it reflected.”
This is not completely true. Kirchhoff’s law is:
E/a = F ( lambda, T )
If a body is “black” the the defined emissivity is 1 by this ratio and so it means all the incident energy ab-sor-bed by such a body will be emitted at the particular wavelength as a function of temperature.
Temperature dependence enters the discussion if an external energy source is being used to heat AND maintain the temperature of such a body.
Take for example two black body plate squares. Both face each other while external energy being supplied by electric power that heats one plate to 1000 degF and the other to 400 degF. As long as the power input to both plates is maintaining their temperatures,radiative emission over the BB spectrum remains constant with both plates as both plates do not cool. In such a case, the plate at 1000 degF has no room to accept an energy photon from the cooler plate. Its emission over all wavelengths and resulting Planck curve is “saturated”. The cooler photon emitted towrds the hotter plate then will scatter or reflect until getting absorbed by something else that is in a cooling state or colder state such as a nearby wall.
But if you shut off the power source to both plates,both plates begin to cool and emit energy over all wavelengths as permmitted by their temperature. The Planck curves for both in this condition are not saturated and as each sheds energy, there is room for each plate to recive photons from each other because their Planck curves are no longer constant, but peaking at longer wavelengths as each object cools.
The rate at which the cooler plate receives photons from the hotter plate will be greater than any photons the hotter plate receives from the colder plate. The result from this is that both plates will cool as they shed energy and will eventually reach an equilibrium temperature if no energy is lost to a different source. This also means the hotter plate cools at a reduced rate while the cooler plate will actually warm until they both acieve the same temperature.
In this thought experiment, if you reverse the order of things, if electric power supplies a constant temperature to both plates at 1000 degF and 400 degF respectively and both are maintained by thermostats, the cooler plate thermostat will modulate on and off as the hotter plate radiates more energy to it, trying to warm it over its set 400 degF value and it will accept photons from a higher order Planck curve..
And while I said both cool initially when power is removed, a better wording is that the colder plate will “try” to cool but will warm initially before recahing the equilibrium temperature.
Chuck Wiese, Since you’ve only recently begun to post these past few months, perhaps you haven’t seen my Green Plate Effect demonstration. What I did is similar to your mental model, except that only one of my plates is supplied with an external energy input. I suggest that my Green Plate Demo shows that your physics is incorrect.
I think your description misses the fact that you’ve assumed a constant temperature for each heated plate, which implies that the energy supplied by your heaters must adapt to any changes in the energy flowing between the two plates. I think that you must provide some proof for this assumption, else your mental model can not be accepted as valid.
In addition, you claim that:
What sort of physics is it which says there’s “no room” for extra photons? Clearly, the hotter plate can be heated to an even higher temperature by increasing the energy input, with the result that more photons would be emitted. Where do those extra photons come from? Couldn’t the 1000 deg F hotter plate receive photons from a third, still hotter plate at 1500 deg F? How is it possible that either plate can “know” the temperature of the other plate(s)? Do you have any reference from the literature to support your claim that the surface reflection of a body is a function of temperature?
“What sort of physics is it which says theres no room for extra photons? Clearly, the hotter plate can be heated to an even higher temperature by increasing the energy input, with the result that more photons would be emitted. Where do those extra photons come from? ”
E Swanson: This is nonsense. To see this, just plot some Planck curves with a spectral calculator. One for a significantly higher temperature than the other and super-imose them.
You will see from this that the energy area curve of the colder body fits nicely into the hotter, higher order energy Planck curve. This means that if a temperature is maintained by external energy on both plates, the emission of the higher order curve is part of but inclusive of the entire energy area of the lower curve, meaning, that with respect to any wavelength the lower order curve is emitting at, the higher order curve is emitting at as well simultaneously, and with much greater emission. This tells you at a constant temperature and with respect to a hotter, higher order Planck curve, emission by the hotter plate and higher order curve exceeds any emisssion by the lower order, cooler curve at any wavelength and there can be no ab-sorp-tion of photons by the higher order curve that represents the hotter temperature.
Now if you reverse this, there most certainly is room for a lower order Planck curve to receive radiation by ab-sor-ption from the higher order curve because at any wavelength in the lower curve, ab-sor-ption would exceed emission compared to the higher curve and the higher order curve will radiate energy into the lower curve ( colder plate ) try to warm it.
When the power is shut off, the cooler and warmer plates exchange energy beacuse the hotter Planck curve is no longer saturated as it can shed energy to cool. But this just means as both receive varying amounts of photons from each Planck curve, the hotter plate cools at a reduced rate while the cooler plate would actually warm some until the euilibrium tempertaure is achieved. The exchange in both directions CANNOT happen unless the higher order Planck curve enters a state of transit to a lower energy state by cooling.
THis is not me re-inventing the wheel. This is established physics that’s been around for over 100 years since Einstein defined the photoelectric effect and helped qunatasize energy.
Chuck…”Now if you reverse this, there most certainly is room for a lower order Planck curve to receive radiation by ab-sor-ption from the higher order curve because at any wavelength in the lower curve, ab-sor-ption would exceed emission compared to the higher curve….”
This is interesting stuff. A question I often mull, given the quantum nature of electrons and their energy levels is whether electrons can emit and absorb at the same time. I don’t think they can but I can’t prove it.
I have read that when an electron rises to a higher energy level, it drops back immediately. That is highly theoretical, however. I would think that in a hotter body, all electron energy levels are higher on average.
How then can a simultaneus emission/absorp-tion take place between bodies of different temperatures? The 2nd law is specific about heat transfer even though Clausius did not have the information required about electron theory, as did Bohr et al. Having said that, if a body absorbs EM from a cooler body it should warm, and it can’t if its absorbing agents are already at a higher energy level, representing a higher temperature.
I need to spend some quality time studying the ins and outs of Schrodinger’s wave equation and how it is applied. Even Schrodinger was a realist who refused to dabble in the excesses offered by many modern quantum theorists.
Chuck Wiese, I missed your comment about using a thermostat to hold the temperatures constant. One could monitor the cycle rate of each heater to determine the energy supplied to the respective plates. Any “back radiation” from the cooler plate to the warmer would result in a decrease in the cycle rate of the heater for the hotter plate. That would be a clear proof of the absorp_tion of energy by the warmer plate, would it not?
But, you made no mention of my demonstration, a curious fact since it was so similar to your mental model and has been the source of much discussion around here over several months. I supplied energy to the warmer plate by a constant source of light and I conclude that the result of the “back radiation” from the cooler plate was an increase in the temperature of the warmer one. There’s really no difference between my demonstration and your proposed experiment, it’s just that the energy flows into the warmer plate are different. Of course, my demo used a vacuum to suppress most of the convection within the ball jar.
” I supplied energy to the warmer plate by a constant source of light and I conclude that the result of the back radiation from the cooler plate was an increase in the temperature of the warmer one. Theres really no difference between my demonstration and your proposed experiment, its just that the energy flows into the warmer plate are different. Of course, my demo used a vacuum to suppress most of the convection within the ball jar.”
E Swanson: The “back radiation” from the cooler plate will not get ab-sorb-ed by the warmer. The Planck curve of the warmer plate REQUIRES it emit radiation at all wavelengths of the cooler plate that exceed the cooler plate emission.
The difference between your experiment and my thought are not the same. With no external energy being supplied to maintain a temperature on the cooler plate, it’s Planck curve WILL ab-sor-b radiation from the light heated warmer plate and try to raise it’s temperature to the light heated plate’s temperature, but in no event will this cooler body cause its radiation to be ab-sor-bed by the warmer light plate and raise it’s temperature. That is physically impossible..
swannie…”I supplied energy to the warmer plate by a constant source of light and I conclude that the result of the back radiation from the cooler plate was an increase in the temperature of the warmer one”.
That’s not a reasonable conclusion when it contradicts the 2nd law and when there is a better explanations that does not contradict the 2nd law.
If you allowed your input of solar energy and prevented any means of the blue plate cooling itself, it would rise to an even higher temperature than you recorded. The heating you noted in the BP was a natural rise toward its temperature with all means of cooling disabled.
The warming in the BP comes only from the heating input. It’s temperature will be an equilibrium state between that heat input and the amount of heat it can dissipate naturally. Before raising the GP into place, the BP had reached that equilibrium temperature.
After raising the GP, you blocked it’s ability to radiate freely and changed the temperature gradient in the S-B equation. When you reduce the temperature gradient you slow down the heat dissipation from the BP and it warms.
That agrees with the 2nd law so why would you cast that explanation aside and stick with your back-radiation conclusion that contravenes the 2nd law?
Chuck Wiese wrote:
And Gordo wrote:
My demonstrations exhibited a different result from either of your conclusions. And Chuck deftly ignored my request for confirmation from published physics of his claim that reflection is a function of a body’s temperature. More hand waving and jumping up and down in a childish tantrum, as usual. If the theory doesn’t match experimental results, then the theory must change, as Planck leaned in 1899.
As E. Swanson points out 8:37 am, Chuck writes incorrectly 12:32 am: “but in no event will this cooler body cause its radiation to be ab-sor-bed by the warmer light plate and raise its temperature. That is physically impossible..”
Incorrectly since there are at least three tests around here and two 1LOT calculations showing Chuck and Gordon are wrong about the basic meteorological physics.
Test 1 E. Swanson’s: http://www.drroyspencer.com/2018/06/uah-global-temperature-update-for-may-2018-0-18-deg-c/#comment-305430
Test 2 Dr. Spencer’s: http://www.drroyspencer.com/2016/08/experiment-results-show-a-cool-object-can-make-a-warm-object-warmer-still/
Test 3, Dr. Spencer’s on the actual atm.:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2015/06/can-infrared-radiation-warm-a-water-body-part-ii/
Another test showing Chuck & Gordon are wrong writing “in no event will this cooler body cause its radiation to be ab-sor-bed by the warmer” was performed by Penzias and Wilson discovering the CMB signal at brightness temperature ~3K absorbed, emitted detected by a receiver with a horn antenna at about thermometer temperature 288K on earth surface in NJ.
Assertions are easily made right or wrong, proper testing provides the correct answers. Chuck and Gordon back their assertions with no testing whatsoever.
Gordon asks: “That agrees with the 2nd law so why would you cast that explanation aside and stick with your back-radiation conclusion that contravenes the 2nd law?”
Because the back-radiation conclusion is fully in accord with the 2nd law as universe entropy increases in the process as testing demonstrates.
Gordon 1:28am simply misstates and misunderstands the 2nd law which is fundamentally an entropy law per Clausius who started that whole bandwagon.
Chuck, you got both the radiative physics and the thermodynamics correct.
Get ready for the onslaught from the clowns of pseudoscience.
(You will enjoy the show.)
🙂
Chuck…”In such a case, the plate at 1000 degF has no room to accept an energy photon from the cooler plate. Its emission over all wavelengths and resulting Planck curve is saturated”
Thanks for that insight.
I have been trying to attack saturation from the perspective of electrons. Obviously if the electrons in a hotter body rise to a higher energy level they can no longer accept EM generated by cooler electrons. That is a form of saturation.
E = hf must be satisfied. At higher energy levels, f changes due to a change in angular velocity of the electron. I liken it to a tuned circuit, if the frequencies don’t match, the energy is rejected.
The notion here with alarmists is that all EM must be absorbed if it is incident on a body. That contradicts the 2nd law since it claims heat must be transferred from a colder body to a warmer body.
swannie…”Gordo, One more time, the absorp_tion follows Kirchhoffs Law”.
Only at thermal equilibrium, where no heat is transferred.
Kircheoff does not apply to bodies of different temperatures.
Chuck Wiese
YOU: “Its emission over all wavelengths and resulting Planck curve is “saturated”. The cooler photon emitted towrds the hotter plate then will scatter or reflect until getting absorbed by something else that is in a cooling state or colder state such as a nearby wall.”
What established physics it this? The only place I have ever read or heard of this was from Claes Johnson. Textbook physics says nothing of this actually clearly states the opposite.
I am asking that you provide good solid evidence for such a claim (that directly goes against the mainstream physics).
Physics textbooks, on heat transfer, clearly state that the heat exchange at a surface is the energy it emits minus the energy it absorbs. It is clear and specific and so far all textbooks say the same thing.
Statistical thermodynamics also points out your statement is flawed and based upon some incorrect physics.
You have an the disruptive troll supporting this. This poster knows nothing about physics and refuses to learn. I need you to support it with valid physics.
Norman: “YOU: “Its emission over all wavelengths and resulting Planck curve is “saturated”. The cooler photon emitted towards the hotter plate then will scatter or reflect until getting absorbed by something else that is in a cooling state or colder state such as a nearby wall.”
What established physics it this?”
Me: The established physics that has been around for many years that you are not completely comprehending.
Norman:”Physics textbooks, on heat transfer, clearly state that the heat exchange at a surface is the energy it emits minus the energy it absorbs. It is clear and specific and so far all textbooks say the same thing.”
Me: Or it could just as well be the energy absorbed minus the energy it emits if there is warming. What causes the process to go in either direction? It is the order of the Planck radiation curve that defines the temperature for each object!
If two black plates are emitting BB radiation at each other at the same temperature and able to maintain that temperature from external electrical energy, NEITHER absorbs radiation from the other. Emission from both sources is identical and continuous over all wavelengths. Both Planck curves are identical and saturated until one sheds energy greater than the other which cools, which lowers the emission curve of the this warmer body and allows it to receive radiation from the other warmer plate which will try to warm the cooled plate back to the warmer ones temperature.
In the first example I gave with a cooler plate radiating at a warmer plate, if both are energy consumption controlled by thermostats, the hot plate at 1000 degF WILL NOT ab-sor-b photon energy from the cooler plate at 400 degF. It’s Planck curve in this condition REQUIRES it radiate energy continuously over all wavelengths determined by its emission temperature and external energy supplied to maintain that temperature which exceeds the emission at any wavelength of the 400 degF palte.
Not until power is removed is there an exchange of energy by radiation from the two plates as their Planck curves are in transit to lower energy states. In this condition, the hotter plate cools at a reduced rate from receiving radiation from the cooler plate and the cooler plate will actually warm some because of trying to cool in a much lower Planck state where the photons it ab-sor-bs exceed its integrated emission spectrum with a slightly shorter wavelength being emitted by the warmer BB surface. Here we have ab-sorp-tion exceeding emission.
Hotter BB surfaces do not receive radiation from cooler bodies if they are able to maintain their energy supply and emit continuously the same energy over all wavelengths.
Norman:”Statistical thermodynamics also points out your statement is flawed and based upon some incorrect physics.”
Me : No it doesn’t. Have you ever seen the order of Planck curves superimposed over one another at different temperatures? Try looking at these and see if you can justify what you are saying.
Norman:”You have an the disruptive troll supporting this. This poster knows nothing about physics and refuses to learn. I need you to support it with valid physics.”
Me: What I am telling you composes valid physics. Higher energy state surfaces do not receive energy from lower energy state surfaces because the Planck emission in the higher order state is required to emit radiation that is part of the total integrated radiation emitted by the lower state curve. There is no exchange of photons here. Sorry.
chuck…”Me: What I am telling you composes valid physics. Higher energy state surfaces do not receive energy from lower energy state surfaces because the Planck emission in the higher order state is required to emit radiation…”
Besides Planck curves et al, it’s plain that energy cannot be transferred from lower potentials to higher potentials anywhere. Water does not run naturally against a gravitational potential nor do boulders do it by raising themselves to higher levels.
In electrical theory, electrons do not flow against a potential field by themselves. In atoms, the electron energy orbitals represent potential energy. In a hotter body, the electron energy levels are at higher potentials than the electron energy levels in cooler objects. One would not expect energy to flow from a lower energy state electrons in a cooler body to higher energy electron states in a hotter body.
An electron in an atomic orbital will not suddenly jump from a lower energy potential to a higher energy potential. It requires an energy input like EM of a precise frequency. Cooler objects cannot provide that precise frequency.
An awful lot of gobbledygook in this post, Chuck. I did not expect a meteorologist would make up his own physics.
Norman is right to ask you for a legit source, like a textbook, or course lecture notes, for this information.
Chuck Wiese
I was reading your post some more.
YOU: “You will see from this that the energy area curve of the colder body fits nicely into the hotter, higher order energy Planck curve. This means that if a temperature is maintained by external energy on both plates, the emission of the higher order curve is part of but inclusive of the entire energy area of the lower curve, meaning, that with respect to any wavelength the lower order curve is emitting at, the higher order curve is emitting at as well simultaneously, and with much greater emission. This tells you at a constant temperature and with respect to a hotter, higher order Planck curve, emission by the hotter plate and higher order curve exceeds any emisssion by the lower order, cooler curve at any wavelength and there can be no ab-sorp-tion of photons by the higher order curve that represents the hotter temperature.”
I really am at loss on how you can use an emission curve to determine the ability to absorb. It really makes no sense at all.
If you superimpose the two emission curves over each other, it tells you exactly that the hotter object is able to absorb the energy emitted by the cooler object. The difference between the hotter Planck curve and the cooler Planck curve would equal the amount of heat the hotter object is losing and how much the colder object is gaining. What you are describing is that the hotter object absorbs the energy from the colder one at its Planck curve amount. It emits energy at the higher Planck curve. The difference between the two is the heat the hot one loses.
No way you can come up with the notion that the hot plate cannot absorb energy from the colder one. Your own words indicate that is exactly what happens. I do not know how you got messed up with the bad physics of the PSI group. I have read lots of their material and it is really bad physics that can be proven wrong easily by opening any valid textbook on heat transfer. They are the masters of making up physics that sounds good to people who have a dose of science but are not real dedicated to learn it.
Why do the skeptics who make up science tell me I get textbook material wrong, then I link them to a textbook saying I am right and they never support what they claim as if we are just supposed to accept the strange notions as real just because.
Sorry Chuck,
First Law of Thermodynamics calling, you have made an error.
What happens to the photons emitted by the blackbodies in your explanation if they are not absorbed?
Something has to happen to them because they can neither be created nor destroyed.
norman…chuck..”The cooler photon emitted towrds the hotter plate then will scatter or reflect until getting absorbed by something else that is in a cooling state or colder state such as a nearby wall.”
norman…”What established physics it this?”
The 2nd law for a start. Quantum theory for another.
Why is EM not absorbed by nitrogen or oxygen at terrestrial temperatures? According to you, all EM incident on all matter must be absorbed.
Why is some EM in the visible spectrum absorbed by certain objects and the rest rejected? Why is all EM in the visible spectrum not absorbed by all atoms?
Gordon Robertson
Sorry Gordon you are wrong. The 2nd Law of thermodynmaics does not at all say a photon from a colder object will not be absorbed by warmer object. I have asked you to support this false idea with actual science sources, you only give your own opinions and made up physics. You have NOT yet verified your statement. I have shown you it is false more than once.
Here I will do it again. It won’t help.
“It is important to note that when it is stated that energy will not spontaneously flow from a cold object to a hot object, that statement is referring to net transfer of energy. Energy can transfer from the cold object to the hot object either by transfer of energetic particles or electromagnetic radiation, but the net transfer will be from the hot object to the cold object in any spontaneous process. Work is required to transfer net energy to the hot object.”
You make you false claim and I post this.
Also you are totally wrong about Quantum physics. I have linked you more than once to sites on statistical thermodynamics. At room temperature most molecules and atoms are in ground state. They can easily absorb nearly all the photons in the bands they absorb at.
You are just wrong and unscientific. Why?
You make claims I have not made. Why do you think you are justified in doing this?
YOU: “Why is EM not absorbed by nitrogen or oxygen at terrestrial temperatures? According to you, all EM incident on all matter must be absorbed.”
When I made this statement? I have said all the radiant energy the material can absorb (based upon how it can absorb). I have never claimed that all EM must be absorbed. Why do you do this? Does making up false statements make you happy in some way?
Chuck Wiese
Sorry Dir, but you are wrong. Your words are the same as Claes Johnson. He came up with his bogus physics and lots of skeptics are drawn to it.
Will you be the same as all the other skeptics on this blog who make claims but never support them? I know you are a meteorologist but that does not mean you are advanced in physics.
Your view is illogical when carried out. What you claim is that the cold object’s IR cannot be absorbed by a warmer one. The logic that follows is that the temperature of a colder body does not matter to a warmer one. This is proven false by actual experiments. E. Swanson’s test proves your idea as a wrong one. The IR from the green plate raises the temperature of the heated blue plate. Before the green plate was moved the blue plate received cooler IR from the surrounding walls and was at a lower steady state temperature.
Any experiment you would do would prove your notions wrong. The only way you can cling to these false beliefs is by not doing any actual tests or not accepting the results of real experiments.
First. Your idea (actually Claes Johnson might be the originator of this myth) goes against established physics. I will post from a physics site to demonstrate your idea goes against real physics.
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.”
Actual physics disagrees with Claes Johnson and you. Experimental evidence disagrees with you. It is a bad thought that keeps rising up and no one seems able to end it.
At the quantum level, the molecules of a surface that absorb IR are not the ones to emit it. A molecule has to be in an excited state in order to emit. A molecule has to be at a lower energy state to absorb. Two distinct and separate processes.
If you study any statistical thermodynamics. I can try and find sites I have already linked to on other threads for you. However the fact is that at room temperature, most surface molecules are at the ground state and will easily be able to absorb the IR that can raise it to a higher energy state.
I am hoping you are not brain dead like Gordon and can see that this idea is a really really bad antiscience made up physics that has zero support.
Norman: Is your comprehension as bad as Ball4’s and E Swansons?
The example I gave was not a valid comparison to what Roy Spencer or E Swanson did. I envisioned two plates with a steady electrical current being supplied to each with one maintaining a temperature of 1000 degF and the other 400 degF.
I submitted that in this scenario because both plates are in a steady state condition maintaining their temperatures from external electrical power that the cooler plates IR emission WILL NOT be absorbed by the hotter plate. You say this is bad physics so I will take it a step further.
So with the same scenario, I will raise the temperature of the 400 degF plate to 1000 degF so it has the same radiating temperature as the original plate. So now we have two plates facing each other, radiating their Planck BB spectrum at each other. According to you, both plates have to ab-sor-b each others “back radiation” to validate your idea of physics. If this actually happens, it means both plates have no cooling capability ( emission is cooling ) at 1000 degF because each is ab-sor-bing the others emission spectrum completely. The temperature of each plate then doubles and keeps increasing because there is no cooling as constant power is applied to produce a fixed temperature. So we get an infinitely large temperature increase for each plate because of ascending “back radiation” curves that grow with no change in electrical energy supplying it. Sounds like a perpetual motion machine to me, getting energy from a black hole somewhere that supplies infinite energy. How do you explain this if your version of physics is true?
Regarding Roy’s experiment: It is totally different. We have ONE power source heating a black surface with ( I think) are IR heat lamps. Temperature of the black surface increases to some value, then stabilizes with the cooling rate the IR emission from the surface can establish with the environment. Then Roy exposes it to the bed of ice. ( assumed emissivity of 1 just as in the case of the cover) This will cause emission from the hot surface to get absorbed by the ice and the ice will not re-radiate much or any back to the black surface because the IR abs-orp-tion by the ice is converting energy to melting it ( heat of fusion ). This causes an immediate change in back radiation from the environment to the hot surface as its TOTAL emission is increased markedly and exceeds the ab-sor-ption of IR energy that the lamps are capable of providing. Result is the temperature of the hot surface drops. Next Roy covers the ice with a white painted cover ( emissivity again claimed 1 ). This immediately stops the emission from getting a non responsive re-emission as in the case of the ice and the radiation now ab-sorb-ed by the cover is immediately being re-radiated back to the hotter black plate by what has to be an increasing temperature of the cover. So now we have a part of the energy being emitted by the hot black plate being re-absorbed by it from the ice cover.
Does this cause the plate to re-warm? You’re not stupid enough to believe this are you? The only thing changing the radiating environment of the hot plate was increase “back radiation” to it by switching from ice ( which was continuously ab-sor-bing all of it ) to a surface that heats immediately and re-radiates part of the energy back to the plate. This is still COOLING, not warming, but at a reduced rate.
The temperature of the plate will then increase again NOT BECAUSE OF “BACK RADIATION” OR GETTING RADIATION FROM A COLDER BODY! The reason the hot plates temperature rose again is because the lamps are still providing the heating energy source and now are able to restore ab-sorp-tion over emission to the plate with the emitting power they are capable of providing ( which obviously was less than what the plate was emitting to the ice when it was exposed.)
All due respect, but I don’t need a lecture in physics from you. I am well versed in the general aspects of it. You on the other hand seem to want to claim some sort of expertise in physics over my understanding of it but haven’t demonstrated with your responses that you have mastered it or understand it very well. And if you think I’m wrong and you have more expertise, then we could start with you giving a real or full name and background to see how well versed you are educated in it compared to a meteorologist like myself.
You demonstrated up thread that you don’t understand how to use the radiation chart you provided to me and claimed your calculation was to demonstrate the effect from CO2 as part of the GHE.
“Then Roy exposes it to the bed of ice. ( assumed emissivity of 1 just as in the case of the cover)”
Chuck’s comprehension needs to be improved. Dr. Spencer does not assume an emissivity of the ice (search on ice and emissivity.)
Here’s what Dr. Spencer actually writes about emissivity:
“very high infrared emissivity paint…the paint appears to have an IR emissivity close to 1.0”.
Chuck correctly writes: “The only thing changing the radiating environment of the hot plate was increase “back radiation” to it by switching from ice..”
Yes thereby raising entropy consistent with 2LOT, no perpetual motion since “to a surface that heats immediately and re-radiates part of the energy back to the plate. This is still COOLING, not warming, but at a reduced rate.” Just as Dr. Spencer concludes: “There is no violation of the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics in the experiment.”
Because universe entropy increased in this real process and there was no perpetual motion.
Ball4: “Because universe entropy increased in this real process and there was no perpetual motion.”
Me: This is just another example of how you try and confuse the reader. Here, you mixed up the steady state temperatures of 2 plates receiving a constant source of power in my example and then claimed I applied this to Roy Spencer’s experiment.
You are the ultimate dissembler and obfuscationist. You do this in every response if it doesn’t agree with your myopic view of the world with respect to the IPCC’s bible on climate. And it IS a bible. Environmental religion based upon the same stupid responses you give that cannot be defended except through appeal to “authority” which professes only those who agree with your theology are correct. Real science be damned.
I would be shocked if you could identify yourself as someone not connected to the climate racket through academia. Your responses fit this to a tee.
“if it doesn’t agree with your myopic view of the world with respect to the IPCC’s bible on climate.”
Let me remind Chuck it was Chuck that referred readers to an IPCC report not me. I do not refer to IPCC ARs like Chuck, I prefer to refer readers to actual experiments, published papers with observational data such as Loeb 2018 and published meteorology texts. It is Chuck that writes epistles on atm. theology according to Chuck alone without ref. to actual experiment or published sources.
Chuck,
‘I submitted that in this scenario because both plates are in a steady state condition maintaining their temperatures from external electrical power that the cooler plates IR emission WILL NOT be absor*bed by the hotter plate.’
No that’s clearly false, and doesnt agree with known laws of radiative heat transfer.
Look, Chuck, the rad heat transfer equation has heat flow between hot and cold objects (H,C) proportional to TH^4 – TC^4.
If only TC is raised, clearly the equation indicates the flow of heat will be reduced.
How can you explain that? Does the hot object ‘know’ that it should reduce the heat flow?
Of course it doesn’t know.
It keeps emitting the same amount while receiving and abs*orbing more from the cold object. The NET flow is thus reduced.
A large disparity between the state of ice in the western and eastern Arctic is evident. This may be related to geothermal activity in the eastern Arctic.
https://images.tinypic.pl/i/00968/a45jn2bqvhh9.png
ren, Wrong again, The open area along the coast of Norway and Russia is due to the inflow of warmer water from the high latitude North Atlantic. It’s called the Norwegian Current and is a northward branch of the waters from the Gulf Stream.
E. Swanson, how can “may be related” be wrong?
Are you claiming there is absolutely, positively NO geothermal activity in or near eastern Arctic?
Gordon Robertson says:
July 13, 2018 at 7:15 PM
Robertson, you name not only me and Rose idiots, but also anyone condradicting your lies.
I wrote:
“But if you now perform an averaging of all stations worldwide into e.g. 2.5 degree grid cells, the overweight of (not only) CONUS disappears: instead of having about 7000 US stations competing with 14000 stations worldwide, you move to about 170 grid cells competing with about 2000. The same happens with lots of other corners (Europe, Japan, Canada, etc).”
And you answer with your usual nonsense
“You are talking total theory. In reality, NOAA used to have 6000 reporting stations globally and now they have less than 1500. They fabricate the data for over 4500 stations in a climate model.
The numbers you are crunching in Excel do not exist in the real world because they are not used.”
Firstly, Robertson, nobody was talking about NOAA in the comment.
But your ignorance, your boastfulness, your hatred: all that makes you unable to understand what you read.
*
The USHCN record maintained by NOAA, which is the base of John Christy’s Fig. 5 upthread, consists of in the sum 1221 stations (he used 1114 of them).
Thus if I understand you right, you pretend that the remaining less than 300 are all what NOAA uses for the rest of the world, don’t you?
Where is your proof for that? Why are you lying all the time, Robertson?
*
More and more it becomes evident to me that while e.g. ‘Bindidon’ is a pseudonym, ‘Gordon Robertson’ is an utterly faked name.
In the last couple of weeks overall oceanic sea surface temperatures are down, Antarctica is having wicked cold, as well as South Africa. In the meantime the Arctic N. of 80 degrees latitude has below normal summer temperatures and to top it off year 2018 is running colder then year 2017 with the month of July to make that difference even more apparent.
As I have said for many months this is the transitional year. Say goodbye to the fake AGW.
Low solar moderated by a weakening geo magnetic field should result in overall sea surface temperatures to keep trending down, while the albedo should increase slightly.
9
See that 9 that is 9 likes overall on the WUWT site. Many agree with me.
Salvatore Del Prete says:
July 14, 2018 at 5:19 AM
See that 9 that is 9 likes overall on the WUWT site. Many agree with me.
Maybe Salvatore, but… WUWT commenter and guest poster Javier, who is together with Leif Svalgaard a real sun expert, recently did not at all.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/06/07/the-approaching-solar-cycle-24-minimum/
First of all who cares.
That said Javier and I agree on much. 80% or so.
I do not however agree with Leif at all. Zero agreement.
South Africa wicked cold?
Sorry Salvatore del Prete: that is really ridiculous.
Sure: in the ‘Sunday Times’ you read horror like
“South African Weather Service forecaster Lulama Themi said the cold front would make landfall in the southern Cape. Areas such as Sutherland will experience ‘cold to very cold’ conditions on Friday.”
And then you go to AccuWeather, searching for Sutherland:
https://www.accuweather.com/en/za/sutherland/299901/weather-forecast/299901
Please, Salvatore. It’s actually a very mild winter there.
fake news Bindidon. Why do you do that?
fake news Bindidon. Why do you do that?
—
Salvatore, I don’t understand you.
Why do you think that a website like accuweather produces fake news?
Pleas google e.g. for ‘coldest place in South Africa’
and you will like me obtain as answer
“Sutherland is the coldest town in South Africa, with an average yearly temperature of 11.3 °C and an average annual minimum temperature of 2.8 °C; although the farm Buffelsfontein holds the official lowest temperature record in the country, of −20.1 °C (−4 °F).”
Does my preferred weather site (I am a French person but live since over 40 years in Germany) also produce fake news, Salvatore?
https://www.wetteronline.de/wetter/suedafrika
https://www.wetteronline.de/wetter/sutherland
https://www.iceagenow.info/once-in-a-century-snow-in-south-africa-video/
Right here in black and white.
Getting defensive already and the cooling has just began!
Gordon
In a closed system, even when a warmer object absorbs IR from a colder one, the warmer object’s temperature and internal energy decreases. The colder object always gains energy at the expense off the warmer object…..which cools. No violation of 2nd law.
*******
I forgot to give a link to the Jan, 2010
monthly update:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2010/02/january-2010-uah-global-temperature-update-0-72-deg-c/
Every object above absolute zero emits radiation which is absorbed by every object in its field of view To calculate an objects temperature you must consider radiation absorbed from every object in its field of view, and subtract the radiation it itself emits. Of course, the radiation the object emits affects the temperature of every other object in its field of view, so that you have an infinite number of iterations required to determine the effect of introducing a new object into an equilibrated system.
pochas…”Every object above absolute zero emits radiation which is absorbed by every object in its field of view….”
Ever studied quantum theory, or the 2nd law of thermodynamics? I agree to the first part of your statement that every body above 0K emits EM but the 2nd part is simply not true.
Your entire comment is restricted to bodies at thermal equilibrium, or to the zany world of blackbody fiction.
Huffnpuff
“E. Swanson is one of those that believes the Earth warms the Sun.
Funny!
Great entertainment, but its NOT science.”
The sun is slightly warmer than would be the case if the earth was displaced by the icy cold of space. You can think of it this way: rate of heat loss is influenced by the difference in temperature between an object and its surroundings. Warmer surroundings = slower rate of heat loss.
I would say, the Moon’s gravitational effect warms Earth more than the Moon radiant effect, and likewise the Earth’s gravitational effect warms the Sun more than Earth’s radiant effect.
And the Moon’s radiant effect warms Earth more than Earth’s radiant effect warms the Sun.
More great humor from Ms Snape, that mysterious bimbo, hiding in the shadows.
While the complaint of “hysteria” is a bit hyperbolic, as are the claims for which the complaint was made, if the quantity and magnitude of maximum temperature records is outpacing those of minimum temperature records, and they are, the average temperature is indisputably rising.
Which time period and location are you cherry-picking, anonymous Slipstick?
You might want to look up the new cold record set on the Greenland ice cap, about this time last year.
But, facts don’t fit your beliefs, huh?
The pattern continues. When huffy is unable to find an argument that refutes someone’s comment (almost always the case, and what we would expect from such a nitwit) he turns to some sort of insult. His version of cut and run. Pathetic.
“More great humor from Ms Snape, that mysterious bimbo, hiding in the shadows.”
More great humor from Ms Snape, that mysterious bimbo, hiding in the shadows, seemingly uneducated, opposed to reality, and unable to enter comments correctly.
Pochas
Were you replying to what I wrote? In any case, by “closed system”, I meant that there are no external variables at play. Just the radiance of two objects in view of each other.
Not directly. This subject gets so much confused comment that I thought I would attempt to shed some light.
https://www.iceagenow.info/italian-forecasters-admit-connection-between-solar-minimum-and-cooling/
They are with my thoughts on the climate.
Chuck
Put your nutty physics to the test:
Place an object next to a thermometer. Then heat the thermometer to a temperature where you think it is no longer able to absorb energy from the now cooler object.
Next, replace the object with a similar sized block of dry ice. The thermometer would get colder. Why?
If you don’t think the thermometer is able to absorb energy from the original object (too cold) what difference would an even colder object make?
S,
In either case, in the absence of an external heat source, the thermometer will drop to absolute zero.
I suppose you forgot to mention your secret hidden climatological heat source of infinite capacity, did you?
Or is there some other piece of similar stupidity on which you rely?
Instead of posing irrelevant and pointless gotchas, why not learn some physics – real, not the climatological pseudoscientific variety.
You are stupid and ignorant, if you believe that reducing the amount of energy reaching a thermometer causes its temperature to increase. Foolish and deluded into the bargain!
Off you go, now. Try and find a scientific description of this GHE, if you can. Maybe you could start with “The GHE is a natural phenomenon which is observed when . . .”, or something similar. Fat chance!
Cheers.
snape…”Put your nutty physics to the test:”
Have you ever contemplated doing real science rather than speculating via thought experiments?
Snape: I don’t have time to respond to every nutty post by you. Just read my responses to Norman and E Swanson.
Your comprehension of what I said to them is about zero and this post makes absolutely no sense.
El Nino what El Nino?
In the meantime AGW LOVERS overall sea surface temperatures continue to fall now less then .12c deviation from 1981-2010 means in contrast to around +.35c above those means last summer.
July looking even colder then previous months thus far.
We will see which theory is right.
Pochas
I agree with you.
I am honored.
Huffy
It’s hard for you to articulate an argument, isn’t it?
Have you tried a gardening blog?
Now that we are getting into the part of the year that really counts for the Arctic ice – summer – the Arctic sea ice is running above the 10 year average according to the National Ice Center.
https://www.natice.noaa.gov/ims/images/sea_ice_only.jpg
The global warming alarmists will always point to the below average sea ice extent in the winter as an argument for human-caused global warming. But the melting occurs in the summer, and that is when you really need to look to see if the Arctic ice is indeed melting away to oblivion as the advocates say it is. During the past 10 years, it appears the summertime Arctic sea ice minimum is stabilizing, much to the dismay of those who are promoting the idea that the polar ice is melting and coastal communities will drown!
Rob…”The global warming alarmists will always point to the below average sea ice extent in the winter as an argument for human-caused global warming”.
All I know is there was 10 feet of ice at the North Pole in January of this year and that depth of ice in salt water requires serious cold climate.
Still 2 million square kilometers below the 1980s average and lower than the 1990s average as well as the 2000s average.
So a call that it is stable would be premature.
As it spent the majority of this year below the 2010s average.
@Ball4,
Robert G. Brown is teaching in Beaufort during the summer so we will meet for coffee in September.
Another amazing colleague in the Duke physics department is Nicola Scafetta and his office used to be directly above mine in the Duke Free Electron Laser Laboratory.
Nicola is still publishing papers on climate science:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicola_Scafetta
https://arxiv.org/abs/1806.02320
https://arxiv.org/abs/1806.02319
Nicola has presented evidence that suggest that climate on earth is driven more by orbital mechanics that CO2. While he makes much more sense than “Consensus” climate scientists I am not yet convinced.
Here is a comment that contains some useful information. Sadly the Caballero link seems to be dead and that was (IMHO) the best of them.
https://climateofsophistry.com/2017/08/25/the-problem-with-climate-alarm-skeptics/#comment-30364
cam…”Nicola has presented evidence that suggest that climate on earth is driven more by orbital mechanics that CO2″.
Something caused the Little Ice Age and the Medieval Warm Period before it.
“climate on earth is driven more by orbital mechanics…”
Which means gravitational effects of the planets on the sun (the solar cycles), and together with the moon, on the oceanic and atmospheric circulations on the earth. These two modes have developed a synergistic resonance which enhances their individual effects.
gc 10:42 pm, your ref. to Robinson & Catling 2013 has more fundamental, experimental physics than anything RGB or Scaffetta has written in your links provided. R&C13 section S.2 for the grey infrared differential optical depth across a thick atm. layer with N distinct sources of opacity (various absorbing gases) eqn. S12 will need to be consistent with anything others correctly write on the subject or discuss over coffee.
Again, R&C eqn.s S12, S14, s16 are fully consistent with Caballero text and inherent in the N&Z published paper fit constants from observational global surface temperatures (GMAT, Ts) of the various solar system objects.
I find pressure based theories much more plausible than the Arrhenius (1896) theory that suggests that trace gases dominate.
I am having some trouble finding a link to the Caballero notes that still works but it seems you have found one.
I was so impressed with the Robinson & Catling paper that I arranged to meet with Tyler Robinson a couple of years ago. I also met his wife who has done some amazing research on ants (blew my mind). Can you imagine labeling ants in order to track their behavior as individuals?
Thinks of ants with numbers on their backs like football players!
R&C13 is pressure based also as IR opacity is a function of total pressure in the thick layer as well as a function the grey opacity of the several N gaseous absorbers. See their S19. I downloaded the Caballero pdf when it was available.
Rob Mitchell
Summer melting can be normal, but if there is a trend where less and less reforms each winter, arctic ice will decline. That seems to be what Is happening.
S,
On the other hand, if there is a trend where more and more . . .
If a bicycle had an extra wheel it would be a tricycle, too.
Foolish fellow – do you really believe you can predict the future by endlessly reanalysing historical observations?
I wish you luck. You’ll need it, I surmise.
Cheers.
“That contradicts the 2nd law since it claims heat must be transferred from a colder body to a warmer body.”
Help me out Mr Robertson. I can boil a cup of water in my microwave, but the microwave is cooler than the water. How can this occur?
nurse…”Help me out Mr Robertson. I can boil a cup of water in my microwave, but the microwave is cooler than the water. How can this occur?”
If you think that’s true, why not bypass the safety switch and stick your hand in there? Better still, stick your head in there.
That was very helpful. I can stick a stick in there and it still remains cool.
So where is the supposedly “hotter” source that transfers heat to my water?
nurse…”So where is the supposedly “hotter” source that transfers heat to my water?”
Try the magnetron that generates the microwaves. Better still, stick your head in there as suggested and see if the microwaves warm the water in your brain.
I have already explained in detail how microwaves warm water, you must have been absent that day.
EM in the microwave spectrum operates in the same way as all EM. It is emitted by electrons in a magnetron cavity when the electrons are accelerated by voltages. It is also absorbed by electrons in substances like water, causing the water molecule to vibrate. The vibration produces heat.
Insulators like glass and microwave-approved dishes, have different atomic structures and the electrons in the atoms are not free to vibrate. If you place a metal spoon in the oven, it will heat up and possibly spark. That’s because the microwave EM produces eddy current in the metal, which are current produced by excited electrons running in short circuits in metal.
With water, the EM excites the electrons in the water molecule, causing the molecule to rotate rapidly due to a charge imbalance.
This is not about heat transfer from a hotter body to a cooler body, it’s about the effect of EM on electrons in conductors and insulators.
Is it time to post pictures of what CO2 lasers can do to cold steel?
Posting in parts to isolate bad words.
binny…”Firstly, Robertson, nobody was talking about NOAA in the comment”.
All the surface data emanates from one source, GHCN. That’s right, Had-crut, NOAA, and GISS all draw their data from GHCN.
There is an excellent an.aly.sis of the situation here:
https://chiefio.wordpress.com/2012/06/20/summary-report-on-v1-vs-v3-ghcn/
part 2….An excerp-t…
“For example, GIStemp computes 16000 grid cells. Yet there were only 1280 currently active thermometers in GHCN v2, so the present value of 14,000+ grid boxes were a polite fiction. A creation of the GIStemp computer program based on other cells up to 1200 km away. Hardly a clean anomaly process; comparing one fiction in the present to another fiction in the past. Fictional values created by homogenizing the data and splicing together many thermometer records that often themselves contain values created by comparison and adjustments in the homogenizing process”.
part 3….
NOAA does the same. It manufactures and fabricates data based on phantom (synthesized) data derived from a few genuine surface stations. That’s the reference in quotes above to data being artificially derived from stations up to 1200 km away.
Not only that, NOAA goes back in the historical record and amends it based on its fabricated data.
part 4…
The entire GHCN record is fiction because it has been amended and re-written using different thermometer data between versions. It has also been fudged retroactively. Since the anthropogenic global warming theory is based on GHCN, it is fiction as well. According to the article above, all the claimed warming can be explained by error in and manipulations of the GHCN record.
I have supplied you plenty of evidence to reason that NOAA, GISS, and Had-crut are manipulating science in a derogatory manner. They are run by arrogant people with large egos. If you refuse to see that, there’s nothing I can do, or care to do. However, when you come onto this blog and insult the blog owner using manipulated data, and he is only trying to educate the public as to the excesses of climate alarmists, I get defensive.
go figure…the entire comment would not post but cutting it into parts allowed it to post.
Good response, Gordon. Arrogance and large egos definitely driving the AGW nonsense. But above that is the hoards of public money funding these obnoxious gems in the universities. That is coming primarily from the left wing political base but thee is blame to be shared by both.
The objective is to use this rotted and unproven hypothesis to tax and regulate the energy sector, in essence taking it over by political force through government just as what is attempting to be done with health care.
The only item that matters is where the climate goes from here. If the cooling trend continues that is it for AGW.
https://twitter.com/BigJoeBastardi/status/1018341106843639808
http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/meant80n.uk.php
Notice the lack of warming in the high Arctic. Global warming? Right.
Basic physics , Salvatore.
Any heat carried above 80N encounters floating ice and is absorbed as latent heat of fusion. This melts the surface of the ice.
The latent heat of fusion is about 80 times greater than the specific heat of water. Enough heat to melt 1kg of ice would raise 1kg of water by 80C.
The result is that temperatures above 80N will not rise much above 0C until most of the ice is gone, regardless of global warming elsewhere.
Just as your gin and tonic stays cold until all the ice melts.
entropic…”Any heat carried above 80N encounters floating ice…”
How does heat get carried above 80N, except maybe in the brief Arctic summer? I would think solar radiation during that window would account for most of the heating.
Entropic man gets it wrong, as usual.
Years ago, Arctic temps got above freezing in the summer, but all the ice was NOT gone.
Silly anonymous clowns can never be believed.
Gordon Robertson
Three main sources of heat for the high Arctic.
Solar insolation as you mention.
Weather systems bringing warmer air from lower latitudes.
Ocean currents bringing warmer water under the ice from lower latitudes.
The warmer water melts the ice from below. Warmer air and insolation melt the surface.
The climate is changing and it is not in the direction AGW predicts. All of the indicators are down. I have said if low average value solar parameters are met following 10+ years of sub solar activity in general modified by the geo magnetic field in sync with solar that a more significant climate impact would occur.
My theory is so easy to understand. Not some long winded complicated contradictory theory full of outs and put off to some meaningless time in the future.
It says in a sentence or two that very low solar modified by the geo magnetic field will result in global cooling due to a decrease in overall sea surface temperatures (less UV light) and a slight increase in the albedo (due to an increase in major explosive volcanic activity ,increase in global cloud/snow coverage.
That due to an increase in galactic cosmic rays, tied to a very weak solar wind/AP index.
It is easy to understand and it says this year is the transitional year.
“The climate is changing and it is not in the direction AGW predicts. All of the indicators are down.”
More consistent with observations & defn.s: The climate is changing & in the direction and magnitude added unnatural CO2ppm predicted back in 1938 through 2013. The monthly UAH T indicators for weather are down for 2018. We’ll know if the climate continues as similarly predicted by added unnatural CO2 ppm in direction and magnitude around 2013+75=2088 when the shorter term ENSO et. al. cycles are about neutral anomaly on the then 30 year T means.
What will be happening in year 2088 AD [and before this]?
It seems all people in the supreme court will be dead.
Trump can’t be president, as he will also be dead and Clinton will also be gone, and I have no plans of being around.
Will the US have become, great again? Will Europe resemble the middle east? China should still be in the middle of their great plans of their future.
It seems that by that much time, Africa might doing quite well, if continue to be: Rejecting carbon colonialism:
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/07/14/rejecting-carbon-colonialism/
China will have burnt all their coal, perhaps couple decade before 2088.
I think we could be mining the Moon and having settlements on Mars by 2088, and could started mining lunar water by 2030 AD.
But we don’t yet know whether, lunar water is minable. Or know when lunar water might minable. If might not be minable by 2030, but by 2040, it “becomes minable”. Or we might find somewhere else which has minable water in space, because it is much better, could never mine lunar water.
If we start mining lunar water by or before 2030 AD, then it seems their will be much interest by all nations, to have lunar bases.
Europe could get quite interested in doing this, and as result might not become like middle east. China would definitely have lunar bases, if there is lunar water mined by 2030 AD.
Other than space and living on Mars, what about things related to “internet”- will it change politics. Will change schooling? Will it change work?
In terms of energy, it seems in couple decades, methane hydrates in the ocean might become minable. And fracking will be global.
So natural gas will be more broadly used, and could even stop China form burning all it’s coal.
Ball4: For a guy full of contradiction your doublespeak about CO2 continues here. Did you ever test the claim by the Bern model used by the IPCC that the residence time for CO2 in the atmosphere is many centuries?
You just got done telling me and Gordon that we never demonstrated what we said with experiments like Spencer and E Swanson but then applied my hypothetical to those results like you always do to confuse the reader and do not apply.
If you use the C14 isotope from atmospheric CO2 that was released during the atmospheric nuclear weapons tests conducted the then USSR and USA in the 1960’s, it was determined the residence time for those isotopes of Co2 were 14 years and less for natural carbon C12.
That makes the claim that the rise of atmospheric CO2 is solely the result of human CO2 emissions false. The results from modeling the ACTUAL isotopes involved proves you are wrong with your phony IPCC bible because the Bern assumptions fail the equivalence principle in physics.
That is something you should know being in academia, but like I said, you guys are a closed circle of phonies trying to defend the indefensible hypothesis you front. You are a cafeteria style scientist, selectively using only the parts of what is established that support your inconsistent claims that fail if you apply science to the whole picture. The Oz machines ( climate models ) are frequently what is used to hide behind the racket with. ( Hey, its the best we got so inpirical results and real data that contradict model output can’t possible be correct.)
Here is some reading for you. Like you say, get back to us when you digest things proper.
https://edberry.com/blog/climate-physics/agw-hypothesis/preprint-a-fatal-flaw-in-global-warming-science/
Like that idiot David Appell, I am expecting your response to be that Dr. Ed Berry is a denier, runs a denier site and therefore his scientific analysis and conclusions don’t count. Prove me wrong.
Chuck, I have not read enough of Ed Berry’s work to comment on it.
Again, I don’t refer to IPCC ARs as you do, I rely on proper experimental evidence, observational data and meteorology text books. No, I have never tested the Bern model and I have not researched how one would do so.
Ball4:
“Again, I dont refer to IPCC ARs as you do, I rely on proper experimental evidence, observational data and meteorology text books.”
Me: Well that is a load of hooey! Where did you get this idea from if it wasn’t from the Bern model? It is right in the IPCC reports that you regularly referenced to me and it was never tested:
Ball4 : ” More consistent with observations & defn.s: The climate is changing & in the direction and magnitude added unnatural CO2ppm predicted back in 1938 through 2013.”
Me: “unnatural” CO2 is considered human emissions. And you agree with Bern and the IPCC if you are claiming ( which you are ) that atmospheric levels of CO2 are rising solely from human emissions and the Bern model was NEVER tested but yet, you accepted it and then claim incorrectly that the Spencer and Swanson experiments prove me wrong, which they don’t ( not the same thing as my hypothetical ) and then further claim you rely on data that is validated with observation.
These statements of your prove you are a hypocrite in addition to misapplying my hypothetical to those experiments by Spencer and E Swanson.
“Where did you get this idea from if it wasn’t from the Bern model?”
From the measured atm. CO2 ppm reported around the world for multidecades.
“It is right in the IPCC reports that you regularly referenced to me…”
Talk about hooey, I have not ever referenced an IPCC report to Chuck or anyone that I can recall other than Chuck’s ref. It is Chuck started referencing the IPCC annual reports. I do claim correctly that the Spencer and Swanson experiments prove Chuck wrong about back radiation though and effectively since as I pointed out you now boldly change & have at least in part written correctly about back radiation, now in accord with experiment. Good work.
Ball4: “I have not ever referenced an IPCC report to Chuck or anyone that I can recall other than Chucks ref. It is Chuck started referencing the IPCC annual reports. I do claim correctly that the Spencer and Swanson experiments prove Chuck wrong.”
Me: You most certainly have referenced IPCC reports and in many places to me on this blog. I was the one who initially referenced something entirely different, using the NAS report from 2005 that gives a 50 year equalization time for the ocean response to an RF such as from CO2.
And Spencer and Swanson’s experiments do not prove anything with respect to my hypothetical. You deliberately misapplied those experiments to my hypothetical which uses 2 power supplies to maintain temperature on 2 plates. Swanson and Spencer did not do this which means their results do not apply to my hypothetical or claims about back radiation.
More obfuscation and more dissembling by you.
Chuck July 9 5:57 pm: “The OLR graphs at climate4you were prepared by Dr.Ole Humlum, a climate research scientist. The OHC data from NOAA”
Talk about obfuscation – that data is ref.d from IPCC WG1AR5 Ch3 from 2013 as I pointed out earlier. Chuck is the commenter using IPCC reports not me.
“And Spencer and Swanson’s experiments do not prove anything with respect to my hypothetical.”
The experiments prove your hypothetical conclusions wrong as you will find out if you actually run your experiment properly. Run the experiment.
Chuck Wiese says:
If you use the C14 isotope from atmospheric CO2 that was released during the atmospheric nuclear weapons tests conducted the then USSR and USA in the 1960s, it was determined the residence time for those isotopes of Co2 were 14 years and less for natural carbon C12.
That makes the claim that the rise of atmospheric CO2 is solely the result of human CO2 emissions false.
No. The anthropogenic argument relies on the fact that plants have a preference for lighter isotopes, not on 14C. Plants preferentially take up 12C, and when they decay, the fossil fuels created are also heavier in 12C than 13C. Thus when we burn fossil fuels the 13C/12C ratio in the atmosphere should be decreasing, which is observed.
Chuck Wiese says:
If you use the C14 isotope from atmospheric CO2 that was released during the atmospheric nuclear weapons tests conducted the then USSR and USA in the 1960s, it was determined the residence time for those isotopes of Co2 were 14 years and less for natural carbon C12.
That makes the claim that the rise of atmospheric CO2 is solely the result of human CO2 emissions false.
Prove it. With data.
—
Ed Berry’s work is wrong. I’ve shown where and how several times on his blog, but he censors that science. That’s hardly a show of confidence.
Every time I ask Chuck Wiese to prove something, he responds with (and only with) name calling. Never any science.
Chuck Wiese says:
https://edberry.com/blog/climate-physics/agw-hypothesis/preprint-a-fatal-flaw-in-global-warming-science/
Here is my June 26th comment on EdBerry.com that Ed would not allow to appear:
===============================================
Ed wrote:
“Natures CO2 emissions are 21 times greater than human CO2 emissions.”
And how does Nature’s CO2 sink compare to human CO2 emissions?
—
Come on, Ed, if it was all as basic and simple as you’re trying to imply, scientists would have said so 100-150 years ago. No one is claiming that human CO2 acts differently in the atmosphere than does natural CO2 — that’s a strawman argument. (Though there are isotopic differences that matter elsewhere).
What you’re missing are the complexities of the carbon cycle. A CO2 molecule can leave the atmosphere, but a different one from land or the ocean can replace it. The atmosphere by itself is not a closed carbon system, like water behind a dam is, with its one simple source and its one simple sink. Carbon flows not just into and out of the atmosphere, but it flows entirely outside the atmosphere too, which in turn affects how the atmosphere responds. Carbon is flowing all over the place, on inherently different time scales, and without accounting for that you’re not going to represent reality.
Harde published a claim much like yours last year:
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0921818116304787
The rebuttal paper by Kohler et al
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0921818117301364
was so thorough and convincing that the journal’s editors published an editorial on the mistakes that led to the publishing of Harde’s paper:
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0921818117306586
It is extremely rare for a journal to publish such an editorial response, because they realized the error in publishing the Harde study.
=============================================
And let’s note that Ed Berry can’t get his paper published. He’s been trying for most of a year now. He won’t, unless it’s in a predatory journal who will publish anything as long as the author pays them enough money.
–My theory is so easy to understand. Not some long winded complicated contradictory theory full of outs and put off to some meaningless time in the future.–
It seems the low solar activity is largely about future expectation of solar activity in future. Or the pattern we had, suggest more to come. And one could say the depth of current min will occur in a year or so.
So in terms of “fireworks” a date a year from now, might be a time of the “excitement”. And we could have decades of lower solar activity following this.
But say it’s wrong, say within next several years, it begins to look like we might returning to the solar activity of the middle of 20th century.
And instead now being the point it all begins, maybe it “really began” was at the start of “the Pause” [about couple decades ago].
But one could also it has not really started yet, because we have not yet had the volcanic activity, which is suppose to be part of this. When will that start? This year? In another 5 years, a decade from now, that begins.
Anyhow, in terms of soon, it seems we might return to “the Pause”.
But I don’t have any prediction about volcanic activity in near future, and this seems a important aspect of “when it starts”.
It has already started in my opinion. In my opinion solar activity will be sub par for the foreseeable future. Current levels now ( the low average value solar parameters) could last another year or maybe two.
The geo magnetic field is weakening which will compound given weakening solar effects. They are both promoting more galactic cosmic rays.
Volcanic activity should be picking up from here. I wish we had more accurate albedo information.
If solar activity were to suddenly become active again then the cooling will stop with lag times just like when it started with lag times.
We will be finding out much, now-next few years.
“I wish we had more accurate albedo information.”
We do. Albedo is measured continuously all year by the various CERES instruments on board several satellites. Read Loeb 2018 for the latest albedo trends in the UAH T series era.
Next few years is still weather Salvatore. There was not much change in albedo cycling around 0 anomaly 2004-2012 but albedo has been measured slightly but meaningfully down trend from 99.1 mean since 2000 to latest late ~2016.
gbaikie…”And instead now being the point it all begins, maybe it really began was at the start of the Pause…”
Since the 2016 EN we have returned to temperatures indicative of ‘the Pause’.
Don’t like that term or even ‘hiatus’. Both are alarmist terms that indicate a temporary situation.
Earth’s average ocean temperature is about 3.5 C.
What would it be like if average ocean was about 4 C?
And does anyone think warming the entire ocean by about .5 C is
possible within 200 years?
Earth’s polar oceans have been much warmer than today. So warm that there was no ice at the north pole and alligators lived in around modern Spitzbergen:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleocene%E2%80%93Eocene_Thermal_Maximum
You just have to go back to the last interglacial period,
Eemian:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eemian
To get the ocean warmer than 4 C.
And it’s thought it reached ocean temperature of something like 5 C
And warmest period of Eemian remained within in our icebox climate.
The Eocene Thermal Maximum was tens of millions of years before Earth entered an icebox climate, and before that period and after it, ocean were about 10 C with the Eocene optimal being a hothouse climate [with oceans getting warmer than 10 C].
Or the oldest ice in Antarctica is less few millions years old, and as the wiki graph indicates, around 35 million years ago, there was Antarctic glaciation, then it thawed, and we had re-glaciation of antarctic, which started about 12 million years ago.
As you correctly point out we are living in an Ice Age and yet Alarmists try to tell us that a we should fear a warmer climate.
The title of this post is:
“Summer Causes Climate Change Hysteria”
I would go further by suggesting that almost anything causes hysterics among 97% of “Climate Scientists”.
gbaikie…”What would it be like if average ocean was about 4 C?”
Another question might be, what is the normal temperature for the oceans?
I keep harping on about the Little Ice Age, but during the LIA 400 years of sub-normal temperatures, how much did the mean ocean temperature drop? How much CO2 did a cooling ocean suck from the atmosphere?
The IPCC goes on about pre-Industrial temperatures but at no time do they acknowledge that both the pre Industrial and the Industrial eras happened during the LIA, when global temps were 1C to 2C below normal.
Alarmists make it sound as if the oceans are currently warming due to anthropogenic activity. Given the vast size of our oceans, and cooling from the LIA, I doubt that they have recovered since 1850.
“Gordon Robertson says:
July 16, 2018 at 2:03 PM
gbaikieWhat would it be like if average ocean was about 4 C?
Another question might be, what is the normal temperature for the oceans?”
We are in ice box climate and that is due to “geology”- or arrangement continental land masses AND unusual “mountain building”. And unusual mountain building is thought to be the reason we have unusually low levels of CO2- due to weathering/erosion of “new mountains”.
The range of ocean temperature within our icebox climate or Ice Age is about 1 to 5 C. Most of time is in glacial periods, and normal temperature during glacier period, I would guess is 2 to 3 C. And during interglacial period, it might around 4 C.
It doesn’t seem to get above 5 and 5 C could be unstable, and I would guess the around 1 C is unstable during glacier periods.
Or I don’t think much time is spent at around 1 C or around 5 C.
But I would say we have unusual geological activity and unusual continental arrangement and without it, or in more normal conditions, I would say 10 C ocean is normal.
“I keep harping on about the Little Ice Age, but during the LIA 400 years of sub-normal temperatures, how much did the mean ocean temperature drop? How much CO2 did a cooling ocean suck from the atmosphere?”
If mean ocean temperature is volume of all ocean average temperature
as far as I know during LIA this temperature was still about 3.5 C.
Or if we assume our oceans are exactly 3.5 C, during LIA it might have been as much a .3 C cooler than the present.
Or it seems possible than over last 300 years, our ocean has warms by as much as .3 C. But .1 C per century is pretty fast warming of the ocean, so I would not say it’s likely.
I tend to think over a few centuries the ocean is not warming or cooling very much but rather the average ocean surface temperature can or would/could be varying by couple of degrees.
But when talking about thousands of years, it seems likely the average volume temperature of the ocean has cooled. Or over last +5000 years there is long term cooling tend [which is slight but apparently measurable] and I would say that is cooling of entire ocean and might as much as .5 C.
Or average ocean temperature limits how warm [or cold] average surface temperature can be and we see from temperature records a bumpy up and down of ocean surface temperature is very short periods of time: month, years, and over decades walking up and down with trends. And that obviously has nothing to do with average volume temperature of entire ocean, and ocean basins have different surface temperature trends.
And fairly small changes in ocean surface temperatures can have large effect upon average air temperature of land, or more specifically on yearly mean average low temperature of land air temperatures.
And of course ocean surface temperatures will effect rainfall [or snowfall].
Gordon Robertson says:
I keep harping on about the Little Ice Age….
Again, the LIA wasn’t global.
“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
Gordon Robertson says:
Since the 2016 EN we have returned to temperatures indicative of the Pause.
Shorter Gordon: if you ignore the warming, it hasn’t warmed.
Brilliant.
http://www.climatedepot.com/2018/07/13/global-cooling-global-temps-have-dropped-by-0-65-c-since-2016/
With this year being the transitional year. Down we go.
will 2018 be cooler than 2009?
Or say 1992 to 1994?
gbaikie…”will 2018 be cooler than 2009?”
Not to be nit-picky, but was it not 2008 (mid 2008) that was the colder, La Nina year? I’m asking because surface stations tend to have different views.
On the UAH graph on this site, 2014 was an unremarkable year yet NOAA claimed it as the hottest year ever. Mind you, they lowered the confidence level to 48% to achieve that claim. Not to be outdone, GISS lowered it further to 38%.
Gordon Robertson says:
On the UAH graph on this site, 2014 was an unremarkable year yet NOAA claimed it as the hottest year ever.
UAH was using a different version in 2014.
Also, NO.AA & GISS are measuring something different from UAH.
Mind you, they lowered the confidence level to 48% to achieve that claim. Not to be outdone, GISS lowered it further to 38%.
You still have no clue what these numbers were about. (They weren’t confidence levels.) Sad.
Mind you, they, both NOAA and GISS calculated those percentages as there is some uncertainty in the measurement of their global average temperatures.
Weather is the day to day variations in the climate.
Climate can change in a few years. Already one can call the current down trend a change in the climate.
The albedo measurements are not dependable. That said albedo should start increasing slightly this year and beyond.
If this down trend in temperatures continues for a few years AGW will no longer be viable. Not that it isn’t already. Every thing this theory is based on can be proven or shown to be wrong.
ENSO is not a climatic factor. ENSO is not part of AGW THEORY stop using it as a crush.
The rise in temperatures out of the Little Ice Age till 2005 was all natural. The climate transitioned out of the Little Ice Age to what we have now in 10 years or less. The climatic shift in the late 1970’s another natural added to the warming. After 2005 the natural factors favoring cooling started , now in year 2018 enough lag time and magnitude of change is in so that cooling should begin and continue moving forward.
July looking to continue the down trend.
Those who favor AGW are unable to see this because they are so engrossed with their theory and will hang on to it probably in some cases forever.
The masses how ever will not embrace AGW and will be much more inclined to believe theories like mine.
Weather is the day to day, month to month, year to year variations in the atmosphere state at certain surface sites and times.
Climate is changes in the observed weather conditions in general over long periods measured in decades. One cannot yet call the current down trend in UAH 2018 weather temperature a change in the climate.
The albedo measurements are dependably in a multidecade downtrend with satellite instrument observed uncertainties at the 95% confidence level to within confidence intervals of +/- 0.19 W/m^2 (Loeb 2018, p. 914, Table 7). That said there is no observed reason albedo should naturally start a trend increasing slightly this decade and beyond.
If this down trend in temperatures continues for a few decades AGW theory will still be viable as it is experiment based. Added CO2 ppm isn’t the only global surface T forcing. Everything on which this theory is based has been proven theoretically, experimentally and observed in nature.
ENSO is not a climatic factor, it is an internal multiyear cycling variable weather factor. ENSO is not part of AGW theory so it is not used as a crutch.
The rise in temperatures out of the Little Ice Age ’till 2005 was partly natural. The climate transitioned out of the Little Ice Age to what we have now over decades from 9+ known, measured natural and unnatural forcings and their ~magnitudes.
The weather in the late 1970’s was another partly natural shift added to climate. After 2000, in the era of the UAH T series, the partly natural factors favoring global climate warming were evident in slightly but meaningfully increased ASW (all-sky +0.35 +/- 0.19 W/m^2); now in year 2018 there is not enough lag time and magnitude of change in so that there is no sign yet of climate cooling beginning and continuing moving forward though weather in 2018 shows a decline in UAH T series.
July may or may not continue the UAH weather T down trend.
Those who understand AGW are able to observe climate change properly because they are so versed on the experimentally based meteorological theory they will hang on to it probably in some cases forever or as long as they continue to have enough global observatories in service to know and understand the global climate changes over multi-decades of measurement.
The masses however will not necessarily embrace AGW as they are not meteorologists, science is not a voting machine since it is a weighing machine, and many informed & critical commenters will be much less inclined to believe completely unobserved climate theories like Salvatore’s.
Ball you do not know what you are talking about.
What a waste of time.
Salvtore Del Prete says:
Climate can change in a few years. Already one can call the current down trend a change in the climate.
No Salvatore.
Go look up how the WMO defines climate.
norman…”The 2nd Law of thermodynmaics does not at all say a photon from a colder object will not be absorbed by warmer object”.
The 2nd law states that specifically. Heat can NEVER be transferred by its own means from a colder body to a warmer body.
If heat could be transferred from a colder body simultaneously to a hotter body while heat was being transferred the other way, that is a contradiction of the statement by Clausius. Clausius stated that heat can NEVER be transferred from a colder body to a warmer body.
If EM from a colder body is absorbed by a warmer body, the warmer body must get hotter. That’s basic quantum theory. You are trying to get around that with a fictitious net heat transfer. There is no such thing, it is a concept you have created out of your misinterpretation of the textbooks you have read.
Nowhere in the work of Clausius does he refer to a net heat transfer without compensation. He does refer to situations as in a modern refrig.e.rator, where heat can be transferred cold to hot as long as it is compensated by a simultaneous transfer from hot to cold. That requires external power, materials, and devices.
Ball4 has claimed an exception to the 2nd law based on entropy, which reveals to me he has no idea as to the meaning of entropy. Entropy is the summation of heat over a process and it must be zero for a reversible process or positive for an irreversible process.
S = integral dQ/T
It can be written as S = q(1/T2 – 1/T1) where T1 is the hotter body. The negative sign indicates direction and in this case heat is being transferred from the hotter body. S can only be zero or positive if T1 > T2. The equation won’t work in the opposite direction since S would be negative.
Gordo (and Chuck Wiese), The advanced text books which discuss thermal radiation heat transfer usually go to excruciating detail to describe the geometry of emission and absorp_tion between two (or more) bodies. Several give as an example the simple case of transfer between two parallel, infinite plates. The resulting equation for plates 1 and 2 becomes:
Q1 = Sigma x (e1 x T1^4 – e2 x T2^4)
where Sigma is the Stefan-Boltzmann constant and e1,e2 are the emissivities of the respective plates.
I’m sure that you recognize that equation, as you’ve posted it before. There’s no distinction as to which plate is hotter and which is cooler. Now you must understand that the texts make it abundantly clear that the second term is the energy emitted by the second plate which is absorbed by the first plate, i.e., BACK RADIATION.
You are arguing with NASA and accepted physics. So far, you’ve offered nothing other than your bold assertions that the standard physics is wrong, based on statements made by scientists more than 150 years ago. I suggest that your obsession is bordering on insanity.
And once again Gordon is wrong writing: “The 2nd law states that specifically. Heat can NEVER be transferred by its own means from a colder body to a warmer body.”
That is simply not Clausius’ fundamental 2nd law statement.
Maxwell and Bolztmann explained after Clausius time how heat CAN be transferred by its own means from a colder body to a warmer body since heat is not EMR.
Ball4 continues to rewrite the laws of physics.
Anonymous trolls are so desperate to propagate their propaganda, they will use any deception necessary.
JD: I have a theory about Ball4. He is the troll who is constantly putting out fires that contradict the environmental religion of AGW by CO2.
You can tell by his posts that he has quite a bit of knowledge about physics and displays this as long as he is not defending AGW religion.
There he conflates, obfuscates, dissembles and distorts to any degree necessary.
I maintain people like this have to remain anonymous because if they were identified as being associated with a university in any position of science they could get in real trouble for making asinine statements like he/she makes on some of his/her posts here and maybe elsewhere.
It’s what these people do. They have to keep a distance between their religion which is what they call “science” to actually having to defend it with a real name and position.
CW, as someone who can do no better than wave one’s hands around, you have no standing to criticize anyone.
You fall for every denier argument in the book. You should be thinking with your brain, not your ideology.
PS: Published anywhere recently?
E. Swanson continues to demonstrate his confusion about radiative heat transfer.
E Swanson: Q1 defines a COOLING rate based upon “back radiation” from one emitter to the other.
Are you suggesting that this means with the use of this equation that “back radiation” warms a body whose temperature is warmer than the body it is absorbing from?
This is sheer idiocy.
I’m not going to explain myself twice to you after just explaining this to Norman. You both misunderstood my original post on this topic and applied it to Spencer’s experiment and yours, which was wrong. Here is what I said to Norman:
“The example I gave was not a valid comparison to what Roy Spencer or E Swanson did. I envisioned two plates with a steady electrical current being supplied to each with one maintaining a temperature of 1000 degF and the other 400 degF.
I submitted that in this scenario because both plates are in a steady state condition maintaining their temperatures from external electrical power that the cooler plates IR emission WILL NOT be absorbed by the hotter plate. You say this is bad physics so I will take it a step further.
So with the same scenario, I will raise the temperature of the 400 degF plate to 1000 degF so it has the same radiating temperature as the original plate. So now we have two plates facing each other, radiating their Planck BB spectrum at each other. According to you, both plates have to ab-sor-b each others back radiation to validate your idea of physics. If this actually happens, it means both plates have no cooling capability ( emission is cooling ) at 1000 degF because each is ab-sor-bing the others emission spectrum completely. The temperature of each plate then doubles and keeps increasing because there is no cooling as constant power is applied to produce a fixed temperature. So we get an infinitely large temperature increase for each plate because of ascending back radiation curves that grow with no change in electrical energy supplying it. Sounds like a perpetual motion machine to me, getting energy from a black hole somewhere that supplies infinite energy. How do you explain this if your version of physics is true?
Regarding Roys experiment: It is totally different. We have ONE power source heating a black surface with ( I think) are IR heat lamps. Temperature of the black surface increases to some value, then stabilizes with the cooling rate the IR emission from the surface can establish with the environment. Then Roy exposes it to the bed of ice. ( assumed emissivity of 1 just as in the case of the cover) This will cause emission from the hot surface to get absorbed by the ice and the ice will not re-radiate much or any back to the black surface because the IR abs-orp-tion by the ice is converting energy to melting it ( heat of fusion ). This causes an immediate change in back radiation from the environment to the hot surface as its TOTAL emission is increased markedly and exceeds the ab-sor-ption of IR energy that the lamps are capable of providing. Result is the temperature of the hot surface drops. Next Roy covers the ice with a white painted cover ( emissivity again claimed 1 ). This immediately stops the emission from getting a non responsive re-emission as in the case of the ice and the radiation now ab-sorb-ed by the cover is immediately being re-radiated back to the hotter black plate by what has to be an increasing temperature of the cover. So now we have a part of the energy being emitted by the hot black plate being re-absorbed by it from the ice cover.
Does this cause the plate to re-warm? Youre not stupid enough to believe this are you? The only thing changing the radiating environment of the hot plate was increase back radiation to it by switching from ice ( which was continuously ab-sor-bing all of it ) to a surface that heats immediately and re-radiates part of the energy back to the plate. This is still COOLING, not warming, but at a reduced rate.
The temperature of the plate will then increase again NOT BECAUSE OF BACK RADIATION OR GETTING RADIATION FROM A COLDER BODY! The reason the hot plates temperature rose again is because the lamps are still providing the heating energy source and now are able to restore ab-sorp-tion over emission to the plate with the emitting power they are capable of providing ( which obviously was less than what the plate was emitting to the ice when it was exposed.)”
Chuck Wiese
I would be careful about calling someone “stupid” when you are peddling a bad idea from Claes Johnson that is totally unsupported by valid physics.
YOU: “So with the same scenario, I will raise the temperature of the 400 degF plate to 1000 degF so it has the same radiating temperature as the original plate. So now we have two plates facing each other, radiating their Planck BB spectrum at each other. According to you, both plates have to ab-sor-b each others back radiation to validate your idea of physics. If this actually happens, it means both plates have no cooling capability ( emission is cooling ) at 1000 degF because each is ab-sor-bing the others emission spectrum completely. The temperature of each plate then doubles and keeps increasing because there is no cooling as constant power is applied to produce a fixed temperature.”
Mr. Wiese you are starting to hurt me with your points. Both plates still have two surfaces not facing each other that radiate away energy! They would not get hotter continuously. The two plates in your situation would both heat up until they got to 1273 F at which point the two surfaces facing away from each other would be at the temperature that radiates away the same amount of energy that is being added.
I am sad you are choosing the bad physics path to present your skepticism. From initial readings of your posts I had hoped you had sound science in your skeptical approach.
Sorry David Appell is right about you. “Climate science needs better skeptics”. I just want to read skeptics that actually use valid physics and not made up PSI or Claes Johnson ideas.
So far you are no presenting any valid or real physics but presenting the opposite.
Talk to the others that know. You reject David Appell. What about Tim Folkerts or Idiottracker. Both are much more knowledgeable than me on physics and both would reject Claes Johnson fantasy physics. Please reject it and read an MIT online notes on heat transfer!
norman…”Chuck Wiese
I would be careful about calling someone stupid when you are peddling a bad idea from Claes Johnson that is totally unsupported by valid physics”.
Norman doesn’t like Claes because he can do math that causes Norman fits. Also, Claes doesn’t hide his contempt for both the GHE and AGW theories, especially back-radiation as a warming agent for the surface.
Claes supports the 2nd law, so in the eyes of Norman, he does not understand valid physics.
Gordon Robertson
You are just plain stupid and wrong.
YOU: “Norman doesnt like Claes because he can do math that causes Norman fits. Also, Claes doesnt hide his contempt for both the GHE and AGW theories, especially back-radiation as a warming agent for the surface.”
No Claes is a Crackpot that doesn’t know what he is talking about. I am not disputing he has math skills. But he is terrible at physics. He is the Father of the fantasy physics skeptics peddle and think is real and true. I guess it does not matter than Claes ideas go totally against all valid science. When you reject science, you need to perform valid experiments to prove everyone is wrong. Playing with math and pretending you know physics does not disprove a thing. It just means there a dumb gullible people like you that will swallow anything regardless of how irrational or ill thought out it is.
Claes is indeed a crackpot. But to people who don’t know any science, he looks like a genius.
Chuck Wiese, Your long post demonstrates your complete lack of understanding of your own model. As Norman points out, in the real world, your 2 plates are going to lose energy via other directions and modes. The back of the plates, even if insulated, will bleed energy thru conduction and convection, thus to maintain the specified temperatures, energy must be continually supplied to each plate. In order to maintain your specified temperatures, some control device must regulate the energy flowing into the plates. That device, which you fail to describe, might be a simple pulse width modulator, like that of a stove element, a thermostat or an electronic control device, such as a PID.
As a result, the control system changes to reflect the interchange of energy between the two plates, perhaps automatically. When you decide to boost the cooler plate to the same temperature as the hotter one, your control device must increase the energy flowing into the cooler plate. When the two temperatures equalize, the controller for the previously hotter plate will have reduced the energy supply to that plate. Of course, the thermal loss from the cooler plate will also have increased via conduction and convection, so the reduction in energy supplied to the hotter plate won’t be as much as the increased input to the previously cooler one.
There’s no violation of the 2nd Law or a perpetual motion device possible. Did you look at my first round of demonstrations using a stove top burner? Better luck next time.
E Swanson: Now here comes your excuses for being wrong. YOU are injecting hyperbolie into my hypothetical that was not there.
Just answer my question and quit adding your own scenario to it that gives you a way out the back door.
Here’s the equation you think applies:
Q1 = Sigma x (e1 x T1^4 e2 x T2^4)
This is a COOLING rate equation that assumes both plates radiate at each other and absorb each others Planck BB spectrums.
I raised the ante to Norman by assuming both plates are connected to an external electrical circuit that supplies the energy to both to maintain 1000 degF.
Now what does this equation say if both plates radiate at each other and absorb each others bb spectrum? It says Q=0! No cooling is permitted by emission but yet continuous power is being added to maintain temperature.
If this scenario is true, then you get a runaway temperature rise by both plates as they continuously absorb the others Planck emission with no change in power input. It ought to be clear to you that this is impossible.
The only time this equation is valid is in an application of temperature difference between two bodies that either represent warming (gain of energy by the colder plate and cooling, loss of energy by the warmer plate.)
Energy transfer by radiation from a cooler plate to warmer when a fixed power supply maintaining temperature is impossible. When both plates have fixed power to maintain different temperature, the warmer plate WILL radiate its energy to the colder plate and raise its temperature to 1000 degF as long as there is available electrical power to maintain the 1000 degF plate temperature.
You could hook up an ammeter to such a circuit and measure the increased load on the hotter plates circuit that is radiating at the colder plate until its temperature reached the temperature of the hotter plate. That would then become the new temperature of both plates, maintained by the increased electrical load of the hotter plate. But at the temperature equilibrium, the plate being supplied electrical energy to maintain 1000 degF compared to the electrical load of 400 degF WILL NOT absorb any back radiation from the plate with the constant lower electrical load. This is the correct form and usage of your equation and the rest of the radiation physics that go with it. Notice that in all phases of application, radiation ab-sor=ption and emission are ALWAYS trying to transfer energy to colder object and space, not the other way around.
Chuck Wiese, You obviously have no clue about Thermal radiant energy transfer. Your scenarios are so full of holes that one could fly a plane thru them. The devil in in the details, as they say.
OK, so you think you can place two plates next to each other, one at 400 F and the other at 1000 F, and nothing will change? How would one go about doing this? Well, one could place the two plates rather far apart in a similar background environment, adjust the current supplied to each to achieve the desired temperatures, then bring them close together. Or, one might place them close together at the start, then power up the first plate to 1000 F, after which switch on the power to the cooler plate, adjusting the power level to produce a temperature to 400 F. The situation becomes even more obvious when they are fired up to 1000 F in sequence.
Either way, I contend that the effect on the 1000 F plate will be an increase in temperature above that 1000 F set point. And I have experimental evidence to back up that claim, as I have demonstrated in two separate realizations. You, having nothing to back up your deviant interpretation of physics, continue to ignore the results of my experiments. All you have given are empty assertions without any connection to the physical world. In science, experimental evidence (and education) eventually wins out over bombast and BS.
E Swanson:
When I first thought of taking two plates and having them radiate at each other with fixed power or temperature by thermostat, I applied the condition that is similar to radio jamming.
If two transmitters are directing RF energy at each other at the same power and wavelength, if you faced them at each other and measured radiating power, you wouldn’t get much energy back from the other opposing waves because of the inverse square law.
But if you shorten the distance between the transmitters or plates, the power density between them would have to increase, so there is more energy to be absorbed by each plate (antenna)
If I was to do this experiment, that’s how I would confirm abs-orp-tion and emission of each others spectrum. As the distance closes, using a thermostat to maintain temperature, the electrical current would drop as the two plates close distance, or without a thermostat, maintaining a constant current would cause the temperature of each plate to rise until it approaches some value close to doubling by the time the plates nearly touch each other with no other losses by conduction. This is the only way you could do the experiment.
In terms of free IR ab-sorp-tion and emission of objects or plates, the equation you gave would apply, but I never took issue with that. My contention is if anyone claims that “back radiation” from a colder source warms a warmer body. It does not. It only can reduce its cooling rate. And in terms of radiating IR energy at opposing plates with constant power or thermostat, you wouldn’t have to separate them too far so as not to be able to measure a temperature or power change.
Chuck Wiese, Your statement of my point of view describing the results of reducing the distance between your two heated plates is about right. But, you continue, stating:
Looks to me like you’ve almost made a big intellectual leap here. What you describe is essentially what I found in my Green Plate Demo and is also what happens with the Greenhouse effect in the atmosphere. The CO2 and other gases slow the rate of cooling from the surface to deep space, the result of which is that the steady state surface temperature must be higher in order to move the energy flowing inward from the Sun back out of the atmosphere.
As for the second part of your comment, about warming due to “back radiation”, look again at my third cookie sheet demo in which I replaced the absorbing/radiating cookie sheet with a thin layer of IR transparent plastic, which removed the IR “back radiation”. The result was that the heated plate was cooler than it was with the cookie sheet in place.
Chuck Wiese says:
My contention is if anyone claims that back radiation from a colder source warms a warmer body. It does not. It only can reduce its cooling rate.
If you reduce the cooling rate of an object, it warms.
“If you reduce the cooling rate of an object, it warms.”
David, this is the kind of language that starts unneeded food fights.
No, the slower cooling rate object still cools but its temperature is increased over that of the object at the original cooling rate.
Law of cooling plots on semi log paper as a straight line; if you reduce the cooling rate at time t1 therefter at each Tn+1 the object’s temperature is increased over the original straight line temperature but the object is still cooling.
Ball4
I think with David Appell’s comment that he was implying that the object, in question, had a constant input energy.
In this case, if the cooling rate is reduced (less energy leaving the object) but the input energy is the same, the object will indeed warm from the previous steady state temperature until it reaches a new steady state temperature that equals the total input energy of the object. It was not stated but he was commenting along the lines of heated plates and such.
Norman, not in the unpowered “no issue” context of Chuck’s “free IR” which is the context David clipped from Chuck. After that in the next sentence Chuck changes to “constant power” terms.
Ball4 says:
No, the slower cooling rate object still cools but its temperature is increased over that of the object at the original cooling rate.
That’s warming the object.
Ball4
It sounds like a semantic debate. On this one I would favor your position over David Appell.
Definition of wamring: “To raise slightly in temperature; make warm:”
If the object was at 100 C in the case of no slowing of cooling rate and after 10 minutes dropped to 80 C, then with slowing the cooling it was at 90 C after 10 minutes. The 90 C is higher than the 80 C but still lower than the initial 100 C. Warming is a verb, an action so you need to move from one state to another. I would only think the object was warming if it increased in temperature in time. If the temperature was still going down with time I would not consider this warming. I am not sure I am correct. Semantics can be a tricky subject.
Ball4 says:
If you reduce the cooling rate of an object, it warms.
David, this is the kind of language that starts unneeded food fights.
No, the slower cooling rate object still cools but its temperature is increased over that of the object at the original cooling rate.
OK, but again it’s a matter of rhetoric, and those are ultimately boring.
For a blackbody in equilibrium with its surroundings, slowing its rate of cooling does lead to it to have a higher temperature. Delta(T)>0.
Putting on a coat reduces your rate of cooling, and as a result you have a higher temperature. Same for insulation in a house. Delta(T)>0.
As Norman says, these are objects with internal energy sources.
For an object without an internal energy source or not in equilibrium with its surroundings, then reducing the rate of cooling does lead to a lower temperature, Delta(T)<0.
E Swanson: In the scenarios describing your experiment and Roy’s, as well as my estimate of what happens in all three is complicated further by the fact that since we are dealing with RF energy in the infrared wavelengths, the simplification of inverse square is not as easy.
The ab-sorp-tion coefficients of CO2 and water vapor are very powerful and they are two constituents lying in between two IR emitting plates or just one that is using a different means to re-radiate energy. Water vapors will ab-sorb IR from an emitting source over all of its ab-sor-bing wavelengths within about 2cm from the source with just an average mixing ratio and CO2 within.1-4 meters between 649-705cm-1 at current concentration.
This suggests to me that in my scenario,both hot plates would develop and offset temperature much higher than radiating IR into transparent space like a radio wave.
So in my case, you may very well not see the inverse square law work very well except for the IR window and ambient background radiation from the plates re-emitted from each plates inverse square. The rest of the power flux would not kick in until you close inside of 4 meters for CO2 and then get within the temperature gradient of the air near each hot plate that re-radiates the absorbed IR from water vapor back at the plate. It will certainly not be as forward as calculating with a transparent medium is.
With Roy, it is another offset temperature for the same reason with his plate and then inverse square for ambient air temperature radiation from CO2 and water vapor to the ice bed plus a possible small reflection near the ice. The return trip just places a cardboard with white paint and emissivity of 1 in the way of the ice to re-radiate ambient water vapor, CO2 and window radiation back to the plate with a slightly shorter inverse square. The difference had to have worked out to around 20 Wm-2 with the cover on vs. off for 3 degC change.
I haven’t read your complete description of your experiment, but if you have a power supply maintaining temperature, because of inverse square again, you could radiate more IR back to the warm plate by placing a cover not too far from the plate that has a near 1 emissivty vs. switching to a transparent window to let the radiation continue in one direction. That could cause warming just like with Roy.
I will caution you and anyone else about these experiments, especially if you are using them to demonstrate how a GHE would work. I know from atmospheric science that it is the hydrological cycle that maintains optical depth, not atmospheric CO2. A good analogy to this in your experiment or Roy’s is to remember that the IR “covers” with perfect emissivity are the same thing in the real world as a cloud.
That being said, you know that clouds block the power supply comparing real world to experiment as you have it set up.
Therefore your experiment or Roy’s does not demonstrate how radiative transfer works in the real world and you should never say that this proves CO2 causes “climate change” or warming in the presence of the hydrological cycle.
“Therefore your experiment or Roys does not demonstrate how radiative transfer works in the real world”
This is another inaccurate statement Chuck as Dr. Spencers experiment was done in the real world with real added clouds to clear sky showing the difference in radiative transfer.
Ball4: “This is another inaccurate statement Chuck as Dr. Spencers experiment was done in the real world with real added clouds to clear sky showing the difference in radiative transfer.”
This is where you go from being an an obfuscationist to a liar. Any experiment mentioned here does not demonstrate reality. Every time you place an IR shield in between your experimental “deep space”, you block your power supply in the real world, which this experiment does not do by assuming the power supply originates in the “ground”, with a “ground” source instead of from a source in deep space.
“this experiment does not do by assuming the power supply originates in the “ground”, with a “ground” source instead of from a source in deep space.”
No Chuck, this experiment does not do so by assuming the power supply originates in the “ground”, with a “ground” source; Dr. Spencer’s experiment om the real atmosphere in his backyard used an irradiance source partly from deep space & the atm. & and one from added night time cirrus cloud. You are just behind in your reading, as usual. Then using the fact that you are behind or difficient in your reading to attack other commenters erroneously.
Won’t work on this site, too many commenters are informed and critical of your antics.
E Swanson: Another thing that I forgot to mention that differentiates these experiments from reality is the FACT that they are conducted within an isothermal space between the emitters.
In the real world, the temperature gradient between the surface and upper troposphere induced by dry and moist convection as well as IR emission from water vapor and CO2 is very large. This will further muddle up these simple models and further up thread was a mention of a “climate model” construction by “pbweather” from Ramanathan and Coakley in 1978 that described how these processes are treated.
Both of these guys knew from the start that it is impossible to solve for the convective component in the troposphere in space and time, so they do stupid things like “assume” a critical lapse rate of dry adiabatic that is triggered as a reset anytime the model produces a different result. They call this a “convective adjustment”, glossing it over like it isn’t that important of a component to solve for compared to the radiative terms. This is complete nonsense. This is admitting they cannot model ANY convective terms, moist or dry, which are critical components in maintaining the surface to space energy balance that then maintains optical depth through the hydrological cycle. Their “assumptions” disconnect their model from reality. It is no wonder these models are screwed up and don’t work but they are lied about by re-initializing at later and later start times for steps forward in time that use fiddle faddle fudge factors to curve fit reality and run their future predictions based upon this.
This is curve fitting, not science and these guys and many like them will get attacked vigorously by those who can scrutinize them (that are not a part of the climate racket protecting grant money, which makes such an action religious blasphemy) in a seminar setting.
Lastly, I also forgot to mention that when I assumed there is no ab-sorp-tion from two enmitting sources at the same temperature, that assumption was based upon the wrong inverse square reduction from both sources. I assumed them to be by mistake, omnidirectional emitters vs. directional so the difference in power reduction through spacing is off by a factor of 4. When I ran those numbers for a directional emitter you still have radiation left to be absorbed by each emitter in both cases ( but not very much) and the directional emission is obviously more. That was a mental exercise initially that I made some assumptions with that are not completely accurate as demonstrated by just running some simple calculations for both.
Ball4: “Dr. Spencers experiment on the real atmosphere in his backyard used an irradiance source partly from deep space & the atm. & and one from added night time cirrus cloud.”
Me :So what? This says nothing about how these radiative interactions change through time to maintain optical depth. This is more obfuscation and dissembling by you, an academic, desperate to defend his environmental religion
Ball4: “You are just behind in your reading, as usual. Then using the fact that you are behind or difficient in your reading to attack other commenters erroneously.”
Me: More dissembling and obfuscation from the guy who is trying to defend a religion by calling it science.
“Wont work on this site, too many commenters are informed and critical of your antics.”
Me: To anyone capable of using real atmospheric science, it wlll work. The only minds you can dupe with your nonsense are those who do not understand the concepts in atmospheric science and therefore can be misled by obfuscation, distortions and lying which are the specialty of those academics protecting their religion and grant money, but I will also give you that some academics with no understanding of atmospheric science can also be duped and are.
Just read my response about climate model construction below for starters.
Chuck Wiese, The wavelengths involved are not “RF”, they are Thermal Infrared. Remember that all EM emissions are photons, though it’s convenient to use wave terminology to discuss most situations. My experiments were intended to counter claims that “back radiation” from a cooler body toward a warmer emitting body would result in a temperature increase of the warmer one. Things get much more complex in case of the emission and absorp_tion of gasses, if only because gasses emit equally in all directions. And the greenhouse gases both absorb and radiate, with emission depending on temperature of the gas.
To be sure, clouds have a large influence on both surface and atmospheric temperature, in addition to climate. Also, in the troposphere, while the vertical convection dominates the lapse rate, vertical radiant energy transfer is still an important fraction under clear sky conditions. However, your description appears to miss the fact that there’s also radiant transfer above the tropopause outward to deep space and the greenhouse gases are the dominant factors since almost no water vapor remains at these higher altitudes. There’s quite a large drop in temperature from the Stratosphere (perhaps 200K?) to deep space at 2.7K and that delta T sets the temperature near the tropopause.
Here’s a discussion about the effects of CO2, posted in 2010. you will notice that the comments are still active with many recent ones added, seven years on.
Chuck stubbornly: “So what?”
So Dr. Spencer’s experiment with the real atm. proves your statement was written inaccurately Chuck.
Being behind in your reading is not obfuscation or dissembling, nothing wrong, happens to us all. I’ve pointed to where you can catch up. Since Chuck doesn’t bother to catch up intentionally, he continues his erroneous attacks on more informed commenters & THAT’S obfuscation and dissembling (Chuck term).
“This says nothing about how these radiative interactions change through time to maintain optical depth.”
On the real atm., Dr. Spencer’s experiment does show change with time on optical depth. If you want to catch up on physics of atm. optical depth due to the various absorbing gas mixing ratios and total pressure at surface, I suggest Robinson and Catling 12/8/2013 online in NatGeoScience which used to be free on the internet, especially the SI Sec. 2. If Chuck also doesn’t bother to catch up with that paper on optical depth, Chuck will continue his erroneous attacks, obfuscation and dissembling (Chuck term) apparent in these comments (which is the predicted outcome based on his past demonstrations on this blog).
E Swanson: “The wavelengths involved are not “RF”, they are Thermal Infrared. Remember that all EM emissions are photons”
Really? I would have never known. Thanks./sarc
I defined RF as “radiative forcing” energy. That comes in the IR wavelengths, not radio frequency range. I introduced the topic to point out that inverse square still applies to emitting sources in the infrared.
Ball4 and other CO2 warmers like to inject language like this, trying to make the reader think they are correcting the person they are “speaking” with. It’s like saying “remember, you’re not speaking to someone, you’re writing to them if someone wrote “I am speaking to Roy. No, you are technically writing to Roy.
This doesn’t win you points, although Ball4 and other CO2 warming dissemblers like to think it does.
E Swanson: ” However, your description appears to miss the fact that there’s also radiant transfer above the tropopause outward to deep space and the greenhouse gases are the dominant factors since almost no water vapor remains at these higher altitudes. There’s quite a large drop in temperature from the Stratosphere (perhaps 200K?) to deep space at 2.7K and that delta T sets the temperature near the tropopause.”
Me: The temperature of the stratosphere and above is more determined by solar magnetic that causes disassociation of oxygen molecules by UV radiation that forms ozone and is an IR active gas in those wavelengths causing warming. That can shorten or lengthen the height of the tropopause from radiating more or less into the top of the tropopause from the stratosphere and affect convective transport from surface but this is doing no favors to the climate cabal that is stuck on CO2 controlling climate and optical depth.It works against their claims.
Stephen Wilde talks about this in a model he developed that is actually consistent with what those who did the pioneering work in IR transfer of the upper troposphere and lower stratosphere, Richard Goody. Goody actually wrote the true science “bible” on IR radiative transfer:
http://joannenova.com.au/2015/01/is-the-sun-driving-ozone-and-changing-the-climate/
CW: Blog posts aren’t science.
You need to up your standards.
Your problem is you fall for anything hand-waving that appeals to your ideology.
If you had done advanced study in a science, you’d have learned what real science is, how it’s done, and how it’s communicated.
But you didn’t. Instead you fall for every dumb blog post out there, as long as it says what you want to be true. None of it is reviewed by experts, peer reviewed, or published where real science appears — in the scientific literature.
You think you “published” an article on EdBerry.com. Such an amateurish and unenlightened view.
During the debate I saw you reading a page from CO2science.org. That says it all about where you’re coming from — you can’t even detect propaganda when it’s right in front of you.
Chuck Wiese says:
I defined RF as radiative forcing energy. That comes in the IR wavelengths, not radio frequency range.
OMG. No, ChuckW.
Radiative forcing is about energy imbalance — not any particular type of energy. ALL types of energy, that add up to the give RF.
Ball4:”Chuck stubbornly: So what?
Me: LOL! Yes, make sure you get that word “stubbornly” into the mix. You have to assert that Chuck is the misbehaved petulant child who refuses to learn.
You look silly at this point. Maybe you could make a living writing comedy skits for some amateur comedians at Portland’s night clubs. They need help.
Ball4: “So Dr. Spencers experiment with the real atm. proves your statement was written inaccurately Chuck.”
Me: LOL. More comedy. I didn’t see any clouds forming in his experiment, did you? Did any he measured in a snapshot of time determine how IR transfer behaves with convection in the real atmosphere? Gee, I must have missed that. Can you show me where that is?
Ball4: “Being behind in your reading is not obfuscation or dissembling, nothing wrong, happens to us all. Ive pointed to where you can catch up.”
Me: Thanks, Pop, but I am caught up. Can I go and play now?
Ball4 :This says nothing about how these radiative interactions change through time to maintain optical depth.
On the real atm., Dr. Spencers experiment does show change with time on optical depth.”
Me: No it doesn’t. Repeating you claim doesn’t make it true. You never explained how Spencer’s experiment shows this.
Ball4: “If you want to catch up on physics of atm. optical depth due to the various absorbing gas mixing ratios and total pressure at surface, I suggest Robinson and Catling 12/8/2013 online in NatGeoScience which used to be free on the internet, especially the SI Sec. 2.”
Me: No thanks. I have studied optical depth and IR transfer to a significant degree and have plenty of texts on it. Nothing new is published with these references on the topic.
Ball4: “If Chuck also doesnt bother to catch up with that paper on optical depth, Chuck will continue his erroneous attacks, obfuscation and dissembling (Chuck term) apparent in these comments (which is the predicted outcome based on his past demonstrations on this blog)”
Me: Obfuscationists like you always have to demand an appeal to authority by some frivolous means whether that’s pointing at references like this and claiming I didn’t read them so I don’t understand the subject and that you did so that proves you know I am wrong even though there is nothing you specifically cite that proves this. It’s about the equivalent of me stating 1+3 =4 and you responding, no, Chuck, that’s not right, 3+1 = 4 not the other way around. And then the references are supposed to insinuate to the reader that you’re on top of it all and the person to whom you are speaking is not.
Try again. But I doubt you will succeed in this manner. I think you maybe you have been in academia too long. In “climate science” many of these clowns think their work is beyond reproach. Michael Mann and Gavin Schmidt are excellent examples who have made public fools out of themselves.
“You have to assert that Chuck is the misbehaved petulant child who refuses to learn.”
An assertion backed by evidence in these comments where Chuck refuses to learn from Dr. Spencer’s actual atm. experiments.
“I didn’t see any clouds forming in (Dr. Spencer’s) experiment, did you?”
GOES satellite imagery showed the high icy cirrus as Dr. Spencer writes: “when high-level clouds moved in around 1:30 a.m. (as deduced from GOES satellite imagery).” Chuck may need also to read up on GOES. And Chuck writes he is caught up. Great comedy Chuck, you did not even read the experiment or don’t know what GOES imagery means or how it was used to explain the experimental data.
“You never explained how Spencer’s experiment shows this.”
I don’t need to as Dr. Spencer’s data speaks for itself, and Dr. Spencer explains it well. Catch up on your reading grass hopper.
“Nothing new is published with these references on the topic.”
Chuck admits to be being behind in his reading as he demonstrates not knowing about optical depth thru his errors.
“Try again. But I doubt you will succeed in this manner.”
I agree, can never succeed because with Chuck there is no possibility of Chuck actually reading and learning from Dr. Spencer’s experiment on the actual atm. Chuck prefers his own personal version of atm. physics not the natural versions learned from experiment.
Been entertaining discussion Chuck, if you ever make progress understanding Dr. Spencer’s experiment, please advise.
Chuck Wiese, Glad to learn that you are no longer “RFing” climate science. Or, are you still at it, as you mention the “inverse square law” for radiant energy from a point source? In the case of atmosphere, like the theoretical situation of infinite parallel plates, the inverse square law doesn’t have much effect, as the radius of the Earth results in nearly parallel layers of air around a large spherical object.
But, you’ve continued to make progress, dropping further discussion of your ill formed mental model of energy flows between two heated plates. The wide difference in temperature you picked is clearly am improper model for the atmosphere where the lapse rate might be around 7K per km, thus the temperature difference between successive layers is quite small. Too bad you didn’t take the time to study my demos. So, it’s gratifying that you now agree that “back radiation” from a cooler body can warm a hotter body, thus agreeing that the CO2 Greenhouse Effect doesn’t violate the Second Law of Thermodynamics. That’s a big step on this blog.
Thanks for pointing to Richard Goody’s work, I was unaware of his great efforts. But, I don’t see a link to Goody’s work in your linked JonNova post. That post leaves out the Hadley Cell circulation and the fact that the Tropopause height is greater over the ITCZ because of the intense vertical convection near the Equator. At the Tropopause, it’s downhill along the geopotential to the poles, so naturally, the upper air flows that way. But, what do I know, I’m not a “meteorologist” doing stand up TV before a green screen…
E Swanson: “Chuck Wiese, Glad to learn that you are no longer RFing climate science. Or, are you still at it, as you mention the inverse square law for radiant energy from a point source? In the case of atmosphere, like the theoretical situation of infinite parallel plates, the inverse square law doesnt have much effect, as the radius of the Earth results in nearly parallel layers of air around a large spherical object.”
Me: Like Ball4, I see you like obfuscation as well. My thought experiment did not involve the real atmosphere and you know it. So point source inverse square certainly does apply to two plates at a fixed distance, and it would with any source in your experiment as well, so this statement you made also displays ignorance by you for not considering it.
That is precisely why I said two power sources will not absorb each others IR radiation. I did think of this initially as omnidirectional rather than directional, so that increases the transmission through space by a factor of 4,but it still decreases from the source as inverse square of distance with pi steradians and so does radiation from any source in your experiment.
E Swanson: “The wide difference in temperature you picked is clearly am improper model for the atmosphere where the lapse rate might be around 7K per km, thus the temperature difference between successive layers is quite small.”
Me: I didn’t conduct any experiment designed for the atmosphere.. It was simply a thought regarding IR transmission from point sources like two plates or any radiation surface that is small in comparison to the earth’s radius, therefore inverse square applies. Something you didn’t think of in your experiment but should have.
E Swanson: “Too bad you didnt take the time to study my demos. So, its gratifying that you now agree that back radiation from a cooler body can warm a hotter body, thus agreeing that the CO2 Greenhouse Effect doesnt violate the Second Law of Thermodynamics.”
Me: I don’t need to see your experiment to understand what’s happening, this is all established atmospheric science and I pointed this out to Norman miles up thread in this post and I never said radiative transfer physics violates the Second Law. Like Ball4 does, you are putting words in my mouth so please stop doing this.
Ab-sorp-tion of radiation by a warmer body from cold will not raise the warmer body’s temperature without a power source maintaining or increasing temperature on the warmer body. You need to make this clear and you also need to understand that atmospheric CO2 in the presence of the hydrological cycle CANNOT AND DOES NOT control optical depth of the troposphere and has no power to control the earths temperature. This is also established atmospheric science and no impirical calculation would prove this wrong and no climate model works so as to be able to prove this wrong, either.
E Swanson:
That post leaves out the Hadley Cell circulation and the fact that the Tropopause height is greater over the ITCZ because of the intense vertical convection near the Equator. At the Tropopause, its downhill along the geopotential to the poles, so naturally, the upper air flows that way.
Me: Goody talks about radiative warming and cooling of the tropopause and stratosphere and corrected Emden’s first model of this by applying the correct radiation balance between CO2 and O3 that resulted in the correct orientation of the tropopause temperature between the poles and equator in that the equator tropopause is colder. And the tropopause can be shortened by IR warming from the bottom of the stratosphere into the troposphere, so Wilde’s concepts cannot outright be dismissed. I’m not stating they are a absolute correct explanation but certainly worth considering.
E Swanson: ” But, what do I know, Im not a meteorologist.”
Me: Is there any requirement that you be to post here? I don’t care what your background is unless you act like Ball4, where you obfuscate, distort and inject claims about the person you are blogging with as well as exert authority that is borrowed from these unworthy descriptions. That is why he doesn’t want to say who he is. I am convinced he is an academic who mixes truth with BS to front the AGW nonsense and as such, he posts in anonymity to avoid getting into trouble when he has to engage in this behavior.
If you don’t do this then we can discuss anything.
Chuck Wiese, I continue to disagree with your claims. For the theoretical case of two parallel plates of infinite extent, each plate acts as an infinite number of point sources, thus the Inverse Square Law doesn’t apply. In the real world situation, there’s energy emitted around the edges of the plates which does not fall on the opposite plate and therefore can’t be absorbed. In the atmosphere, where the horizontal dimensions are large compared with the vertical dimensions, I think that the Inverse Square Law is of little effect. The point of my experimental demonstrations was to show that IR EM absorp_tion by the warmer heated plate does result in an increase in the temperature of the warmer plate.
As there are yet no other physically reasonable explanations given by those who post on this web site (including you), I continue to claim that these data refute the claims that “back radiation” from a cooler source can’t be absorbed by a warmer body.
Another thought about your linked post on JoanneNova’s site. That post claimed that solar variability causes changes in stratospheric ozone, a greenhouse gas, leading to variations in tropopause height. Following that logic, surely the continuing increase in the other main greenhouse gas in the stratosphere, CO2, would also result in an increase in the height of the tropopause, thus warming of the troposphere below. That impact would be in addition to the effects of CO2 on the out going emissions. And, there are reports which present data which indicate this is occurring in the tropics.
E. Swanson 7:42am, you are correct to disagree with Chuck based on experimental evidence since both of Dr. Spencer’s experiments, one in the lab & one on the actual atm., demonstrate that Chuck is wrong about atm. science (meteorology) when Chuck writes:
“Ab-sorp-tion of radiation by a warmer body from cold will not raise the warmer body’s temperature without a power source maintaining or increasing temperature on the warmer body.”
Both of the experiments show that ab-sorp-tion of radiation by a warmer body from colder body will increase the warmer body’s temperature without a power source maintaining or increasing temperature on the warmer body fully in accord with 2LOT as universe entropy is increased in this process.
Entropy is hard. Chuck demonstrates no interest in doing an experiment to prove his point. Until Chuck does a proper experiment, there will be no improvement in Chuck’s understanding of the basic science. Thought experiments are not helping Chuck understand basic meteorology.
This is a reason Chuck continues to draw inaccurate conclusions like: “atmospheric CO2 in the presence of the hydrological cycle CANNOT AND DOES NOT control optical depth of the troposphere and has no power to control the earth’s temperature.” since experiments and observations and other, more informed author’s, demonstrate otherwise.
E Swanson: “Chuck Wiese, I continue to disagree with your claims. For the theoretical case of two parallel plates of infinite extent, each plate acts as an infinite number of point sources, thus the Inverse Square Law doesn’t apply. In the real world situation, there’s energy emitted around the edges of the plates which does not fall on the opposite plate and therefore can’t be absorbed. In the atmosphere, where the horizontal dimensions are large compared with the vertical dimensions, I think that the Inverse Square Law is of little effect. ”
Me: Well you’re wrong. Any object on earth considerably smaller than the earth’s radius will emit radiation by inverse square of distance, in my case,a directional emitter which reduces it by pi steradians times the square of distance and taken as the inverse to power, ie, 1/pir^2.
This is because radiation is being emitted by all the surface atoms in the square over 2pi steradians but we are interested in capturing the radiation that is directed in the isotropic manner at pi steradians.
Here is just one of the many examples you can find of this EXPERIMENTALLY that you and Ball4 are hung up upon that was done long before I used the concept:
https://www.scribd.com/document/118793184/Investigating-the-inverse-square-law-for-a-radioactive-source
If you are comparing isotropic radiation from the earth, the correct form is:
I = Io ( R^2/r^2 ) where r> than or equal to R. So your starting point is R and as you can see, in the real atmosphere, the rays would not decrease much in intensity vertically comparing r to R, where R is the radius of the Earth at 6.371 x 10^6 m at height of troposphere, z =1.2 x 10^4 so 4.06/4.05 =.9975 or a .25% decrease in radiation from surface to top of atmosphere.
But an isotropic radiator of any size you could use does not apply to this law, as r is much smaller than R.
E Swanson:
” Another thought about your linked post on JoanneNova’s site. That post claimed that solar variability causes changes in stratospheric ozone, a greenhouse gas, leading to variations in tropopause height. Following that logic, surely the continuing increase in the other main greenhouse gas in the stratosphere, CO2, would also result in an increase in the height of the tropopause, thus warming of the troposphere below.”
No it won’t. CO2 in the stratosphere acts to cool it while O3 warms it. If UV light decreases, the stratosphere becomes colder, but not colder than the underlying tropopause induced by deep convection in the tropics. If radiation increases on O3 from ultraviolet, the heating rate of that will exceed the cooling rate by CO2, it is much more energetic radiation and that can warm the tropopause and lower it, as in Wilde’s hypothesis.
“That impact would be in addition to the effects of CO2 on the out going emissions. And, there are reports which present data which indicate this is occurring in the tropics.”
Me: What reports? Another model simulation over reality? Give me a reference and I’ll bet I can find a hole in it like most other published in “climate” journals.
Correction to above, 4.06/4.05 should be 4.05/4.06 to get .9975.
Ball4 said: “Both of the experiments show that ab-sorp-tion of radiation by a warmer body from colder body will increase the warmer bodys temperature without a power source maintaining or increasing temperature on the warmer body fully in accord with 2LOT as universe entropy is increased in this process.”
But earlier Ball4 says to Appell:
Appell:”If you reduce the cooling rate of an object, it warms.
Ball4 responds:”David, this is the kind of language that starts unneeded food fights.
No, the slower cooling rate object still cools but its temperature is increased over that of the object at the original cooling rate.”
Me: So here Ball4 injects or removes entropy to switch his position, arguing against Appell which supported my contention but now in communicating with me, reverses again and re-injects entropy just so he can say I am wrong, when in fact, the entropy is not seen with a thermometer, it is unusable to raise sensible temperature.
This is a perfect example of how you operate, Ball4. You are a cafeteria style scientist obfuscator who picks what he wants to say something is so, but then removes that claim by adding something else if it suits your purpose at the time and your purpose is to try and discredit anyone who dare challenges your failed claims about CO2 warming.
Ball4 :”Entropy is hard.”
Me: No it isn’t. It’s only hard to someone who you try and confuse with obfuscation by selectively applying it to what you want. Applying entropy to these situations only refers to unusable energy that cannot raise temperature, and everyone else is talking about measurable temperature change from the experiments.
Ball4: “Thought experiments are not helping Chuck understand basic meteorology.”
Me: That’s because I don’t need experiments to understand the subject. I took the course work, got a degree and some of the principles taught disagree with your assertions. These is a lot of published literature in textbooks used to educate.
Ball4:”This is a reason Chuck continues to draw inaccurate conclusions like: atmospheric CO2 in the presence of the hydrological cycle CANNOT AND DOES NOT control optical depth of the troposphere and has no power to control the earth’s temperature. since experiments and observations and other, more informed authors, demonstrate otherwise.”
Me: This gets to the crux of why you fight me. You are an academic trying to defend a failing hypothesis ( and grant money to study it ) and have nothing to show for it except failed modeling. I don’t need a multi-billion dollar Oz machine ( climate model ) to be able to reason the concepts you employ are faulty, from treating the models as BV problem in mathematics where weather runs randomly inside the boundary and cannot model convective terms or phase changes of the hydro cycle for cloud cover to grid size that must be expanded well over normal grid size used in weather forecast models that fail outside of 5 days frequently.
Anyone trained in atmospheric science can conceptualize this by realizing that water vapor abs-orb-s all the incident radiation falling on it in the abs-sorb-ative wavelengths it receives the radiation by and that the coefficients show the radiation is ab-sor-bed within millimeters at the longer wavelengths to about 20 meters in the far end of the shorter. So the absor-bative range of distance is millimeters to about 65 ft from the surface.
CO2, not as efficient of an absorber. The bands that really count are the ones that are already fully absorbed with much less CO2 concentration that range from the narrow Q branch at the surface to 1000 meters or 3200 ft. So CO2 has little solar warming assist to the surface compared to CO2 and the increased ab-sorp-tion from the wings has much lower ab-sorp-tion coefficients so to double it from present concentrations doesn’t completely ab-sorb wing line rdaition until you are at an altitude of around 6800 meters or 22,300 ft from the surface.
It should to be apparent to anyone looking at this that water vapor and clouds would clearly dominate the CO2 bands and counting the ab-sor-ption in the wings as emitting from a surface temperature for GHE is clearly wrong and that the hydro cycle is constantly interfering with wing line radiation because the ab-sorp-tion is so slow.
Water vapor and clouds clearly dominate AND control every aspect of IR radiation from the earth and thereby control ( and thus self limit ) the growth of optical depth in the troposphere from CO2.
This is how it was taught along with the specifics of IR transfer from Elsasser, Goody, Emden, Young,et all at every major university teaching atmospheric science until the modelers showed up in the late 1970’s with their faulty premises that never disproved any of this founding work. I know because I was there I took the course work. So how can they be wrong, Ball4? Every time I ask that question to an academic like you, you hide behind an Oz machine and claim it is superior when the evidence from observation shows it is a failure. You NEVER show directly where founding principles were wrong.
What other academics have done ( possibly you ) is misbehave, alter climate data ( hide the decline ) and expand urban influence into cooler areas, cool the earlier records of surface temperatures without justification and fire other colleagues if they challenge this failing and bad science. They also make public statements like Ben Santer did by stating he would like to “beat the crap” out Pat Michaels. Then of course, we have that darling James Hansen, whose EVERY PREDICTION he made about the climate suffering disastrous consequence from CO2 has been wrong to date.
You are part of this cabal by supporting it as an academic. As I said, YOU are the master dissembler and obfuscationist, an apparent requirement to be employed in academia to promote a failing hypothesis and protect your grant money. ( which is a conflict of interest to taxpayers because it is being used to generate bad science to help the political class tax and regulate energy. The dirty little secret in “climate science” )
Chuck sez: “Ball4 injects or removes entropy to switch his position”
I have not switched positions Chuck. You would understand that had you learned from the experiments Dr. Spencer performed but in your own words: “I don’t need experiments to understand the subject.” My statements are all in accord with Dr. Spencer’s & E. Swanson’s testing results which proves Chuck cannot learn from the experiments; it is Chuck that doesn’t fully understand meteorology.
Anyone trained in atmospheric science should realize that water vapor and liquid water droplets in clouds absorb some of the radiation incident on the cloud (both LW and SW), scatter/reflect some of the incident radiation and transmit some of the radiation. Instead Chuck writes: “water vapor absorbs all the incident radiation falling on it”. Water vapor is not a BB Chuck, no real thing such as water vapor is a black body which does absorb all incident radiation, by BB definition.
“So how can they be wrong, Ball4?”
Emden and Goody/Yung are not wrong Chuck because they base their writing on experiments which your writing expressly avoids as you “don’t need experiments”.
“You NEVER show directly where founding principles were wrong.”
I show & discuss the experiments which confirm the founding principles.
Much of Chuck’s rant is political when this is a science blog, Chuck really ought to pay attention to the experimental evidence around here which he hugely DOES need for accurate meteorological comments.
Ball4: “I have not switched positions Chuck. You would understand that had you learned from the experiments Dr. Spencer performed but in your own words: “I don’t need experiments to understand the subject.” My statements are all in accord with Dr. Spencer’s & E. Swanson’s testing results which proves Chuck cannot learn from the experiments.”
Me: Yes you have switched your position. I just demonstrated this. The fact is entropy does not have ANY effect to raise the sensible temperature of a warmer body from colder without the warmer having a power supply. That’s what the discussion is about but you like to throw entropy in just to say I’m wrong, but I’m not wrong with respect to the context of the discussion which is about MEASURABLE temperature with a thermometer.
Ball4: “Chuck doesn’t fully understand meteorology.”
Me: Yes I do. And understand that you are abusing some of the principles.
Ball4: “Anyone trained in atmospheric science should realize that water vapor and liquid water droplets in clouds absorb some of the radiation incident on the cloud (both LW and SW), scatter/reflect some of the incident radiation and transmit some of the radiation. Instead Chuck writes: “water vapor absorbs all the incident radiation falling on it”. Water vapor is not a BB Chuck, no real thing such as water vapor is a black body which does absorb all incident radiation, by BB definition.”
Me: You are a liar again, Ball4. Here is what I said:
“water vapor abs-orb-s all the incident radiation falling on it in the abs-sorb-ative wavelengths it receives the radiation by and that the coefficients show the radiation is ab-sor-bed within millimeters at the longer wavelengths to about 20 meters in the far end of the shorter.”
What does this mean? To anyone who understands English, it maens water vapor is a selective absorber with respect to BB radiation, not a BB absorber itself.
Another example of how you lie and put words into someone’s definition that changes the meaning of what they wrote so that you can say they are wrong. Damn you’re good at this. Its the only way you can keep your job. Distorting, dissembling and obfuscating.
Ball4 :“So how can they be wrong, Ball4?”
Emden and Goody/Yung are not wrong Chuck because they base their writing on experiments which your writing expressly avoids as you “don’t need experiments”.
Me: The obvious is that I don’t need to repeat their experiments. Why would I? There literature is published in this and I never questioned that. But now you claim I do, which is just another lie to obfuscate with.
Ball4: “You NEVER show directly where founding principles were wrong.”
I show & discuss the experiments which confirm the founding principles. ”
Me: You absolutely do not. The founding principles give no support to your contention that CO2 can control earth temperature by controlling optical depth and you have never shown this. You can only defer to failed modeling. Another lie.
Ball4: “Much of Chuck’s rant is political when this is a science blog, Chuck really ought to pay attention to the experimental evidence around here which he hugely DOES need for accurate meteorological comments.”
Me: What idiocy you display. YOU and your colleagues have made this “science” political by turning it into an environmental religion that ignores all the founding principle as they were constructed to show how all the IR active gases behave in the troposphere. There was NEVER any expectation that increasing CO2 could overpower water vapor and the hydro cycle to control optical depth.
Politics have entered the fray because of the continuing bad behavior by you and your colleagues to give perspective on why you distort facts, obfuscate, dissemble, and in many regards carry on like you just did in this exchange acting like an idiot. You represent one string of lies and inconsistencies after another, the reader can see this, so your comment that I should pay attention to the nonsense and contradiction you display is rich. Good for a laugh and nothing else.
“Yes you have switched your position. I just demonstrated this.”
You asserted erroneously. My position remains unswitched, fully consistent with the experimental results I previously linked.
Chuck now writes his “water vapor abs-orb-s all the incident radiation falling on it” really means “water vapor is a selective absorber”. It is Chuck finding he has made errors & switching positions as demonstrated in his own words.
Chuck also switches position on experiments, in his own words, from: I don’t need experiments to understand the subject.”, to: “I don’t need to repeat their experiments.”
“You absolutely do not (show & discuss the experiments which confirm the founding principles.”
Incorrect. Chuck simply remains willfully ignorant, behind in his reading:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2018/07/summer-causes-climate-change-hysteria/#comment-312235
Politics have entered this fray because of Chuck’s continuing poli-sci rants and distortion of experimental results, obfuscation, dissembling (Chuck term), and insisting erroneously I comment based on models since any reader can readily observe in this exchange it is Chuck switching his positions & I comment on experimental results not climate models.
The informed, critical reader is wary of such antics; my comment that Chuck should pay attention to experiments performed around here remains well founded.
Chuck Wiese, Land, oceans and indeed, the surface of the Earth are not point sources for IR EM radiation. The theoretical case of parallel plates is a much better description. Your mathematics for the Earth’s radius confirms this.
Also, in the stratosphere, CO2 both emits and absorbs IR EM. The absorp_tion just adds to the emissions, both upwards and downwards. The absorp_tion by ozone is in the more intense ultraviolet portion portion of the spectrum, and there’s no ultraviolet emitted from below, so the results are different. But, the CO2 does in fact, absorb and warm, as well as emit and cool.
Regarding the tropical tropopause, Here’s one paper about a simulation effort.
Here’s the IPCC discussion from AR4.
Here’s a modeling study from the AMS Journal of Climate.
Here’s a JGR study of tropical data which includes troposphere height.
I’m sure there are other reports as well.
Chuck…”This is sheer idiocy”.
I see you are on to Swannie and Norman regarding their back-radiation pseudo-science.
Chuck Wiese says:
Are you suggesting that this means with the use of this equation that back radiation warms a body whose temperature is warmer than the body it is absorbing from?
Yes it does.
One example is the greenhouse effect.
Your physics is bad, again. You do not understand the adiabatic clause in the SLOT. Go look it up.
On Earth, the atmosphere and surface are not an adiabatic system — the Sun is constantly pouring energy in, and energy is leaving out the TOA.
The surface and atmosphere are not in equilibrium with each other — the Sun and the Earth are.
Appell, This is more idiotic babbling from you that is incorrect just like 90% of the rest of what you write is.
The hydro cycle maintains the steady optical depth, not CO2.
You are incompetent and clueless in atmospheric science. You have never understood any of the concepts and just get worse at understanding them.
Chuck Wiese, Are you really thinking of “optical depth” or are you referring to lapse rate?
E Swanson: “Chuck Wiese, Are you really thinking of optical depth or are you referring to lapse rate?”
Me: If you understand atmospheric science, you know they are connected through this and the hydrological cycle. Did you not digest this from my post above?
The climate cabal disconnects this process by “convective adjustments” and calls it good.
The optical depth of the troposphere is connected by moist convection because you are transporting surface obtained heat back to the troposphere and radiating it there over all wavelengths while blocking the solar “power supply”. This is precisely what the hydrological cycle does.
Appell refuses to accept this or is unable to understand it. It doesn’t matter whether you explain it to him or not and it has been my experience with those like him that support the CO2 warming nonsense. They ignore real scientific principles if they contradict their environmental religion.
Chuck Wiese says:
Appell, This is more idiotic babbling from you that is incorrect just like 90% of the rest of what you write is.
No science from Chuck, just insults. Weak.
Do you have any science to offer here?
Chuck Wiese says:
The optical depth of the troposphere is connected by moist convection because you are transporting surface obtained heat back to the troposphere and radiating it there over all wavelengths while blocking the solar power supply. This is precisely what the hydrological cycle does.
This is meaningless hand waving, with absolutely not evidence offered as proof.
CW doesn’t deal in data and evidence — he just makes pronouncements, and then just name-calls anyone who expects him to prove his hand-waving.
Now watch him do it again.
Notice how Chuck Weise avoided responding to his bad understanding of the 2nd law of thermodynamics.
A lot of deniers misunderstand the 2LOT, Weise included.
Chuck Wiese says:
The optical depth of the troposphere is connected by moist convection because you are transporting surface obtained heat back to the troposphere and radiating it there over all wavelengths while blocking the solar power supply. This is precisely what the hydrological cycle does.
Connected how?
’bout time you offered some equations to explain your hand-waving.
swannie…”Gordo (and Chuck Wiese), The advanced text books which discuss thermal radiation heat transfer usually go to excruciating detail to describe the geometry of emission and absorp_tion between two (or more) bodies. Several give as an example the simple case of transfer between two parallel, infinite plates. The resulting equation for plates 1 and 2 becomes:
Q1 = Sigma x (e1 x T1^4 e2 x T2^4)”
**********
If you got that equation from an advanced text, then the text is wrong.
You have to understand that textbooks cannot possibly cover all elements of thermodynamics correctly. That’s especially true in those I have read which are aimed at mechanical engineers or whatever.
They skim over blackbody radiation supplying plates radiating against each other without specifying temperatures for the bodies involved. They just give you bogus math involving theoretical emission/absorp-tion based on Kircheoff and Stefan-Boltzmann which is fraught with presumptions and no proof that it works.
Do I have to shout this out again? The exchanges to which you refer are only possible at THERMAL EQUILIBRIUM!!! There is no heat transfer and the exchanges of radiation occur only because the AVERAGE atomic kinetic energy can be found in each body.
Textbooks are very murky on the thermal equilibrium factor. They present Kircheoff as if his emission/absorp-tion work was done between bodies of different temperature. All of the work of Kircheoff was done at thermal equilibrium.
The S-B equation governs radiation FROM a body, representing the radiation density. There is nothing in S-B related to a two way absorp-tion/emission of EM and the equation you supplied is bogus.
I explained in a recent post that Stefan, who did the initial work establishing the T^4 relationship between EM and heat arrived at the relationship after studying work done by Tyndall. Tyndall heated a platinum wire electrically and observed different colours the wire began to radiate. Another scientist arbitrarily attached temperatures to the colours and Stefan used those T’s to establish the T^4 relationship.
Note that the temperatures ranged from 550C to 1400C, not anywhere near terrestrial temperatures. I seriously doubt that S-B can be applied for our atmosphere because radiation at those temperatures is insignificant. One of those advanced texts you mentioned made that clear.
S-B is about a one way radiation and it has been modernists who have extended it to cover situations where it does not belong. Modernists have done the same with entropy, even though Clausius defined it specifically in words. Entropy is about the summation of heat over a process yet to hear modernists describe it, entropy becomes a mystical process wherein the new definition is just plain wrong.
You have done the same with the 2nd law. It has a specific meaning yet you have distorted the meaning to suit your own theories on anthropogenic warming.
Gordon Robertson
YOU: “If EM from a colder body is absorbed by a warmer body, the warmer body must get hotter. Thats basic quantum theory. You are trying to get around that with a fictitious net heat transfer. There is no such thing, it is a concept you have created out of your misinterpretation of the textbooks you have read.”
Sorry Gordon you are incredibly wrong with this statement.
1) Absolutely false that EM absorbed by a warmer body must make it hotter. How many times does one have to explain simple math to you?
The Hotter object (all caps for you) IS RADIATING ENERGY AT A GREATER RATE THAN IT ABSORBS ENERGY FROM THE COLDER OBJECT. IT WILL NOT GET WARMER MY THIS ENERGY, IT WILL GET HOTTER WITH THIS ENERGY AND ANOTHER SOURCE OF ENERGY COMBINED.
2)So are you intentionally lying or are you completely ignorant what I say? I really dislike your liar personality and hope you are just a stupid person that can’t understand what they read. Better to be stupid than a liar. When do I claim NET HEAT TRANSFER??!!! The scientific textbook understanding (which I am not misrepresenting…for goodness sake I put quotes from the material all the time READ THEM!!!) is NET ENERGY TRANSFER IS HEAT TRANSFER. I and they do not claim a NET HEAT TRANSFER. That is why I ask are you just dense and unable to correctly read or are you a deceptive, intentionally lying low-life person?
Norman…”1) Absolutely false that EM absorbed by a warmer body must make it hotter”.
Basic quantum theory. When an electron absorbs a quantum of energy it must rise to the next highest energy level at least. That higher energy level represents a higher kinetic energy which translates to a higher temperature.
Of course, you are confused about that. You think there is something else besides electrons in an atom or molecule that can absorb and emit EM. I wish you’d explain what it is since world class scientists await your revelation.
Gordon Robertson
YOU: “I wish you’d explain what it is since world class scientists await your revelation.”
It seems you are the goofy one that can’t understand quantum physics. The rest of the scientists know what is going on. You can’t understand it, they do. I have linked you to so many items on this topic I waste no more time with your buffoon stupidity on the matter.
Quit your stupid lying and dishonesty. You know very well I have linked you to several pages of material on molecular vibrations.
Describe how exactly you think an electron absorbs EM? What is the process?
Goofy Gordon! EMR is a vibration of electomagnetism. This energy can move an electron, an ion, a proton, a dipole. It is just a vibration of electomagentic energy. Any particle with a charge can be moved by this energy. If the energy is a resonant state with a higher orbital for a given atomic or molecular configuration, the energy will move an electron to a higher energy level.
No you really do not understand any science and you never will. Sorry you are just a dumb person incapable of learning. And what you can’t understand you make up and pretend, in a fantasy world, that you are this super genius that understands it all and all the top scientists are stupid compared to you.
norman…”Describe how exactly you think an electron absorbs EM? What is the process?”
That’s one of the mysteries of the universe. The theory was developed initially by Bohr then by Schrodinger. Both compared an electron to harmonic motion and the latter applied the wave equation to describe electrons in specific energy orbitals around an atomic nucleus where the electrons have specific angular frequencies.
An electron is a particle carrying a negative electrical charge. When an electron moves anywhere, through a conductor or through free space, it carries a magnetic field. That’s the basis of electromagnetism. It’s the basis of electric motor theory, transformer theory, inductive theory, and even communications theory.
EM and electrons go hand in hand.
There is a definite relationship between electrons, electric fields, and magnetic fields. All EM emissions in the universe, as far as anyone knows is related to electron transitions within atoms. There is nothing else in an atom that can account for EM.
When an electron in an atoms at a specific orbital energy level, falls to a lower energy level, it emits a quantum of EM related by E = hf. E is the difference in potential energy between atomic energy levels. The frequency, f, of the quantum is based on the angular momentum of the emitting electron.
With regard to absorp-tion, you posted a video, circa 1964 in which they used a mass-spring system to model resonant energy related to electron absorp-tion. They concluded that in order for an electron to absorb EM, the frequency of the EM had to exactly match the frequency of the electron.
No one knows why, it’s just the way it is. EM from a cooler body lacks the frequency to be absorbed by electrons in a hotter body.
Gordon Robertson
How long did it take for y0u to make up this false and phony physics?
Do you have even the slightest support for your point that all EM is a product of electron transitions between energy levels?
Find anyone anywhere supporting this fantastic and wrong conclusion. You just make it up and hope no one challenges your nonsense. Well I am challenging it. What is your source that makes this claim?
Gordon Robertson says:
Clausius stated that heat can NEVER be transferred from a colder body to a warmer body
This is wrong, as GR has been told many times, but at this point it’s clear that Gordon has no shame and cares nothing for the truth.
Sometimes it seems he can’t lie fast enough here.
Entropic man
I have a question about the green plate experiment. Would the blue plate reach the same temperature given different materials (assuming same albedo)? For example, copper vs. wood?
SB assumes a black body but makes no mention of the object’s specific heat or heat capacity. Does that matter?
snape…”SB assumes a black body but makes no mention of the object’s specific heat or heat capacity. Does that matter?”
The temperature the BP can reach is determined by the heat it absorbs minus the heat it can dissipate. Different materials should make a difference.
The full S-B equation has an emissivity factor in it that should allow for non-BB materials. There is a problem in that Stefan’s equation is based on an electrically heated platinum wire operating in a temperature range between about 550C and 1400C.
That puts the data firmly into the BB category and whether it applies at lower temperatures is the question. It is known that the exponent can vary under different conditions.
q = ebA(T^4 – To^4)
e = emissivity
b = S/B constant
A = area of radiating surface.
etc.
Besides, SB measures radiation density, which is an emission.
“The temperature the BP can reach is determined by the heat it absorbs…”
No Gordon, you still need to learn heat is not EMR.
Ball4: “No Gordon, you still need to learn heat is not EMR.”
In climate “science” the terms are interchangeable frequently and by many. I always hear the words “heat radiation” and YOU, are the ultimate obfuscationist, dissembler and distorter of facts.
Talk about obfuscation, there is no such thing as “heat radiation” just like there is no such thing as “cold radiation”. Radiant heat is also “meaningless term” see Yves Le Grand, 1957: Light, Colour, and Vision, John Wiley & Sons, p. 4 and his: “to say that the sun, for instance, radiates heat is nave”. There is no special range of frequencies such that radiation within this range and only within it is capable of raising the temperature of bodies that absorb it.
Chuck has much to learn in order to reduce his obvious inaccuracies in the physics fundamentals of atm. radiation, I suggest reading Bohren 2006: “A sufficiently intense source of radiation of almost any frequency can increase the temperature of an object suitably chosen for its absorp_tion properties at that frequency.” just as Dr. Spencer’s and E. Swanson’s actual experiments demonstrate.
Chuck…”Ball4: No Gordon, you still need to learn heat is not EMR.
In climate science the terms are interchangeable frequently and by many. I always hear the words heat radiation…”
********
That notion stems back to the latter part of the 19th century when many learned scientists, among them Clausius, Stefan, Boltzmann, and Planck all believed heat flowed through space in an aether. Planck referred to the process as heat rays.
They can all be forgiven since it was not till the 1890s that electrons were discovered and not till 1913 that Bohr put it all together with his theory that electrons absorb and emit EM.
You are right, EM is often referred to as heat radiation as a reference to the source of the EM. Others, like ball4 think that means heat is flowing through space. Some like Swannie and Normie think the heat flows through space both ways.
In fact, ball4 does not even believe in heat. He thinks bodies cannot have a level of heat and that we should drop the term heat in favour of generic energy. I like to know what kind of energy we are talking about.
There should be a strong suspicion regarding back-radiation with the notion that the surface heats GHGs, at a loss, then the GHGs can back-radiate sufficient EM to not only make up for the losses but to raise the surface temperature beyond the temperature it is warmed by solar radiation.
Never mind that the temperatures of the GHGs is equal to or less than the surface temperature. The entire theory smacks of perpetual motion. None of that matters to alarmists, they revel in such pseudo-science.
“Clausius, Stefan, Boltzmann, and Planck all believed heat flowed through space in an aether.”
Not true Gordon that’s your pseudoscience showing thru: Planck starts out his 1912 treatise with an experiment that proves he does not believe “heat flowed through space in an aether.” Planck states upfront wherever he refers to heat ray it means one and the same as a light (EMR) ray.
“like ball4 think that means heat is flowing through space.”
No Gordon, heat is not EMR and heat does not physically exist per Clausius and his contemporaries except as a measure of the avg. kinetic energy of an object’s constituent particles so can not “flow” thru anything. Gordon gets this wrong so often it is Gordon’s trademark.
ball4…”Planck starts out his 1912 treatise with an experiment that proves he does not believe heat flowed through space in an aether.
When he wrote his book on heat, he referred to EM radiation as heat rays. At the time he put out his formula he had no idea that electrons radiated EM.
Where’s the link to your claim?
“….heat is not EMR and heat does not physically exist per Clausius and his contemporaries except as a measure of the avg. kinetic energy of an objects constituent particles…”
Heat ‘is’ the kinetic energy of the constituent particles.
You have no idea regarding the difference between kinetic energy, internal energy, and thermal energy.
How many times do I have to point out that kinetic energy is a generic term which applies to many forms of energy. Kinetic energy is energy in motion, any energy in motion.
Internal energy was explained by Clausius as comprising the work done by atoms vibrating in a body and the heat they contain. He should know since he coined the term U for internal energy which is part of the 1st law. You can raise the temperature of a body, which is a relative measure of heat, by doing work on the constituent atoms in a body or adding thermal energy.
Since work is the mechanical equivalent of heat, the two components of internal energy are equivalent.
Thermal energy, aka heat, is the type of energy we are talking about. The kinetic and internal energy of atoms is thermal energy.
That, basically, is why EM is not heat. EM is electromechanical energy and it has vastly different properties than thermal energy.
“That, basically, is why EM is not heat. EM is electromechanical energy and it has vastly different properties than thermal energy.”
Great physics progress Gordon, try not to backslide. EMR is not a measure of the kinetic energy of atoms and/or molecules; heat IS a measure of the avg. kinetic energy of atoms and/or molecules in a body.
“Heat ‘is’ the kinetic energy of the constituent particles.”
No, not per Clausius 1st memoir, p. 18, see what I just wrote: “Assume generally that a motion of the particles (in a body) does exist, and that heat is a measure of their kinetic energy.”
“When (Planck) wrote his book on heat, he referred to EM radiation as heat rays…Where’s the link to your claim?”
Use this google string: planck 1912 gutenberg
Planck writes p. 3: “This law is that, so far as their physical properties are concerned, heat rays are identical with light rays of the same wave length…Every light ray is simultaneously a heat ray. We shall also, for the sake of brevity, occasionally speak of the “color” of a heat ray in order to denote its wave length or period.”
Ball4 says:
….heat is not EMR and heat does not physically exist per Clausius and his contemporaries except as a measure of the avg. kinetic energy of an objects constituent particles so can not flow thru anything.
Kinetic energy is a form of heat.
So is the energy of EM radiation.
So are other things.
“Kinetic energy is a form of heat.”
No. You get into trouble writing that David. KE is a form of energy. Use Clausius defn. of heat and you will be accurate in thermo. discussions. The energy of EM radiaton is also not heat per Clausius defn.
Clausius defined heat correctly, there is no better source. Not even Merriam or Webster or especially many modern texts though many have now properly adopted the heat does not exist in an object meme which is Clausius’ way of thinking about the heat term as a noun. Test anyone writing on climate vs. Clausius defn. and you will better discern the truth in nature.
Again, rhetoric.
KE is a form of energy.
Put your hand in a gas of molecules with KE, and you will feel heat.
“Put your hand in a gas of molecules with KE, and you will feel heat.”
Heat has no physical presence David; what you “will feel” is the sensible avg. KE of the gas constituents slamming against your skin with the M-B distribution of velocities and a most probable speed at that temperature.
Ball4 says:
Heat has no physical presence David; what you will feel is the sensible avg.
You mean “sensible heat.”
Again you are getting hung up on rhetoric.
Most people would agree that if you put your hand in a hot oven you’ll feel its heat.
There’s no sense in fighting this common understanding.
There is sense in fighting the common misunderstanding that heat exists in an object and can therefore transfer from that object.
Heat is only a measure, nothing more since Clausius 1st memoir came out.
ball4…”The temperature the BP can reach is determined by the heat it absorbs
No Gordon, you still need to learn heat is not EMR.”
Bally is having a nit-pick session.
If electrons in atoms absorb EM and convert it to heat, is that not the same as absorbing heat. I did not claim EM is heat, I merely claimed that heat was absorbed.
Normally, if we dip a dry sponge in water it absorbs the water. But what if my naked skin is exposed to EM from the Sun. The EM is converted to heat when electrons in skin molecules convert it to heat. Is it then wrong to claim that I have absorbed heat from the Sun?
Semantics, Bally, Semantics.
“If electrons in atoms absorb EM and convert it to heat”
Bohr taught atoms and molecules absorb EMR Gordon, not electrons.
“I did not claim EM is heat”
Gordon claims many times EM is heat. Gordon: “Even during collisions it’s likely the electrons are doing the heat transfer.”
EMR is not heat Gordon.
There are no electronic transitions in earth troposphere constituents emitting photons. Molecular vibrations and rotational quantum transitions emit photons at STP but Gordon will never learn that.
ball4…”Bohr taught atoms and molecules absorb EMR Gordon, not electrons”.
Are you as obtuse as you come across?
Atoms are essentially protons and electrons while molecules are an aggregate of electrons and protons, with electrons binding the nucleii together. On reality, there is no such thing as a molecule, it is nothing more than a convenient term for describing aggregations of electrons and protons bonded together.
There are neutrons in atoms but they have no charge. It is the equal and opposite charge of protons and neutrons that allow atoms to form hence molecules.
Bohr’s theory was based on electron orbitals which he required to orbit at discrete quantum levels. There was no in-between, the electron was in one energy level or another. The Bohr model for hydrogen is a proton with an electron orbiting it. Their interaction is based on electrostatic forces. However, Bohr’s work focused on what the electrons were doing in the orbitals. Schrodinger took Bohr’s theory further by applying the wave equation to the electron orbitals.
Bohr’s orbitals have become essentially the solutions to Schrodinger’s wave equations for each orbital.
ball4…”Gordon claims many times EM is heat. Gordon: Even during collisions its likely the electrons are doing the heat transfer.”
I am beginning to regard you as a troll.
Yes, heat can be transferred without EM. It’s done all the time in conductors where thermal energy flows from valence electron to valence electron.
If heat can be transferred atom to atom in a solid conductor, why can’t it be passed electron to electron during a collision?
“Bohr’s theory was based on electron orbitals which he required to orbit at discrete quantum levels.”
Stick with that Gordon don’t backslide. When a photon is absorbed by an atom/molecule the electrons snap to higher energy level “orbitals” in the atomic/molecular structure as the electrons themselves do not absorb the photon. And this process doesn’t happen in earth troposphere as there is not enough collisional energy to kick an atomic or molecular electron to next higher quantum energy level at STP by a factor of like 100x.
In the earth troposphere though there is enough energy to kick the molecule to the next highest rotational energy quantum level and to kick the molecule to the next higher vibrational level (less probable since 10x more energy is needed). Upon relaxation a photon is emitted from the molecular structure decreasing its (rotational & vibrational) momentum and kinetic energy although most molecules are found in their base quantum energy state.
“If heat can be transferred atom to atom in a solid conductor, why can’t it be passed electron to electron during a collision?”
Heat can’t be transferred atom to atom as heat is not contained in the atomic structure, the atomic structure vibrates and translates with kinetic energy which the atomic structure transfers in collisions with other atoms. Same for molecules. Heat is a measure of the kinetic energy of the atomic or molecular structure per Clausius.
Gordon Robertson says:
Bohrs orbitals have become essentially the solutions to Schrodingers wave equations for each orbital.
OMG.
There are no “orbitals” in the solution to Schrodinger’s equation.
There are wave functions and probability distributions. But no orbitals.
This is basic stuff, Gordon.
GR says:
Schrodinger took Bohrs theory further by applying the wave equation to the electron orbitals.
Wrong. Schrodinger theory applied to quantum systems, like the hydrogen atom. There are no orbitals in Schrodinger’s theory, only wave functions and probability distributions.
Different materials have different emissivity and different specific heats.
IIRC the composition of the blue plate makes no difference to the final equilibrium temperature, but a material with a high specific heat will have to absorb more heat to reach the new equilibrium temperature, and therefore take longer to do so.
Gordon
In a closed system, when a warmer object absorbs IR from a colder one, the warmer body gets COLDER. The warmer bodies internal energy DECREASES. Heat is transferred AWAY from the warmer body.
Anonymous Ms Snape better back away from that nonsense, quickly. She’s got the GHE now cooling the planet!
Silly anonymous trolls.
JD: Yes, too funny!
S,
You must be deluded. Are you really trying to say that when a body absorbs more energy it gets colder? Maybe you believe in cold rays, which suck heat from hotter bodies!
Photons are energy – no rest mass, just energy. Hotter bodies cool because they lose energy – not increase it. Talk of heat transfer is sciency, but incorrect. Heat is a manifestation of the interaction between light and matter. No light, no heat – no temperature.
No GHE. No magical CO2 energy multiplication or addition.
Just silliness piled on fantasy.
Cheers.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/CMIP5-global-LT-vs-UAH-and-RSS.png
AGW PREDICTIONS/PROJECTIONS wrong already.
If global temperatures even stay the same from here much less fall AGW theory will be so wrong it will not be able to remain viable unless your a fanatic, and we have a few of those on this site.
Salvatore 5:34 pm, the CMIP5 ensemble computer models in your link are not observations. The UAH T series shown are the observations as updated on this site. Using the computer models you will not be able to remain viable unless you are a fanatic, and there are a few of those commenting on this site.
Salvatore, will you please calm down and shut up.
You are getting excited about small term fluctuations when you, yourself, have already said we must wait until the end of the year to see what the trends are.
Let me just bring you back to earth for a moment:
“As of Friday 7/13, Denver has had 31 days hitting at least 90F this year. That’s the most for any such period (Jan 1- Jul 13) in Denver weather history going back to 1872. Previous record was 28 such days, in 2012.”
Myki it is the globe that matters.
Then why are you only interested in SSTs?
Huffy
“Shes got the GHE now cooling the planet!”
How so?
Entropic man
“IIRC the composition of the blue plate makes no difference to the final equilibrium temperature, but a material with a high specific heat will have to absorb more heat to reach the new equilibrium temperature, and therefore take longer to do so.”
Yes, that makes sense to me. But how come the metal on my car’s seat belt gets so hot in summer? Shouldn’t it reach the same equilibrium temperature as the objects next to it?
snape…”But how come the metal on my cars seat belt gets so hot in summer?”
Do you mean the metal buckle? If so, it’s a conductor. It absorbs solar EM and it’s electrons convert the EM to heat and pass it atom to atom very quickly. Insulators will warm more slowly.
It’s the same if you have a pot on the stove with a metal handle as opposed to one covered with an insulating handle.
I’m thinking maybe they are the same temperature, but the metal conducts energy to my hand at a faster rate than the other objects, giving a greater sensation of heat.
Snape
That sounds correct.
When you touch something warmer than your skin, heat will transfer from object to skin as they move towards an equal temperature.
An object with a small specific heat will only transfer a small amount of heat before reaching equilibrium, so you won’t feel much heating effect.
An object with a large specific heat will transfer a lot of heat to your skin before reaching equilibrium. Your skin gets much warmer and you feel the heat.
(That was an explanation on Quora, but I had forgotten until now)
Mike
“You must be deluded. Are you really trying to say that when a body absorbs more energy it gets colder?”
I said what I was trying to say, and that didn’t include anything about a body absorbing more or less energy.
S,
You wrote –
“In a closed system, when a warmer object absorbs IR from a colder one, the warmer body gets COLDER.”
I read what you wrote. How does the warmer body absorb IR from the colder without absorbing the IR? Do you mean that the photons of light in the IR range are both absorbed and not absorbed simultaneously, or possibly are absorbed, but the energy contained in them is not?
Are you playing a climatological word game where absorbing energy does not mean that energy is absorbed?
You are obviously attempting to appear ignorant and stupid, and succeeding rather well.
Maybe you meant to say you didn’t really understand the physics of light and its interaction with matter.
Cheers.
Ball4
“Maxwell and Bolztmann explained after Clausius time how heat CAN be transferred by its own means from a colder body to a warmer body since heat is not EMR.”
I don’t know what that means. Could you give a link to Maxwell and Boltzmann’s explanation?
Look up the M-B distribution of molecular velocities.
snape…”Ball4
Maxwell and Bolztmann explained after Clausius time how heat CAN be transferred by its own means from a colder body to a warmer body since heat is not EMR.
I dont know what that means. Could you give a link to Maxwell and Boltzmanns explanation?”
It’s a nonsense statement from Ball4. Makes no sense whatsoever. Sometimes Bally opens his mouth and lets his belly rumble.
Gordon’s response shows his limited to no understanding of M-B particle velocity distributions and how they were used to prove that heat can be transferred from cold to hot objects without compensation. Basic introductory meteorology texts explain that in like Chapt. 2 but Gordon hasn’t even tried understand Chapt. 1.
ball4…”Gordon’s response shows his limited to no understanding of M-B particle velocity distributions and how they were used to prove that heat can be transferred from cold to hot objects without compensation”.
You have become a raving idiot. Particle velocity distribution has nothing whatsoever to do with heat transfer.
There is absolutely nothing in Maxwell or Boltzmann about heat being transferred from cold to hot without compensation. Boltzmann went on to confirm the work of Stefan using statistical means but that was separate from his work with Maxwell. All of that work was about heat being transfered from a hotter body to a cooler body, or a cooler environment.
You have adopted the alarmists credo: if you can’t win an argument using science, make it up. Sheer desperation.
In fact, the velocity distribution is a highly theoretical and abstract concept. It’s more about fudging math to fit reality, as Planck did when he mathemtically found the quantum relationship between atomic energy levels.
“There is absolutely nothing in Maxwell or Boltzmann about heat being transferred from cold to hot without compensation.”
Only to those that haven’t bothered to read about meteorology as in Gordon’s comment example here. M-B velocity distributions really were used to prove that heat can be transferred from cold to hot objects without compensation so Gordon is wrong. I know Gordon will never crack open a text on the subject so his errors will continue; entertaining to point them out.
Gordon: consider in a gas at room temperature like the atm. not all molecules are moving at the exact same speed.
There is a most probable speed calculation and a statistical distribution of speeds around that which M-B developed. From there it is easy (trivial) to know that heat (a measure of avg. KE of those particles) can be transferred from cold to hot objects without compensation as universe entropy increases in the process so Gordon is simply wrong. And will remain uneducated on the subject until Gordon bothers to read & understand the work of M-B on the subject.
Anonymous Ball4 continues to live in his world of fake references, pseudoscience, and next, experiments he only “imagined”.
The troll uses his own private definition of heat and keeps everyone in suspense about how particle velocity distributions can violate the 2LoT.
Use Clausius’ defn. of heat Chic and you cannot go wrong.
M-B distributions do not violate the 2LOT since they were used to show there was no violation of 2LOT in KE and EMR transferring both ways in objects. It’s a great story, all part of the kinetic theory of gas taught in the first couple of chapters in a basic beginning meteorology text; a good test to see if commenters have accomplished even that level of credibility.
Chic Bowdrie says:
The troll uses his own private definition of heat and keeps everyone in suspense about how particle velocity distributions can violate the 2LoT.
So how do particle velocity distributions violate the 2LOT?
Mike
My argument is very similar to Norman’s recent reply to Gordon.
If a warmer object absorbs energy from a cooler one, it necessarily means the two objects are in view of each other and energy is being exchanged. The warmer object emits at a greater rate than the cooler, and so comes up on the short end of the stick. It suffers a net loss and gets colder.
(I am thinking of the two objects in an isolated, closed system. Otherwise, all bets are off regarding temperature)
S,
Still doesn’t help you. Energy is not being exchanged – except in the fantasy world of GHE true believers.
Try to get a million tonnes of ice to exchange some of its heat with a teaspoon of water. Maybe you could use a giant magnifying glass to concentrate the radiation emitted by the ice! It works for the Sun, even if the sunlight is weaker than the 300 W/m2 which can be emitted by ice.
On the other hand, maybe you could try another pointless and irrelevant analogy – vari-coloured plates, shirts, bank accounts or something similarly diverting.
Keep at it. You’d make a fine climatologist – maybe you could help Gavin Schmidt to understand all the new physics he keeps discovering, which prevent him from writing a manual for his computer game.
Cheers.
snape…”I am thinking of the two objects in an isolated, closed system”.
Why do you keep talking about closed (isolated) systems? A thermos is such a system but we all know it will lose heat over several hours.
Where would you find a perfect closed system? It’s like a blackbody, theoretical.
Of course a thermos isn’t a perfect closed system.
That’s how all of physics works: find the laws for perfectly defined systems, then consider perturbations from those states.
It’s proven extremely useful and successful.
For a blackbody, see: emissivity. Emissivity can be a function of wavelength, temperature, pressure, and other variables.
The back of my envelope says that the 0.5C warming you suggest will take 90 years.
The volume of the oceans is 1.3*10^9 cubic kilometres. That is 1.3*10^24 grams.
The specific heat of water is 4.2joules/gram.
To increase the temperature of the entire ocean would require 4.2 * 1.3*10^24 = 5.4*10^24joules.
The Earth is currently taking up 3*10^22joules/year , nearly all of it absorbed by the oceans.
At that rate, warming the oceans by 1C would take
5.4*10^24 / 3*10*10^22 = 180 years.
Half a degree of warming would therefore take 90 years.
gbaikie
Sorry, this was supposed to be a reply to your July 15, 2018 at 8:51 PM comment
“Earths average ocean temperature is about 3.5 C.
…does anyone think warming the entire ocean by about .5 C is
possible within 200 years?”
Hmm, I got 2.8 x 10^21 joules or would require 13,335 Tsar nuclear bombs of heat.
So if we wanted to use nuclear bombs, a few trillion dollars worth of bombs. Also need about 10,000 cubic km of ice to cool by .5 C, assuming we wanted ocean to cool by .5 C.
Perhaps I am wrong, but there could be enough bombs and there is should enough ice to warm or cool by .5 C.
I think warming would be better than cooling.
Anyhow if ocean was about 3 C, what would global climate look like?
And if 4 C what would it look like?
I wondered about the market for towed ice on the scale of 10 to 100 cubic km of ice- things like ice resorts in tropics, and of course bringing large amount of fresh water to place that wanted drinking water. Or one would have to do it at that type of scale to make the ice or water cheap enough. Of course it might reach the scale of thousand of km of ice, and could get close to giving the unwanted effect of cooling Earth.
Speaking of Tsar nuclear bombs, what if Russia wanted to be warmer.
So Russia has lots of nuclear bombs and Russia is cold. And Russia could regionally warm arctic ocean water with less nuclear bombs than it already has.
Though it could also take the route of designing the best nuclear bombs for warming the ocean and at cheapest unit cost.
What effect would there be on Russia if it’s arctic water near it, had average temperature of 1 to 2 C warmer?
Now, maybe Russia could just threaten to do this, as Reagan threatened to make star war missile defense.
But if Russia did this, would Russia warm Earth more than China with it’s high CO2 emission?
One thing about mining lunar water at lunar poles, evenually it would lead to things like Mars settlements, but more importantly to harvesting solar energy from space [and using that electrical power in space] but once cheap enough transmitting electrical power globally. And not have a global energy problem.
But this would also lead to making it cheaper to warm Russia, which has average land temperature of -4 C.
Now, Russia has worked on idea of illuminating vast areas of Russia
to alleviate it miserable darkness during winter periods. And at would probably lessen Russian habit drinking some much vodka, but one also think of it lower costs street lighting. Anyhow, so it’s just reflecting sunlight from space. So large and lightweight reflectors, and they were doing this decades ago- and apparently didn’t go anywhere. But if things were cheaper in space, one could bigger and better stuff and at much lower cost. So one could light areas with more precision or even do things providing sunlight to grow crops. Or make cold coastal region, a summer resort. Etc.
gbaikie says:
Though it could also take the route of designing the best nuclear bombs for warming the ocean and at cheapest unit cost.
Does “cheapest” include the costs of burying those who die from radiation poisoning and those sickened for life?
“Despite objections from some 30 members of the Polynesian Territorial Assembly, the first nuclear test was conducted on July 2, 1966, code named Aldebaran, when a plutonium fission bomb was exploded in the lagoon. Greenpeace states in a 21st-century study that the explosion sucked all the water from the lagoon, “raining dead fish and mollusks down on the atoll”, and that it spread contamination across the Pacific as far as Peru and New Zealand.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moruroa
Nobody died according to Greenpeace.
People are still dying from Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
You idea is astonishingly reckless.
And from Chernobyl. The Russians remember Chernobyl, even if you don’t.
Entropic man says:
At that rate, warming the oceans by 1C would take
5.4*10^24 / 3*10*10^22 = 180 years.
But the warming isn’t uniform. The average temperature change of the 0-700 m region of the ocean, globally, is about 0.15 C since 1955.
But the average warming of the 0-100 m region is about 0.65 C. And this is where most marine life lives.
I’ve lived in this area of Indiana for 45 years of my life. Fall was notable for some colder than average temps and the lack of severe thunderstorms and tornadic activity.
Summer here in central Indiana has been nothing unusual and in fact pretty much normal. Highs in the 90s with high humidity in July are not anomalous here. Like most years my yard started get brown spots in Early July. That is normal unlike the several previous years when my grass stayed green and continued to grow like it was springtime right through the summer. This year we’re starting to need some rain and that goes for much of the corn belt. Though the plants are green and most tasseled by the 4th of July, I have noticed the leaves cupping on the corn plants during my trucking from western MO to eastern NY over the last couple weeks.
So the weather and climate geeks can paint my region as red on their temperature maps as I want and it won’t effect my opinion about what is really going on. And that is that it is nothing unusual and nothing to worry about.
And if the long range forecasts are correct it looks like we in all of the corn belt plus a good bit of the rest of the nation are in for average or below average temps and above average precipitation for the rest of the summer.
I will leave to you experts to argue why but those that argue that this summer has been something exceptional this year in the lower 48 just justify my skepticism of their claims and credibility.
Thanks RAH for the info.
But as far as I remember, there were rather many people who all the time mentioned record colds in North America.
A short look at all reports by climate stations have shown that indeed it was unusually cold there even till in the spring.
But the reports have shown also that 2018 was, in the sorted record cold lists, for nearly all stations, far below the coldest years.
Some examples
– CA YT Haines: position 370 of 498
– .. BC Nelson: 221 of 275
– .. NU Eureka: 1656 of 5090
– US AK Tanana: 294 of 1432
It is just like our coldie Salvatore, who really believes that in South Africa, record colds appear as well!
The coldest minimum there since beginning of 2018 was in VRYBURG on July 4 with -8.2 C. Indeed quite a bit cold compared with today’s 17 C.
But what people hinting on cold places always forget to add is their altitude: 1275 m.
Hahaha….. real climate vs a peer reviewed paper. It is a blog with an objective. Science includes both sides in the body of literature.
Entropic man
Your description regarding the seat belt buckle was really good. Thanks.
Chuck
Is this the question you “don’t have time” to answer? Lol
“If you dont think the thermometer is able to absorb energy from the original object (too cold) what difference would an even colder object make?”
Upthread, I wrote,
“In a closed system, when a warmer object absorbs IR from a colder one, the warmer body gets COLDER. The warmer bodies internal energy DECREASES. Heat is transferred AWAY from the warmer body.”
*******
“JDHuffman
July 15, 2018
Anonymous Ms Snape better back away from that nonsense, quickly. Shes got the GHE now cooling the planet!
Silly anonymous trolls.
Reply
Chuck Wiese
July 16, 2018
JD: Yes, too funny!”
********
I don’t expect much from Huffy, but a meteorologist should know the earth/atmosphere is not a closed system.
Creating a straw man is just one trick an anonymous troll uses.
Likely Ma Snape knows a few more such tricks.
Whoops! I should have used the term “isolated system” instead of closed system:
“In thermodynamics, a closed system can exchange energy (as heat or work) but not matter, with its surroundings. An isolated system cannot exchange any heat, work, or matter with the surroundings.”
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Closed_system#In_thermodynamics
They can talk it up all they want the facts are the trends in overall sea surface temperatures are down as well as the trends in overall global temperature and this is the start.
I will be continuing.
This wasn’t true for June, the first month of summer:
Salvatore Del Prete says:
August 13, 2017 at 5:18 AM
“I still say according to satellite data global temperatures by next summer will be at or below 30 year means. 1980-2010.”
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/08/uah-global-temperature-update-for-july-2017-0-28-deg-c/#comment-258853
cor- it will be continuing.
https://www.iceagenow.info/australia-coldest-winter-temperatures-ever-recorded/
Mike
“Try to get a million tonnes of ice to exchange some of its heat with a teaspoon of water.”
You could use this link to calculate how much energy from the ice arrives at the teaspoon, and how much energy from the teaspoon is received by the ice.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/View_factor
S,
Another pointless and irrelevant link, purely designed to deny, divert and confuse?
Your assertion is completely pointless. Do you really believe that lenses of appropriate construction cannot concentrate light? Or that parabolic mirrors cannot do the same? How does the view factor stop that easily observed fact from occurring?
As I said, you can concentrate weak sunlight (less than 300 W/m2) to boil water. Try it with 300 W/m2 from ice, and you will discover your revered climatologists have no idea of real physics!
Carry on – thrash about with irrelevancies. Still no GHE – you can’t even describe that mythical creature can you?
Cheers.
Mike
My argument: Objects at different temperature exchange energy. The warmer suffers a net loss.
Your argument: energy cannot be exchanged if it cannot be magnified.
Hmmm……..
S,
Your argument is stupid. Objects do not exchange energy. They emit light (or energy, if you wish), if above absolute zero. The warmer accepts precisely none from the colder.
I have no argument with real science and physics. There is no exchange of energy. All your foolish analogies, thoughtless fantasy scenarios, and all the rest cannot change reality.
You may misrepresent me to your heart’s content, if you wish.
Reducing the amount of energy reaching a thermometer doesn’t cause an increase in temperature. Putting more CO2 between the Sun and a thermometer reduces the amount of energy reaching the thermometer.
Carry on dreaming – still no indescribable GHE. So sad, too bad.
Cheers.
“Objects do not exchange energy. They emit light (or energy, if you wish), if above absolute zero. The warmer accepts precisely none from the colder.”
But how does the warmer body know if the radiation comes from a cooler body?
Emitted radiation is only distinguished by frequency. It does not carry a big sign saying (“I come from a body with temperature T – please accept me if you are cooler, otherwise I must keep travelling”
See how stupid your idea is! Go back to school please.
n,
Maybe you should stick to psychobabble?
What is your point? Anthropomorphism and idiotic gotchas are often symptomatic of delusional GHE believers.
Once you have figured out why you cannot concentrate 300 W/m2 from 1 m2 of ice by any means – even to focussing the light into 1 cm2, making it 10,000 times stronger, you will have some understanding of why you appear stupid and ignorant to anybody with real knowledge.
If you asked yourself why some infrared light does not interact with black plastic garbage bags (passing straight through), or IR lenses can be made from silicon, a metalloid which is opaque to visible light, but works nicely to concentrate and focus IR.
You have no clue, have you? Just a string of silly gotchas.
CO2 has no magical properties. No GHE.
Cheers.
The climate clown asks: “But how does the warmer body know if the radiation comes from a cooler body?”
And, then immediately adds: “Emitted radiation is only distinguished by frequency.”
The anonymous clown has no idea how funny he is.
JDHuffman
Ge*ran, you almost let it slip. You said “funny he is”
I still think you are the same poster that went as Ge*ran and writing out a JDHuffman is just as anonymous as Ge*ran.
I think you caught yourself. My thought is you initially wrote your favorite word “hilarious” and then changed it not to blow your cover.
Norman Grinvalds, now that you have revealed your true identity, it seems you are holding back the insults, somewhat.
But, your paranoid delusions continue. Do you have nightmares about the word “hilarious”?
How about the word “ridiculous”? Farcical? Humorous?
nurse…”But how does the warmer body know if the radiation comes from a cooler body?”
By its frequency. E = hf. The incoming EM must raise an electron in the receiving body through a potential difference between energy levels of E in eV. Only a frequency, f, that can produce that E will be accepted.
You have likely heard of filters in electronics. A tone control is a filter and a graphics or parameteric equalizer is a very fancy tone control. They attenuate or amplify certain frequencies in the audio spectrum.
A filter’s Q defines the steepness of the bandpass curve (the frequencies it will pass) and the degree to which it will reject unwanted frequencies.
An electron residing at a certain energy level has a specific frequency based on it’s angular velocity. The velocity changes with each orbital energy band hence the frequency. The incoming EM must match that frequency exactly or it is rejected, just as in an electronic filter.
It’s about resonance.
nurse…”It does not carry a big sign saying (I come from a body with temperature T please accept me if you are cooler”
Temperature is related to frequency. When an atom emits EM of a certain frequency, that frequency is related to the temperature of the atom.
When atoms are heated, their electrons jump to higher energy levels and the higher energy levels have different frequencies.
“…the temperature of the atom.”
Gordon writing an atom has a temperature goes a long way to demonstrate Gordon’s poor understanding of atm. and quantum physics.
“By its frequency. E = hf.”
The sun and earth surface both radiate photons in the visible band frequencies & Gordon cannot tell which photon was emitted at the temperature of the sun or the temperature of the earth from E=hf, they have the same energy.
Gordon doesn’t even understand intensity as demonstrated by his erroneous discussions of mW vs. W in radiance charts.
“Only a frequency, f, that can produce that E will be accepted.”
Accepted? Would that be an object’s acceptivity Gordon?
Gordon is a never ending source of entertaining physics errors. Keep up the act Gordon, entertainers do earn their keep.
Gordon Robertson says:
Temperature is related to frequency.
What’s the equation for it?
When an atom emits EM of a certain frequency, that frequency is related to the temperature of the atom.
What’s the equation for the temperature of an atom?
What’s the equation for the frequency as a function of the atom’s temperature?
Mike Flynn
I think you might have to reconsider when you state an argument is stupid.
You say you have no argument with real science and physics. That seems odd since you just did argue with it.
Here is a link from MIT on heat transfer.
https://tinyurl.com/mwbe9g7
Since you don’t read links I will have to post it for you.
“For body 1, we know that $ E_b$ is the emissive power of a black body, so the energy leaving body 1 is $ E_{b1} A_1$ . The energy leaving body 1 and arriving (and being ab*sorbed) at body 2 is $ E_{b1} A_1 F_{1-2}$ . The energy leaving body 2 and being abs*orbed at body 1 is $ E_{b2} A_2 F_{2-1}$ . The net energy interchange from body 1 to body 2 is”
It does not copy so good. Go to the site and you will see that you are wrong and don’t have a clue about what real science claims.
Not sure where you are getting your made up version from.
N,
What are you trying to say? That if you have enough Watts from ice, you can heat some water?
You obviously do not comprehend the contents of your link – maybe you might try to understand why focussing the heat energy from a 0 C source will not enable you to heat even a minuscule amount of water!
Maybe you could provide a link which explains such things? Just for the edification of others who share your delusions, of course.
Carry on. If you want to point out where I have made a substantive error of fact, just do so. Computer models, thoughts or expert opinions are not facts, of course.
Still no GHE, and anyone who thinks that reducing the amount of energy reaching a thermometer will increase its temperature is stupid and ignorant. If you do not agree, then you are also stupid and ignorant.
Cheers.
Mike Flynn
Explain how you would “foucus” energy from a diffuse source. You can focus solar energy with a lens since by the time it reaches Earth the only rays arriving at Earth are the parallel ones. If the surface is near only a small percentage of the overall energy is parallel rays so how will you focus this energy?
Do you have any known method or are you just being a troll with no intent to discuss ideas or learn?
Poor Norman Grinvalds has no knowledge of how photons can be focused. He’s probably never heard of common things like antenna arrays, wave guides, and such.
Just a sheltered life, he’s led.
But, at least he’s been able to flee reality.
JDHuffman
Get me a device that will focus the energy coming off ice. You just jump around like a frog on hot pavement and you think your points are somehow valid. My claim was from a diffuse source. Are your examples concentrating diffuse energy?
Here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waveguide
I do not see any evidence of this technology concentrating diffuse light. If allows generated light to move large distances without the normal energy losses of inverse square law but I fail to see how this is even remotely an example of diffuse energy being concentrated.
Here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antenna_array
I do not see how this technology is concentrating diffuse energy. It allows on to concentrate energy but it is not taking diffuse energy and concentrating it. A laser also sends a beam of concentrated energy a large distance but a laser does not concentrate diffuse energy.
Here maybe this will help you understand. I don’t have much hope for you but maybe. Do you live in an area that sometimes has a thick fog? If so, take any type of lens you design or mirror and try to concentrate this diffuse light into a brighter spot. When you do this I will sit up and read your posts with great enthusiasm. Until then you only demonstrate a total lack of science knowledge and your posts only embarrass yourself.
N,
A thermal camera focusses diffuse IR light. A visible light camera focusses visible diffuse light.
And so on. You confuse radiative intensity with temperature, because you are stupid and ignorant.
The four differently coated surfaces of a Lesley cube will be emitting at different intensities, even if all the same temperature, for example if the cube is filled with boiling water.
Carry on asking your silly gotchas. You are unlikely to get any answers unless and until you demonstrate you have made even a minor effort to establish the facts for yourself.
Still no GHE – you still can’t even describe this nonsensical concept, can you?
Cheers.
Grinvalds, just because you don’t understand how photons can be focused, that doesn’t mean they can’t. Not everyone is ignorant and avoids reality.
And, your trying to hide behind “diffuse” won’t work either. Infrared from the sky is as “diffuse” as it gets.
Where will you hop next?
Mike Flynn
YOU: “A thermal camera focusses diffuse IR light. A visible light camera focusses visible diffuse light.”
Wow help the endless ignorance. NO a thermal camera or light camera DO NOT focus diffuse light! They are focusing the small amount of energy that is given off parallel to the emitting surface, the rest of the energy is going in other directions. That is why a visible camera image will not burn a hole at the focus point. I am unsure why you can’t understand even a little physics. Read some physics and quit the stupid posts showing your endless stupidity and ignorance. Will you be as stupid as JDHuffman (Ge*ran).
Will you be such a mindless moron that you refuse to read a textbook on physics but you will pretend you have knowledge of the subject. How dumb do you have to be?
Poor Grinvalds, he just can’t get any science correct.
“That is why a visible camera image will not burn a hole at the focus point.
Grinvalds, the reflected light will not burn a hole. Point the camera at the Sun, if you want to burn a hole. I know it’s confusing, but just remember this simple phrase: “It’s the Sun, stupid.”
I love it when you guys debate Stefan-Boltzmann, Maxwell, Planck, quantum mechanics, wave mechanics, General Relativity, Clausius, Navier-Stokes, Bose-Einstein, Fermi-Dirac and other physics theories but I try not to get sucked into the discussion.
These are all theories……they are all wrong. There never will be a physics theory that is a “True” form as envisaged by Plato.
Such theories are useful to the extent that they help us understand what is going on around us. You folks fight like demons and I admire that, yet once in a while you may want to take a step back and laugh at yourselves. A sense of humor is something every physicist needs.
For example one of the most powerful insights in physics is the idea that radiation from “Black Bodies” is quantized. Prior to Max Planck and his equation e = h(nu) the radiation from hot bodies could not be explained, resulting in the “Ultra Violet Catastrophe”.
Planck’s quantum theory explains Stefan-Boltzmann, the photo-electric effect, specific heat and much more. In spite of all that it is not “True” in the Platonic sense because it cannot explain interference. Here is a little song that explains better than I can:
http://ww3.haverford.edu/physics-astro/songs/cavendish/hv_music.htm
Enjoy!
g,
To paraphrase Richard Feynman, anyone who claims to understand quantum physics – doesn’t.
Just look at some of the extremely erudite professors attempting to explain the apparently simple phenomenon of reflection!
No wonder Feynman said that he thought science was the belief in the ignorance of experts.
Cheers.
gallopingcamel
A good philosophical point. The theories are not “wrong” they are models that seem to work. Like a car that can get you to work. You may have to work on it from time to time and tune it but that does not mean the models are wrong.
Also the models used for heat transfer and the current equations seem to work very well and are not just ideas on paper but actually used in real world engineering applications. If the model was wrong they would have to find one that was useful and applicable.
Many of the models found in science are very usable and are applied on a daily basis. So I will continue to stick with the valid models until a skeptic can prove that they do not work and are indeed “wrong”.
One of my favorite “valid models” is a simple AM radio. It demonstrates that different electromagnetic fluxes do not add.
Reality drops on the pseudoscience clowns like a ton of bricks, “on a daily basis”.
JDHuffman
It is against my better judgment to try and use logic or reason with you. As a disruptive troll, you are not the least bit interested in intelligent discussion.
I have asked you to do a simple test with lights and you jump to AM radio for no real reason except to try to get out of a simple test showing you do not understand physics. I wish you might but as the role of a disruptive troll real science is of no interest to you, only disruption makes you happy.
Anyway with your AM radio. The tuner is isolating all the other currents induced by broad*cast stations. Each broad*cast station adds a current to the ant*ennae. If you turn off a broad*cast station there is less current, less overall energy. Not that this will help you with physics in any way. Also not that you care about it at all.
Now do your own test to prove to yourself you really don’t know physics. Do the test I suggested with two heat lamps. You will soon find you know very little.
Genvalds, you are proving my point and you don’t even know it. The fact that the tuning circuit can select frequency should tell you the fluxes are different. That’s why your “example” with the lights fails. Visible light is in a narrow band, and you are adding energy with a second light within the same spectrum.
What you have to prove is the combination of a light bulb and ice. For example, put an object close to a light bulb. Allow the object to get to an equilibrium temperature. Now, bring in a wall of ice. Do the light bulb and ice fluxes add?
JDHuffman
YOU: “What you have to prove is the combination of a light bulb and ice. For example, put an object close to a light bulb. Allow the object to get to an equilibrium temperature. Now, bring in a wall of ice. Do the light bulb and ice fluxes add?”
Yes the two fluxes add. The thing you won’t understand, even when I explain it to you, is that the ice will block the IR energy from warmer walls if you do the test on Earth.
If you did the test in dark space you would certainly understand that fluxes add. If you had just a light and plate on the dark side of the moon and reached a steady state temperature and then brought in some relatively warm ice (0 C ice), a wall of it, the IR from the ice would add and you would have a warmer steady state plate temperature then without the ice present. It is really the truth and how radiant heat transfer works. Until you actually study the science what I wrote will be beyond your ability to comprehend.
Grinvalds, you have launched yourself into a new, higher orbit of irrationality:
“…the ice will block the IR energy from warmer walls…”
JDHuffman
I am correct you are not intelligent enough to understand the points. You see valid science as irrational. Sad that you continue to post.
YOU: “Grinvalds, you have launched yourself into a new, higher orbit of irrationality:
the ice will block the IR energy from warmer walls
That is exactly what ice would do. It will absorb all the IR emitted by walls that are at room temperature and will only emit based upon its temperature. The IR from the warmer walls will not reach a powered plate if ice is between it.
You really are clueless about heat transfer. Go study the real stuff and stop bothering me with your grade school physics. You don’t understand enough to realize you are very ignorant of the science. I have spent considerable time learning valid science. You have not. I was not wanting to reply to you. Now I know why.
If you go learn some real physics of heat transfer and come back with some decent points I will be glad to communicate with you. As of now you have such little knowledge of physics that it becomes a complete waste of time trying to explain science to you. You can’t understand it anyway.
Ge*ran also had this same problem. He was as dumb as a box of rocks but thought he was brilliant. But he was hilarious I guess. You have about as much physics in your head as this one did. Roy Spencer gave Ge*ran advice “You need to study some physics”. Ge*ran never did take this good advice. I am giving you the same advice. You really do not know what you are talking about at all.
Norman Grinvalds, you can believe what you want. Not a problem. In fact, I enjoy it.
Don’t let any science bother you. If you want to build imaginary “warmer walls”, that weren’t even part of my example, go for it.
It’s no wonder you have paranoid delusions. You’re afraid reality might catch up with you.
It already has, but you can’t see it….
JDHuffman
Either you are the same poster as Ge*ran or there are two people with the same bad logical thought process and inability to understand content of a post. So maybe you are not Ge*ran but your posts are very similar.
So why am I torturing myself hoping that you might have a rational neuron in your illogical brain?
YOU: “What you have to prove is the combination of a light bulb and ice. For example, put an object close to a light bulb. Allow the object to get to an equilibrium temperature. Now, bring in a wall of ice. Do the light bulb and ice fluxes add?”
You are correct your example is extremely lacking in any details. So if I assumed you were doing this in normal conditions you should not blame me. If you do not specify conditions other than normal environment, why would I think you are talking about other conditions?
If there is nothing around but the light bulb, object and a wall of ice that still does not help to answer you question. Is the ice at near absolute zero? Is it 0 C? What is it. You create a meaningless situation and criticize me for making assumptions about the conditions, then you ask a question about a meaningless situation that can have unlimited possibilities. You are one really stupid poster. Do better. I know you are not able to but one can hope.
What are the “paranoid delusions”, that you act like the poster Ge*ran? He is banned and you show up a month later posting the same dumb points he did. Nate also sees a strong resemblance to that clown. It is not so paranoid or delusional to raise the possibility you are one and same person.
Grinvalds, here’s the reality:
“What you have to prove is the combination of a light bulb and ice. For example, put an object close to a light bulb. Allow the object to get to an equilibrium temperature. Now, bring in a wall of ice. Do the light bulb and ice fluxes add?”
How many 500 word, irrelevant comments will you need to deny the reality?
JDHuffman
Your post is as stupid the 2nd time around as the first. You don’t provide details even when I asked for them. You slammed me for assuming you were doing this thought experiment in a normal room temperature conditions. So what are the conditions for you test?
If makes a huge difference if you are doing it in a room with walls at room temperature or a very cold environment. It also highly depends upon the temperature of the ice on what overall effect the ice wall has.
Now the size of the ice wall does not matter after the view factor is determined. The object will only absorb from the ice wall what IR from the wall can reach it. Never mind, you are not capable of understanding view factor.
If your ice wall is at 0 C (273 K) and the surroundings are near absolute zero, the ice wall will result in the object reaching a higher temperature than with light alone. The fluxes will add. Not sure what you don’t understand about this.
JDHuffman
This will not help you understand but it might help others.
If you have a sphere with a one square meter surface area surrounded by ice that is maintained at 273 K, the sphere will maintain a temperature of 273 K in steady state condition with the surrounding ice. Now turn on a heat lamp inside the ice shell that is directed at the sphere and the sphere will reach a higher steady state temperature. The IR from the ice added energy to get the sphere to 273 K and it stays there until you add more energy and it goes up.
Without the surrounding ice the sphere, even with the heat lamp, would be much colder. It is basic heat transfer physics. If you think I am wrong copy and email my point to a physics teacher at some University and see what they say.
Well Grinvalds, I gave you the reality. A quick estimate of your two reality-denying comments is about 500 words.
You need to keep commenting. Reality is still here.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2018/07/summer-causes-climate-change-hysteria/#comment-312519
JDHuffman
I explained in detail the fluxes adding. You do not possess enough physics to even begin to grasp what I am posting.
If you are not the clown Ge*ran, you act just as dumb as he did. There is no more point in continuing with you is there? You don’t know any physics. You are just a disruptive troll who loves to get responses to their idiotic comments.
I explained all. I can’t help it if you are too shallow and ignorant to understand it. Ge*ran, you were never one who could read posts longer than 10 words. Why did you come back?
When Grinvalds gets tired of running from reality, he starts the insults, every time.
JDHuffman
YOU: “When Grinvalds gets tired of running from reality, he starts the insults, every time.”
Are they insults or factual assessments or your mental abilities?
I explained the points to you in detail. Your response was the idiotic “Well Grinvalds, I gave you the reality. A quick estimate of your two reality-denying comments is about 500 words.
You need to keep commenting. Reality is still here.”
When you make stupid statements like that you need to be called stupid (which you are). Why pretend you know what you are talking about it gets real old.
When you post really stupid points I do counter by telling you to study some physics (which you haven’t and won’t). You want to play around like a drunken fool with stupid posts and dumb comments but you don’t want to learn any physics
You are probably Ge*ran returned even if you deny it. Same stupid ignorant style. Same lack of actual physics. Then when I take the time to explain things to you, you are not able to remotely understand them.
Nother 200 words, with no science. avoiding reality. Grinvalds still is unable to show how infrared from ice adds to visible. All he’s got is nonsense.
Ge*ran
Changing to JDHuffman does not make you any smarter or make me want to endlessly waste time communicating with a dork.
Time to leave it alone. I have wasted too much time with you already. You are not smart enough or logical enough to attempt rational discussions and you still have ADD so you can’t read and comprehend a 200 word post (which really is not dauntingly long for a normal person).
The phases Norman Grinvalds goes through when he’s faced with reality:
1) Massive denial
2) Insults, attacks, and false accusations,
3) Claiming that he doesn’t have time to spend all day on a blog, only to be right back, spending all day on the blog.
(And, don’t anyone use the word “hilarious”. Poor Grinvalds won’t be able to sleep that night!)
JD,
If ‘fluxes don’t add’ can you explain the point of adding all the mirrors pointing more and more solar flux to the same object?
https://www.sciencealert.com/the-world-s-biggest-solar-thermal-power-plant-is-being-built-in-south-australia
Anonymous Nate, you obviously don’t understand the word “different”, along with all your other mis-understandings.
No wonder you remain hidden in the shadows, trying to fight reality.
‘Different’?
As in JDHuffman and Ge*ran are different names for the same person. A person trying to hide his previous identity?
Yes I know the word.
In the context of fluxes adding, ‘different’ is insufficient to explain the example I gave.
A different example would be many different lights at a football game pointing at the field, their fluxes adding, to make the field just as lit up as the sun would make it in daytime.
Norman Grinvalds tried the same tactic, but couldn’t understand why it didn’t apply.
Something tells my you won’t get it either.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2018/07/summer-causes-climate-change-hysteria/#comment-312465
JD,
You have said fluxes don’t add. When Norman and I give real examples of fluxes adding, you move the goal posts. Nonsense.
Nameless Nate, no one expects you to understand the issue.
JD/Ger*,
How bout this? Tell us when it is, specifically, that fluxes don’t add?
In the context of heat transfer, the EM flux carries energy. If two fluxes are hitting an object does the energy they carry not add up?
Then some of energy is cancelled out, vaporized? Where did it go?
How about this, anonymous Nate? How about showing me one example where you have chosen reality over deception?
Just take this current thread, for example. Look what you did when I used the word “different” to explain the issue. You ran from reality.
All you’ve got are your anonymous names, fake credentials, tricks, and games.
Here’s a game just for you clowns. See which of you four can get the correct answer first.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2018/07/summer-causes-climate-change-hysteria/#comment-312515
I see you have no real science answers. So insult.
As per the usual MO of Ger*an, 80% insults, 10% distraction, 10% obfuscation, 0% science.
How about this, anonymous Nate? How about showing me one example where you have chosen reality over deception?
JDHuffman says:
How about this, anonymous Nate?
You yourself are anonymous.
So how is this supposed to be a biting remark??
Ger*an,
Just stick to insults, distractions, diversions.
Whenever you try to be sciency, you step in it.
http://spiff.rit.edu/classes/phys311.old/lectures/vector/vector.html
And you still are denying basic facts. Vectors can be summed using Vector ARITHMETIC.
Everyone here was already quite aware that fluxes are directional. They are vectors.
As such, fluxes can be summed.
Your made-up rule that fluxes don’t add is utterly stupid.
All wrong, Nate.
You’re welcome to use my direct quotes. That will keep you from looking so uneducated.
Nate,
You can not add electromagnetic fluxes. These fluxes are geometrically constrained by the solid angle 4Pi sr. All we can do is replace one flux with another. This is what solar power plants and magnifiers do.
This is also why there are no independent backradiations and why the concept of radiative forcing is nonsense.
phi says:
This is also why there are no independent backradiations….
Fact: the atmosphere radiates.
Fact: Some of that radiation is downward.
How can you deny “backradiation” when it’s trivial to measure it?
This is also why there are no independent backradiations and why the concept of radiative forcing is nonsense.
“All we can do is replace one flux with another.”
So “we” can subtract one EM flux and add in another EM flux. Got it.
phi says:
This is also why there are no independent backradiations and why the concept of radiative forcing is nonsense.
Backradiation — radiation from the atmosphere — can easily be measured.
Are you saying all those measurement are wrong?????? That they’re measuring something that doesn’t exist????????
Phi,
Not sure how you are defining adding?
If I fill up the 4pi sr with different light sources, as in the football game, certainly their fluxes add. And yes they may have replaced a weak background source, but so what?
DA, N. Grinvalds, and their accompanying anonymous clowns, Ball4 and Nate, never heard of John Henry.
(That’s a hint for the clowns, let’s see if they can figure it out.)
That was fun. Y’all were amazing.
Nate,
And yes they may have replaced a weak background source, but so what?
This simply shows that fluxes are absolutely geometrically linked and therefore the potentials double flux absolutely interrelated. The two-way model is therefore superfluous and any thermodynamic theory that can not do without this superfluous model fails.
In this sense, the concept of radiative forcing is of course failing because it is based on the conservation of the value of backradiations in the process of return to equilibrium.
But that, we knew already since the concept of radiative forcing is not derived from the laws of physics (that it contradicts by putting the equivalence between heating and insulation) but of a wobbly hypothesis on the thermal gradient.
There is no major difficulty on the side of radiative physics, its relations with thermodynamics are relatively well understood. The theoretical difficulty lies in convection and the knot of the case in the tricks used to circumvent this difficulty.
Phi,
What happened to supporting your claim ‘You can not add electromagnetic fluxes’?
Of course this is preposterous.
So now you are moving away from this into other more complicated issues.
‘therefore the potentials double flux absolutely interrelated.’
What is this gibberish supposed to mean, Phi?
Anonymous Nate, clown supporting the fake science, you can NOT willy-nilly, arbitrarily, irresponsibly, ignorantly, add different radiative fluxes.
That’s just ONE of the many facts that shoot down the AGW/GHE nonsense,
(Still unable to figure out the “John Henry” hint, huh?)
‘you can NOT willy-nilly, arbitrarily, irresponsibly, ignorantly, add different radiative fluxes.’
First of all, lots of qualifiers have now been added.
Second, Why?
Let me predict: I won’t get a straight answer out of you, because you have none.
It will be either:
an insult
a distraction
a diversion
Most likely all 3.
Nate,
There is no other proof to bring than which I have already given you: electromagnetic fluxes are absolutely bound to a solid angle, they can not be added but only substituted.
Take your example of solar power plan. Mirrors do not make adition but substitution. At night, for example, they replace the image of the temperate surface with an image of the cold sky. They therefore increase the cooling of the boiler. They obviously do not add backradiations.
The concept of radiative forcing relies however on the possibility of adding backradiations of the atmosphere to the heating of the surface by the sun. This concept is therefore an absurdity.
Backradiations are just an expression of the resistance of the atmosphere to radiative transfers. It has nothing to do with heating.
phi says:
Backradiations are just an expression of the resistance of the atmosphere to radiative transfers. It has nothing to do with heating.
What you call “backradiation” is just radiation by the atmosphere.
Why do you have such a difficult time with that concept?
phi says:
The concept of radiative forcing relies however on the possibility of adding backradiations of the atmosphere to the heating of the surface by the sun. This concept is therefore an absurdity.
Why?
Fluxes add.
gallopingcamel says:
That was fun. Yall were amazing.
The surface, at at an average of 288 K, radiates an average of 390 W/m2.
But only 240 W/m2 leaves out the top of the atmosphere.
Where is the missing 150 W/m2?
David Appell,
What you call “backradiation” is just radiation by the atmosphere.
In fact, the only fully acceptable physical denomination is irradiance.
Why do you have such a difficult time with that concept?
Because irradiance is not a flux in the thermodynamic sense. Backradiations therefore have nothing to do with the greenhouse effect theory.
Fluxes add.
No. That’s precisely what I explain to Nate. In addition, irradiance is not really a flux.
Anonymous Nate, first you have to come in from hiding behind the bushes, second, you could not understand without the qualifiers.
I predict you will carry on, in denial, anonymously.
DA, your continued search for your “missing” 150 W/m^2 should tell you something.
There is no missing 150 W/m^2.
And, that makes you a climate clown.
Phi,
“There is no other proof to bring than which I have already given you: electromagnetic fluxes are absolutely bound to a solid angle, they can not be added but only substituted.”
Geometry is not at all the point. Of course we don’t add fluxes that are blocked or NOT striking the same surface. That is self-evident, and a distraction.
Fluxes that strike the same surface add. After all the fluxes can be described by Pointing vectors. Pointing vectors add, as vectors do. Yes/No?
Real world: my wife worked in theater in college, sometimes controlling the lights. Often several spotlights were directed at a single actor on stage. It should be obvious that these separate fluxes hitting the same actor ADDED. They lit-up the actor more and more with each additional spotlight.
This should not be controversial.
JD/Ger*an,
” first you have to come in from hiding behind the bushes, second, you could not understand without the qualifiers.
I predict you will carry on, in denial, anonymously.”
Just as I predicted. No answers. No science.
You make assertions, but cannot support them. So you move the goal posts. Add qualifiers. Hem and haw.
Then come the
insults
distractions
diversions
Just as I predicted, nameless Nate: “you will carry on, in denial, anonymously.”
Nate,
Of course we don’t add fluxes that are blocked or NOT striking the same surface.
This is not the question at all.
There is never adition and always substitution. It can not be otherwise and this is true also for your spotlight.
EM fluxes are absolutely linked to their direction and are therefore neither additive nor decomposable into two opposite independent flows. This demonstration by optics says exactly the same thing as the second principle: two opposing energy flows are not independent and are inseparable.
This is why the notion of backradiation is perfectly useless.
You must be able to do without and therefore the concept of radiative forcing has no basis.
‘There is never adition and always substitution. ‘It can not be otherwise and this is true also for your spotlight.’
If you insist, then each spotlight’s fluxes has been substituted for previously ZERO flux. The result is the same as SUMMING all fluxes.
‘EM fluxes are absolutely linked to their direction and are therefore neither additive’
Yes the fluxes are described by Poynting vectors. Why are Poynting vectors not additive?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poynting_vector
Well, after hours of searching, anonymous Nate finally stumbled onto “John Henry”, the hint I provided.
It shouldn’t have taken so long, but we won’t go there….
Nate,
They are integrable strictly on 4Pi sr. Therefore, they are not additives but substitutable.
Otherwise, briefly and for the thousandth time because this misunderstanding is really extraordinary : given the impossibility of calculating convection, theorists use a trick to try to quantify the effect of GHGs anyway. They admit that the thermal gradient is independent of radiative exchanges, so independent of GHG rates and parameterizable on an empirical basis.
From this follows that whatever the origin of any radiative imbalance, the equilibrium is recovered by an identical mechanism, in the first order by translation of the thermal profile.
As a result, an increase in short waves or long waves has exactly the same effect. This is the only reason why, in climatology alone, one believes oneself allowed to consider backradiations as heating.
This confusion has nothing to do with either radiative physics or thermodynamics. This is a flawed specialty of climatology alone.
Phi,
‘They are integrable strictly on 4Pi sr. Therefore, they are not additives but substitutable.’
So you evaded my question.
‘Yes the fluxes are described by Poynting vectors. Why are Poynting vectors not additive?’
JD is also welcome to answer-he likely can’t.
Anonymous Nate, before I gave you the hint, you had never heard of a Poynting vector. The fact that you ask such a stupid question indicates you don’t know the difference between vector addition and scalar addition.
You’re having a hard time faking anyone out, aren’t you?
phi, what you call “backradiation” is just radiation by the atmosphere.
Or do you think some objects (say, the atmosphere) do not radiate?
phi says:
EM fluxes are absolutely linked to their direction and are therefore neither additive nor decomposable into two opposite independent flows.
They are additive as vectors. Because energy is conserved.
DA, if you NOW admit fluxes cannot be added as scalars, why are you always hunting for your 150 W/m*2, with is your result from scalar arithmetic.
Trapped in your own pseudoscience again?
DA, if you NOW admit fluxes cannot be treated as scalars, maybe that explains why you couldn’t ever find your 150 W/m^2, which is the result of scalar arithmetic.
Tangled in your pseudoscience again?
JDG*,
Somehow you went back in time 30 y and taught me E&M. Whatever floats your boat.
Still, you evaded the question by diversion.
Why can’t vector EM fluxes (Poynting vectors) be added?
Phi,
‘They are integrable strictly on 4Pi sr’
The fluxes are integrable. What is integration?
It is of course summation! Because all the fluxes in view of the object are summed.
“Why can’t vector EM fluxes (Poynting vectors) be added?”
Adding/subtracting vectors requires vector algebra. And, it gets even more complicated when the vectors are fluxes.
What attempts at denial are you going to try next?
JDHuffman says:
DA, if you NOW admit fluxes cannot be treated as scalar….
The flux in the SB Law *IS* a scalar….
JDHuffman says:
Adding/subtracting vectors requires vector algebra. And, it gets even more complicated when the vectors are fluxes.
How so?
“The flux in the SB Law *IS* a scalar.”
The “magnitude” is a scalar.
Learn some physics, DA.
Nate, David,
Why are Poynting vectors not additive?
It is not complicated to understand. They are geometrically absolutely linked to a direction. You can not add an infinitesimal quantity to 4Pi sr, so you can only substitute one value for another.
Have you now understood that the assimilation of backradiations to heating (and as a result, the concept of radiative forcing) is a specialty of climatology which has its origin in a trick having value of working hypothesis and not at all in thermodynamics or radiative physics?
Phi,
‘It is not complicated to understand. They are geometrically absolutely linked to a direction. You can not add an infinitesimal quantity to 4Pi sr, so you can only substitute one value for another.’
Apparently a simple summation is too complicated for you to understand.
Whatever fluxes that are PRESENT in the 4pi sr are integrated. The word ‘substitute’ is a red herring.
Integration is a summation. That means fluxes are summed. There is no other possible interpretation.
If you need to deny something as basic as the summing of fluxes, or Poynting vectors add, then none of your other posts will have credibility.
‘substitute’ is a distraction.
JDG,
‘Why cant vector EM fluxes (Poynting vectors) be added?
‘Adding/subtracting vectors requires vector algebra. And, it gets even more complicated when the vectors are fluxes.,
You are revealing your supreme ignorance, G*eran. Vector addition is not algebra.
Nor is it complicated, nor is it MORE complicated for fluxes.
Poynting vectors, just like forces, displacements, electric fields, magnetic fields are all VECTORS.
All of these vectors can be summed, and in fact MUST be summed to find a total vector.
In the case of the atmosphere, with parallel geometry, the addition of flux vectors is cake.
Nate, every time I think there might be a chance for you, you go and fall flat on your face.
http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/em/lectures/node8.html
(Note to self: Anonymous Nate is a climate clown, and has no plans to reform.)
Nate,
You make a colossal effort to not understand a simple notion.
And you refuse to admit the obvious explanation of the use of backradiations in climatology.
I leave you to your denial.
Ger*,
Just stick to insults, distractions, diversions.
Whenever you try to be sciency, you step in it.
http://spiff.rit.edu/classes/phys311.old/lectures/vector/vector.html
And you still are denying basic facts. Vectors can be summed.
And this is done using Vector ARITHMETIC.
Everyone here was already quite aware that fluxes are directional. They are vectors.
As such, fluxes can be summed.
Your made-up rule that fluxes dont add is utterly stupid.
Phi,
You made a series of statements that make no sense.
I tried to hard understand them, but do not. I explained my POV in terms of basic math.
When I make a post like this:
“The fluxes are integrable. What is integration?
It is of course summation! Because all the fluxes in view of the object are summed.”
Then you simply ignore this straightforward fact. Then there is no way to have a rational discussion.
Nate, here’s the reality:
1) You didn’t have a clue what I meant when I said “fluxes don’t add”.
2) When I explained it to you, you said I was “moving the goalposts”.
3) When you figured out my hint, you tried to claim that vectors could be added.
4) Of course vectors can be added, but only if you use the rules of vector algebra.
“Fluxes don’t add”. Why do you run from reality?
‘1) You didn’t have a clue what I meant when I said “fluxes don’t add”.”
Then clearly explain what you mean. Then provide proof.
Integration is not limited to summation. Integration is a summation of indexed values. It is therefore more restrictive and that is why we can say that fluxes are integrable or substitutable but not additive.
“3) When you figured out my hint”
I never do your inane wild goose chases, Ger*an. When are graduating middle school?
“you tried to claim that vectors could be added.”
Vectors either can be added or they can’t. There is no try.
You have already cited a description of how vectors are added. Now you are saying they can’t be added?
That’s just moronic.
Adding things is arithmetic. It is not geometry, calculus or algebra.
Algebra is rules for writing and manipulating equations involving VARIABLES. You must be confusing variables and vectors, dufus.
Are you going to triple down, now?
‘It is therefore more restrictive and that is why we can say that fluxes are integrable or substitutable but not additive.’
I have always agreed that the summation was restricted to fluxes in view, ie in the 4pi sr.
‘substitutable’ implies we should care about the past values of the fluxes, that the present ones replaced.
But to find the total flux we must simply do the integration over present values of the fluxes.
Nate’s comments are getting longer, but with even less value. And, the insults have started.
And, now he admits he’s never heard of “vector algebra”!
Clown entertainment, at its finest.
JDG: “Fluxes don’t add”.
JDG: “fluxes cannot be added as scalars”
Perfect example of Moving the Goal Posts.
BTW fluxes ARE scalars. Once EM power is deposited on a surface or passes through a surface as a flux, it can be added as a scalar.
Nate, the only things you got correct were my quotes!
You might want to just continue to quote me.
Trying to put your own beliefs into words just reveals your learning disability.
Nate,
‘substitutable’ implies we should care about the past values of the fluxes, that the present ones replaced.
No, not necessarily. Substitutable means that fluxes are indexed into a predefined set. This also implies that one can not derive work from backradiations because they are only substitutable.
All this may seem trivial but we are at the heart of the mental model of the greenhouse effect which equates backradiations with heating (the radiative forcing of GHGs). In fact, backradiations are strictly the wobbly expression of the resistance to the radiative cooling only. They do not intervene as given in a thermal problem but are only an ancillary and uninteresting result of a correctly conducted calculation.
‘No, not necessarily. Substitutable means that fluxes are indexed into a predefined set. This also implies that one can not derive work from backradiations because they are only substitutable.’
Don’t follow that. What predefined set?
JDG,
‘Trying to put your own beliefs into words just reveals your learning disability.’
There is not point in pretending you have superior science knowledge, G, when you regularly reveal ignorance.
Its like Trump saying, “there is no one tougher on Russia then me” or “no one respects women more than me”.
We all know the opposite is true.
phi, tests show increased backradiation results in an increase in temperature in an object with mass; increased resistance to radiative cooling results in an increased temperature in an object with mass. An increased temperature in an object with mass is what heating commonly is understood to mean.
So increased backradiation results in heating; increased resistance to radiative cooling results in heating. Both of which are perfectly commonly understood as to what is meant. But if you drop the word heating (and heat as a noun) and use increase in temperature when that is what is meant, then less needless food fights result. Try it, experiment a little in your comments.
Nate, you just “trumped” yourself.
Ball4,
But if you drop the word heating (and heat as a noun)…
Certainly not. The use of the precious notion of heat ensures you are actually in thermodynamics.
But you’re right, eliminating the word makes the quantitative theory of the greenhouse effect less visibly absurd.
Orwellian stuff.
I agree phi, eliminating the word “heat” makes any commenter less visibly absurd when discussing temperature changes in thermodynamics discussions – that’s a sensible way to think about the term.
Now let’s see if phi can reliably become less visibly absurd in comments by eliminating the “heat” term. I have my doubts.
My dear sophist Ball4,
The theory of greenhouse effect having got rid of thermodynamics by the trick described here:
An exact treatment for qc [convective heat flux] would require the solution of the equations of motion and continuity in addition to the solution of the energy equation. This ambitious task has not been attempted by any of the radiative-convective models. In general, qc is accounted for by semiempirical or empirical techniques.
The empirical technique considerably simplifies the procedure for solving the thermal structure of the atmosphere. Since the temperature gradient is prescribed within the troposphere, (8) [qT(z) + qS(z) + qC(z) = const = 0] need not be solved. Instead, the equation for the radiative equilibrium condition, i.e., qT + qS = 0, is solved with the provisio that the lapse rate at any level within the atmosphere should be less than or equal to the critical lapse rate.
Ramanathan and Coakley 1978.
…we understand your insistence on eliminating the vocabulary related to this science.
There is a long list of terms to describe this pseudo-science and those who defend it.
Absud is probaly the kindest.
phi writes: “An exact treatment for qc [convective heat flux]”
Ramanathan and Coakley 1978: “An exact treatment for qc [convective flux]”
phi inserts the absurd term “heat” as an entity in convection not the original authors then blames the original authors for “pseudo-science” when it is actually phi inserting absurd pseudo-science term. My doubts are quickly vindicated.
Phi,
‘Substitutable means that fluxes are indexed into a predefined set.’
Here you are using undefined jargon. If you want anyone to understand, you need to use plain english, or at least unambiguous scientific terms.
Ball4,
Sophism again. q is the dedicated symbol for heat transfers.
Nate,
I would say that it is a little hermetic but certainly not ambiguous.
I am quite surprised that you are stumbling both to insignificant details given that there is a little more substantial to discuss. No ?
Yet more physics absurdity from phi. Again, my doubts are vindicated. R&C do not make the absurd mistakes made by phi.
Ramanthan and Coakley 1978 p. 466:
qs: net solar radiative flux
qT: net long-wave radiative flux
P. 467:
qc: convective flux
Another of phi’s absurdities:
“You can not add electromagnetic fluxes.”
True if, and only if, the 1LOT is repealed or ignored. See R&C78 eqn. 7 which properly adds EM & convective flux consistent with 1LOT.
Ball4,
Heat transfer is a discipline of thermal engineering that concerns the generation, use, conversion, and exchange of thermal energy (heat) between physical systems. Heat transfer is classified into various mechanisms, such as thermal conduction, thermal convection, thermal radiation, and transfer of energy by phase changes.
…
Q is heat flux (W/m²)
(Wikipedia)
What are you looking for by changing the meaning of words?
And by cutting quotes?
You can not add electromagnetic fluxes. These fluxes are geometrically constrained by the solid angle 4Pi sr. All we can do is replace one flux with another. This is what solar power plants and magnifiers do.
Of course, it’s annoying to read in a founding text that there is no thermodynamic calculation of the greenhouse effect.
“These fluxes are geometrically constrained by the solid angle 4Pi sr. All we can do is replace one flux with another. This is what solar power plants and magnifiers do.”
“Replace one flux with another” has the same exact Queen’s English meaning as subtracting one flux and adding another flux just like your source Ramanathan & Coakley eqn. (7).
Please ask your Wiki author how heat transfer out of an object can occur if an entity heat is not contained in that object to begin with.
Wiki is not an unquestionable authority phi. Since the time of Clausius memoirs heat is simply a measure not a physical entity. Energy (U) is a physical entity that is conserved, can and does transfer in various forms. Better:
Energy transfer is a discipline of thermodynamic internal energy engineering that concerns the generation, use, conversion, and exchange of thermodynamic internal energy (U) between physical systems. Energy transfer is classified into various mechanisms, such as thermodynamic internal energy transfer by conduction, thermodynamic internal convection, thermodynamic internal radiation, and transfer of energy by phase changes.
Q is thermodynamic internal energy transfer by virtue of a temperature difference.
There is no use in wiki mangling the meaning of words phi, there is use in being specific and accurate in their application.
Phi,
” This is the only reason why, in climatology alone, one believes oneself allowed to consider backradiations as heating.
This confusion has nothing to do with either radiative physics or thermodynamics. This is a flawed specialty of climatology alone.”
Down-welling long wave radiation is regularly measured and modeled by meteorologists, who have done so since the beginning of modern meteorology.
It must be measured or modeled to properly predict the energy balance of parcels of air over time in weather prediction.
Ball4,
Q is thermodynamic internal energy transfer by virtue of a temperature difference.
Exactly what backradiation is not.
Thermodynamics does not define the term heat for nothing.
There is no thermodynamic calculation of the greenhouse effect, this reality is really painful to admit. I understand you.
Nate,
It must be measured or modeled to properly predict the energy balance of parcels of air over time in weather prediction.
As long as we are only interested in meteorology, we can do without a thermodynamic calculation of the greenhouse effect. Sufficient accuracy can be obtained by parameterization.
The master of thermodynamics defined heat as a measure nothing more. Anyone else fights you on that, stand up with Clausius (not wiki) for good science.
Q is rate of energy transfer; backradiation is energy per unit time per unit area transfer so it is perfectly ok to write backradiation is thermodynamic internal energy transfer by virtue of a temperature difference.
Today the earth surface and near surface atm. exchange energy nearly in steady state so backradiation (toward earth from atm.) is pretty much in equilibrium with forward radiation (earth to atm. and space) so there is not much change global mean T from last month, not much warming from backradiation. Just a long term slight pesky warming imbalance needs to be explained better (see UAH series lower left dot and upper right dot.).
If you could artificially & suddenly cool the earth surface 33K below today’s 288K then remove your apparatus, both the atm. backradiation and the sun would act together warming the surface to reestablish the equilibrium as it is today with a delay due to the masses involved.
Ball4,
…so it is perfectly ok to write backradiation is thermodynamic internal energy transfer by virtue of a temperature difference.
Oh? And what is the temperature difference that you think is behind backradiation?
Well, run this test. Obtain a US ~$30 Ryobi IR002 laser guided IR thermometer with fixed emissivity.
Calibrate by pointing the laser dot on ice water 32F reading and boiling water 212F reading so you know it’s as good as a thermometer.
Then go outside point it at the earth surface take a reading, point it up at clear (day or night, avoid the sun sr.s) sky take a reading. Now you could go do that on an extended vacation trip and cover the globe but you won’t learn much, if anything, more. But you will have seen the world.
Now you know the answer to your question by calibrated instrumentation not speculation or thought experiments.
Yes, good, all right. Goodbye Ball4.
‘As long as we are only interested in meteorology, we can do without a thermodynamic calculation of the greenhouse effect. Sufficient accuracy can be obtained by parameterization.’
Ok, so its fine for meteorology and weather prediction, but not fine for climatology and climate modeling?
Isn’t climate just long-term weather?
Nate,
Isn’t climate just long-term weather?
This would mean that changing the CO2 level has no effect on climate.
It is possible but it is not what climatologists claim.
Phi,
‘This would mean that changing the CO2 level has no effect on climate.’
Non sequitur.
Your specialty.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmospheric_radiative_transfer_codes
‘Radiative transfer codes are used in broad range of applications. They are commonly used as forward models for the retrieval of geophysical parameters (such as temperature or humidity). Radiative transfer models are also used to optimize solar photovoltaic systems for renewable energy generation.[1] Another common field of application is in a weather or climate model, where the RADIATIVE FORCING IS CALCULATED FOR GREENHOUSE GASES, aerosols, or clouds. In such applications, radiative transfer codes are often called RADIATION PARAMETERIZATION.’
Nate, please stop trolling.
cam…”For example one of the most powerful insights in physics is the idea that radiation from Black Bodies is quantized. Prior to Max Planck and his equation e = h(nu) the radiation from hot bodies could not be explained, resulting in the Ultra Violet Catastrophe.”
I agree that we should all laugh at ourselves but that puts us in the company of many modern scientists who have absolutely screwed up much of the work of the scientists you listed. Alarmist climate scientists in particular have huge egos and they present serious distortions of classical and quantum physics with a straight face.
I don’t take myself in the least seriously but I am fascinated by the implications of science based on the history.
With regard to Planck’s quantum theory, he admitted to fudging the math to arrive at a solution to the UV catastrophe. It seriously bothered him for years. If you look at his formula covering that situation there is a handy little exponential on the ‘e’ that statistically manages the EM spectrum to make it fall off at higher frequencies.
Planck did not discover quanta by experiment he did it via Boltzmann’s statistical analysis and the fudging of math.
I don’t think there’s anything wrong with the theories of Clausius aka the 2nd law and entropy. He laid out clear and concise definitions for both and it seems to be modernists who fail to understand his meaning. I find modernists are thoroughly confused over the relationship between EM and heat.
They even botch the meaning of entropy. Look at it as Clausius defined it.
S = integral dq/T
He defined entropy as the sum of infinitesimal heat transfers in a process at the temperature T at which they occurred. He also talked at one point about keeping T constant using a heat bath. In that case you should be able to pull T outside the integral sign and entropy becomes the total heat transferred over a process.
It’s similar to enthalpy, which came from Gibbs. Yet, to hear modernists pontificate on entropy you would think it was a mystical entity related to disorder no one can explain.
cam…BTW, you should join in these discussion. Please try to refrain from talking down the nose without concise proof. I am tired of hearing from so-called experts who have little to offer as proof other than obscure mathematical equations.
Feynman once stated that he would not give a lecture he could not explain subjectively.
Gordon Robertson says:
With regard to Planck’s quantum theory, he admitted to fudging the math to arrive at a solution to the UV catastrophe.
Again Gordon lies about this.
What Planck did was make an *ansatz* — assume something is true, and work out the consequences. Nothing at all untoward.
This is how *every* new physical law is found. Pick one, pick any — they come about by assuming something, and seeing if its consequences describe reality.
That’s what Planck did. There was no “fudging,” just smart, creative science.
Gordon Robertson says:
They even botch the meaning of entropy.
Sometimes you make it starkly clear that you don’t understand the first about a subject.
Here, entropy, and Clausius.
‘Plancks quantum theory, he admitted to fudging the math to arrive at a solution to the UV catastrophe. It seriously bothered him for years. If you look at his formula covering that situation there is a handy little exponential on the e that statistically manages the EM spectrum to make it fall off at higher frequencies.’
Gordon continues his descent into ridiculousness.
Nate, please stop trolling.
EL NINO genesis not looking very good of late. What happened?
So many so sure. AGW theory won’t be able to hi jack it this year perhaps.
As I have said it is the surface oceanic water temperatures that matter not what is beneath, when it comes to the climate.
As Salvatore should have said it is the surface oceanic water temperatures that matter not what is beneath, when it comes to the weather & ENSO in 2018.
Ball , you sound like a parrot.
Well, except a parrot would have parroted your word “climate” instead of replacing it with the proper word “weather”.
oh I though you had a typo. Well it might as well have been.
As there are alarmists, there are also antialarmists. The former people I call the warmistas, the latter ones I call the coolistas.
Let us have a look at the three actually existing Arctic sea ice measurements: extent, area (100 % pack ice) and volume.
The best is to show for each the departures of the monthly values from the running 10 year average of these values for each month, e.g. in the chart below
http://4gp.me/bbtc/153182478634/001.jpg
(Caution: this is not the same as anomalies wrt a fixed reference period.)
I wouldn’t wonder if the same comments concerning Arctic sea ice gain were not published in July 2014!
To be clear: I personally would greatly enjoy
– the Arctic sea ice coming back to earlier values,
and
– the Greenland ice sheet coming back to earlier values as well.
Data sources
– Extent, area:
ftp://sidads.colorado.edu/DATASETS/NOAA/G02135/north/monthly/data/
– Volume
http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/icethickness/txt/IceVol.txt
Thanks to commenter esalil for this latter link!
La Pangolina, Your analysis is seriously suspect. Using a 10 year “running mean” (or moving average) as your reference distorts the results. For starters, a running mean is a crude digital filter and presents a value for the point half way along the filter period. So, your last average data for 2018 actually refers to a comparison against the period around 2013. Also, a moving average aliases the sample period into the filtered result, in fact reversing the phase for any cyclic terms of less than the sample period.
My first preference would be to use an average over the first part of the data, say 1979 thru 2001, a 22 year period which roughly corresponds to the cyclic period of the Sun’s magnetic field reversal. Then calculate the trends for the three data sets.
Thank you very much E. Swanson for the remark. I love to learn.
Your proposal when starting with 1979 would de facto exclude the ice volume series, as it begins in 2003.
What I however do not understand is ‘Then calculate the trends for the three data sets’: because these linear estimates (if you meant these) AFAIK do not depend on any reference period.
Nevertheless, as soon as I have some time free to do, I will plot extent and area according to the reference period you propose, i.e. 1979-2001.
The PIOMAS Arctic sea ice volume time series starts in 1979.
I couldn’t manage to download it at
http://psc.apl.uw.edu/research/projects/arctic-sea-ice-volume-anomaly/data/
Dunno why.
here it is
http://neven1.typepad.com/.a/6a0133f03a1e37970b022ad39f4fa0200b-pi
That graph’s primary source is at
http://psc.apl.uw.edu/research/projects/arctic-sea-ice-volume-anomaly/
bobdroege says:
July 18, 2018 at 9:53 AM
here it is
Thanks bob droege, but what I needed is the PIOMAS data.
I downloaded it inbetween from the source above, but it’s daily data, and thus my friend will generate a monthly average out of it, so I can compare it with SIDAD’s extent and area.
PIOMAS also offers monthly data, on the same page as the daily data but further down.
http://psc.apl.uw.edu/research/projects/arctic-sea-ice-volume-anomaly/data/
http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/meant80n.uk.php
Let’s look at the high Arctic summer temperatures which are running below normal which will have a greater impact on Arctic Ice then winter temperatures.
Sal
If you buy what pseudoscience sells you (i.e. Iceagenow ), you’re going to end up disappointed:
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=L3LHAlcrTRA
I am just going by the data.
What do these data tell you?
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/hadsst3/data/HadSST.3.1.1.0/diagnostics/HadSST.3.1.1.0_monthly_globe_ts.txt
The data tells me a cooling trend has set in.
Exactly, Salvatore! I even see more than one :-))
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadsst3gl/from:1979/plot/hadsst3gl/from:1987/to:1990/trend/plot/hadsst3gl/from:1997/to:2000/trend/plot/hadsst3gl/from:2015/to:2018/trend/plot/hadsst3gl/from:1979/trend
I will clarify the data for year 2018 shows a cooling trend.
Salvatore, all you’re doing is focusing on a few months of data and ignoring 150 years of it. You have done this for years, which is why you have been so often wrong. Yet you ever learn.
David I am interested in the future not the past.
Actually what you should be interested in is the science.
The data tells me a warming trend has set in since a month ago:
https://www.tropicaltidbits.com/analysis/ocean/global.png
+.126 in contrast to around +.35c a year ago.
You are getting all excited about weather. (Oceanic weather.)
And the chances of an El Nino are firming:
“ENSO-neutral is favored through Northern Hemisphere summer 2018, with the
chance for El Nio increasing to about 65% during fall, and to about 70% during
winter 2018-19”
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/lanina/enso_evolution-status-fcsts-web.pdf
A natural event. Chances are decreasing according to the latest data.
What “latest data” says that?
Salvatore, what “latest data” says that?
I’ve been following the ENSO projections, so I’d really like to know. Or did you just make this up?
David, please stop trolling.
“You can’t average fluxes?”
Halp and huffy (borrowed from Postma?) made what seems to be a valid point. I imagined a 1 meter high cube with a flux of 960 w/m^2 to one side. The other 5 sides get nothing.
If Huffy is correct, then using SB, that side would reach ~ 880 K (this assumes limited conduction with the rest of the cube).
If we average 880 K over the 5 unheated sides, we get ~ 146 K per side.
**********
Now, what if we instead averaged the 960 w/m^2 FLUX over the 6 sides? Each side would get ~ 160 w/m^2.
Using SB to calculate the cube’s temperature (using 160 w/m^2) ……each side ends up much colder than 146 K!
Am I missing something?
S,
Yes. You are missing the fact that you are even more stupid and ignorant than you thought.
I’d point out why this is true, but you obviously would not be able to comprehend the explanation.
Dream on, young Snape.
Cheers.
Ms Snape, trying to link your bad math and science to others just makes you another climate clown.
Oh….
In the first case you’re averaging temperature, and in the second case you’re averaging flux. They aren’t proportional, so this will give different values.
The correct approach is to average the flux over the surface.
Flux is additive; temperature is not.
Snape
I get 230 K for 160 W/m^2 for a surface area of 1 meter squared or 230 K for a surface area of 6 m^2 receiving 960 Watts.
One definition –
“Radiative flux, also known as radiative flux density or radiation flux, is the amount of power radiated through a given area, in the form of photons or other elementary particles, typically measured in W/m2.”
Go ahead and “add” some fluxes. Maybe you could try “adding” some temperatures at the same time!
What a pack of fools!
Cheers.
Mike, Halp
The math idea comes from Climate of Sophistry. I couldn’t find anything wrong with it. Wanted Apple, Swanson, Nate etc. to have a look.
“….although one can mathematically calculate an average input power over time and space with an intermittent source (intermittent because sunshine is only present during the day, on the day-side of Earth), such a calculation does not reflect the actual physics that occurs when the power is applied in the actual time and place, i.e., at the energy flux density, at which it actually occurs.”
– Joseph Postma
Snape, that’s an appropriately named blog. The sun is not an intermittent source, the sun is always on.
Life is too short to take Postma seriously, about anything.
Also, it’s not even clear what Postma is trying to say. What’s his point?
Snape,
There isn’t anything wrong with the comment. It bothers the trolls because it conflicts with the misleading energy diagrams that make it look like the sun shines on the same ground or water 24/7. To any place on Earth, the sun is a variable and intermittent energy source.
When dealing with time scales much longer than a day, I don’t see a problem with averaging it.
Nate, please stop trolling.
Oops…should be Mike, Huffy. Freudian slip?
Ball4
In my example, the flux to the cube is averaged over space, not time. Do you see a problem with the math?
Flux can be averaged over the surface, but temperature cannot be. (They aren’t proportional, for a blackbody.)
“Do you see a problem with the math?”
Plenty. What you need to do is run the experiment and discover the issues by comparing data results to your rough analysis results. If they don’t compare, crack open a thermo. text book & find clues to understand why. Read about how the specialists work out thermo. control for spacecraft. Hint: the spacecraft side illuminated by starlight has grossly different emissivity than the sun illuminated side.
Get busy. Don’t expect anyone here to do YOUR homework.
B,
Hint:
“Polished metals, for example, have low emissivity and high reflectivity in both the visible and infrared.”
Obviously, your failure to specify the properties of your fantasy spacecraft is typical of the pseudoscientific nonsense purveyed by GHE believers.
What are you actually trying to say? Do you believe there is some relevance to the GHE which you can’t even describe?
Just carry on believing that thermometers get hotter when the amount of energy reaching them is reduced. That’s what happens when you put more CO2 into the atmosphere, eh?
Cheers.
To summarize:
I added the fluxes that each of the cube’s six sides receives (0 + 0 + 0 + 0 + 0 + 960 w/m^2 ), and divided by six to get the average (160 w/m^2).
But when 160 w/m^2 is used to find the cube’s temperature, the result is clearly incorrect.
S,
Temperature can be determined by measuring radiation from the surface, if many other things are also known.
You can expose a well built mirrored surface to intense sunlight, of say 1000 W/m2.
You will claim that the surface is radiating 1000 W/m2 or close to it, and therefore you can calculate a temperature for the surface, I suppose. Nope.
Stupid and ignorant assumptions characterise most climatological pseudoscience.
Still no GHE. Not surprising, as you can’t even describe this physical impossibility, can you?
Best stick to delusional thinking. It is definitely more your style.
Cheers.
–But when 160 w/m^2 is used to find the cubes temperature, the result is clearly incorrect.–
Ok.
Let’s try something different. Say you had heater [a electrical heater] and can fit over the end of one side of a cube.
And heater output can be adjusted and it’s adjusted to make the cube side facing the heater to absorb 960 w/m^2 [or 960 joules of heat per second]
And if the side cube absorbs this amount heat for long enough time period, then the 5 other sides will emit a total of 960 watts.
If the other five side emit the same amount of energy, then 960 / 5 equals 192 watts w/m^2 per side.
And if the 5 five side are blackbody surfaces, then they would emit 192 watts at the lowest possible temperature. If they are not blackbody surfaces they emit 192 w/m^2 at higher temperature than compared a blackbody surface.
“You will claim that the surface is radiating 1000 W/m2 or close to it….”
No, Mike, I would claim the surface is reflecting 1000 w/m^2. Please go back into your cave.
S,
Obviously, you have not bothered to specify the properties of your impossibly mythical cube. How do you know your cube is absorbing any of the radiation reaching it? You can’t even describe your own fantasy in any way that makes sense!
What is the relevance of any of your witless attempts to appear scientific to something you cannot describe?
Care to describe the GHE before you try to support it with more foolishness?
I thought not.
Cheers.
David
“Flux can be averaged over the surface, but temperature cannot be. (They arent proportional, for a blackbody.)”
Temperature cannot be averaged over the surface?? Are you stoned?
OK. What I meant is that if you have fluxes incident on a blackbody, j1 and j2, then its temperature is not the average of the two nominal temperatures one might think as given by the SB equations.
If the fluxes are j1 and j2, and both j1 and j2 are incident on the BB, then the average temperature of the BB is not (T1+T2)/2, where j1=sigma*T1^4 and j2=sigma*T^4. It’s
(T1^4+T2^4)^0.25
DA claims a two walls of ice, both at 270 K, on either side of a BB plate, would raise the plate temperature to 321 K!
He may not be hiding behind a fake name, but he’s hiding from reality.
I never claimed any such thing.
DA, you’ve been caught spewing your pseudoscience. But, you can’t run. Your comment is here for all to see.
So, yeah, denial is your next option.
Ge*ran
You now are comfortable using your other favorite word (used in nearly all your posts when you went by that handle). “Pseudoscience”
You used it often but you never really understood what it meant until I gave you the correct definition. Seems you were the only one using it not David Appell.
Grinvalds, your logic is as messed up as is your pseudoscience.
(You should start a Get* fan club!)
Ge*ran/ JDHuffman
You already used the “fan club” idea when you posted as Ge*ran. Not much changes with you. The only difference is you have outgrown the term “hilarious”. The rest of your pet terms you still use. Pseudoscience and clown.
Maybe he knew how sensitive you would be to “pseudoscience” and “clown”.
Obviously he had you really figured out.
No wonder you’re so fascinated with him.
JDHuffman
You gave a reason why Ge*ran would use the word “pseuodscience” and “clown”. This does not explain why you are using his choice of words in your posts.
Maybe we both speak English?
If you miss him so much, give me a list of his favorite words and phrases . I will try to insert them, as often as possible.
Anything to help deal with your obsession.
So in the case of your cube, assuming it’s a BB and the incident energy is immediately shared by all six sides
incident_energy = S*A(face), where S=960 W/m2 and A(face)=area of one face of the cube.
then
incident_flux = incident_energy per unit_area_of_cube
= S*A(face)/(6*A(face)) = S/6
which equals sigma*T^4.
David, Norman
The numbers I was going with were from an argument I had with Halp a couple weeks ago. I totally misremembered/messed up the kelvin value. (I’m actually very unfamiliar with kelvin so I didn’t notice the error). …Egg on my face!
Here is the comment I should have reviewed (posted by Halp):
“J: Imagine the cube is actually a poor conductor of heat, like the Earths surface. That side being irradiated has the potential to warm to up to 88 degrees C if the other sides could never warm through conduction.
So then you have 1 side at 88 degrees C or 361 K and then 5 sides at say 3 K (background temperature of space). What would be the average temperature of the cube if you worked it out via these temperatures alone? Chic has calculated the temperature of the cube to be 230.5 K if the outgoing flux was a uniform 160 W/m^2. Do you get the same answer 230.5 K, if you average the 361 K side over the other 5 sides at 3 K?”
Sorry, but at this point there are too many caveats and this and that and unclear explanations and denials for me to understand what the problem actually is.
If your application is to the moon, why are you considering a cube?
In my mind, the 88 C. morphed into 880 K. Sorry for the confusion.
David
“So in the case of your cube, assuming its a BB and the incident energy is immediately shared by all six sides”
Halp probably made it more clear, but my idea for the cube comes from what happens on the moon. The sun shines on one side, and the energy is NOT shared with the other side.
S,
Why not just discuss the Moon, then?
Too measurable? Doesn’t fit the GHE fantasy?
Cheers.
The Dark Side of the Moon, being a great album, means the side of the moon we can’t see from earth, it does not mean that all of the moon is not illuminated by the sun.
The moon rotates with respect to the sun.
I hope that’s not what you meant.
“The sun shines on one side, and the energy is NOT shared with the other side.”
This is basically true of Earth. Because Earth spins at 1000 mph and heat is not transported that fast. Though absorbed energy from yesterdays are shared. And such absorbed energy is connected the ocean and the atmosphere.
Or if the Moon had atmosphere [or ocean] it could share energy with other side.
That’s not true on Earth. If it were, nighttime temperatures would drop precipitously. They don’t, because of infrared radiation from the atmosphere which ultimately come from solar radiation.
Just keep saying that, over and over.
Someday you might even believe it.
After you find your “missing” 150 W/m^2.
Yep, you’re a climate clown.
JDHuffman
When you posted as Ge*ran you said almost the same thing.
Here: http://www.drroyspencer.com/2018/03/lord-monckton-responds/#comment-295108
David Appell asks the same question on an earlier blog before you were banned for a second time. Your response is almost the same now you go by JDHuffman.
You could not understand view factors as Ge*ran and you still have not learned what they are as JDHuffman.
Clown around, same person, same dumb comments. Several dumb mindless comments.
Norman Grinvalds, your hero Ge*ran probably appreciates your fascination with him.
Now, if you could only be as fascinated by real science….
Ge*ran/ JDHuffman
Too bad you came back. A disruptive troll is not a valuable asset for a blog. I guess since you are back and won’t go away posters will just have to deal with you the same as they did when you went as Ge*ran.
Keep being obsessed with your hero.
At least it keeps you from making a fool of yourself with your pseudoscience.
The surface, at an average temperature of 288 K, radiates an average of 390 W/m2.
But only 240 W/m2 leaves out the top of the atmosphere.
Where is the missing 150 W/m2?
DA, you’re as confused about fluxes adding as you are about temperatures adding.
Have you considered taking some physics courses?
Do you have a specific critique, or only snark?
From what I’ve seen of you here, you only have snark.
DA, don’t get all righteous on us. You’re the one running around dropping your phony nonsense.
Two temperatures produce a higher temperature?
Can’t find your “missing” 150 W/m^2?
You need to learn some physics.
That’s not snark, that’s REALITY.
JDHuffman says:
Two temperatures produce a higher temperature?
Have you ever worn a coat?
Do you have literally no knowledge of thermodynamics? Heat transfer?
Any physics at all?
A coat acts as insulation to body heat. A human body is a thermodynamic heat source. Putting a coat on is NOT what “cold” warming “hot” is all about. But, it would take years for you to understand.
If putting a coat on yourself warmes you, why wouldn’t putting a coat on the Earth warm it?
DA, asking one silly irrelevant question after another is one of your tricks. You can’t face reality, so you live by your tricks.
Learn some physics.
(Where are all the other clowns, that usually jump in to help you out?)
A nonresponse response.
If putting a coat on warms you, why wouldnt putting a coat on the Earth warm it?
DA, any distracting, silly, nonsensical questions will be ignored (while laughing).
Please try again.
You’re clearly avoiding the question, because you don’t want to admit the answer.
DA, putting a coat on the Earth is just another of your distractions.
Learn some physics and grow up.
Not necessarily in that order.
Snape says:
Halp probably made it more clear, but my idea for the cube comes from what happens on the moon. The sun shines on one side, and the energy is NOT shared with the other side.
OK. I showed how to calculate the average temperature of the Moon, here:
https://davidappell.blogspot.com/2012/04/norfolk-constabulary-made-wrong-charges.html
North Atlantic area both North /South of and around Iceland very important to watch. Major climatic impacts if area cools enough.
Halp was asking me to look at two methods for determining a “global” average for the cube.
First method)
– divide the cube’s surface area into six equal cells.
– find an average temperature for each cell
– average those temperatures over the cube’s total surface
(This method approximates how Earth’s global temperature is determined)
******
Second method)
– determine the average flux to to the cube
– use S-B to find the cube’s average T.
******
The first method: + 14.6 C
The second method: – 42.6 C.
Snape
I was surprised to see you bringing your cube model up again. I thought you worked that out several posts ago.
It is annoying that you don’t define the properties of the cube. Where is it, in space or somewhere else where it is unclear what temperatures affect the calculations? Is it hollow? Are the sides made of infinite good conducting material or poor conducting? Are you using SB equation with emissivity equal to one?
Mostly I don’t know whether you are trying to learn or have a strange way of trying to make a point without actually ever stating what point you are trying to make. Another possibility is you have nothing better to do than play an obnoxious troll game.
Chic
“It is annoying that you dont define the properties of the cube.”
Didn’t Halp’s comment do a decent job? I imagined the cube as a poor conductor (not hollow) and radiating to the background temperature of space.
“Chic has calculated the temperature of the cube to be 230.5 K”
What were the properties of the cube when you made that calculation?
*****
“Mostly I dont know whether you are trying to learn or have a strange way of trying to make a point without actually ever stating what point you are trying to make.”
I’m just learning little tidbits here and there about climate science (actually, science in general). Sharing those ideas with others, and getting feedback, makes the process more interesting. Sort of like a virtual classroom discussion.
Not necessarily trying to make a point.
I am glad to see support for my position. Look below.
In response to a study from the University of Washington posted on WUWT (and elsewhere) today about a shift in the AMOC and a very clear statement about it not collapsing (as posited for collapse by many, including Michael Mann, Dr. Judith Curry gave this response to the Daily Callers Mike Bastasch:
Replying to @MikeBastasch
We are watching this closely. In particular we are watching the North Atlantic SSTs. It is possible that a shift to the cold phase of the AMO is underway, which would extend the warming hiatus for ~2 decades.
If it’s the AMO that causes cooling for the next 2 decades, then you’re admitting such cooling would be from natural factors, saying nothing at all about manmade factors.
David I have been saying this for years!
Then you agree there is a manmade warming factor — that is, AGW.
David, please stop trolling.
All overall oceanic sea surface temperatures even ENSO tied to solar.
Luck is running out for AGW which can no longer hi jack natural variation which is what caused the rise in global temperatures post the Little Ice Age.
That is now changing and natural climatic variation will be bringing the global temperatures down led by overall oceanic surface cooling, in particularly the North Atlantic.
What natural factor caused the temperature rise since the LIA?
David
“OK. I showed how to calculate the average temperature of the Moon, here”
Thanks for the link. I’m really just curious how the moon’s calculated temperature, using SB, would compare with the “earth” method for finding an average temperature. By that I mean, if the moon’s surface area was divided into a grid, (like on earth), and each cell had numerous stations that tracked temperature, etc….
How close would the results be using the two methods?
It’s exactly the same, except because the Moon doesn’t have an atmosphere, thermal equilibrium is applied pointwise, not surface-wide.
That’s exactly what my calculation did. And it got exactly the right answer, something Nikolov & Zeller could never do.
David Appell said:
“Life is too short to take Postma seriously, about anything.”
Appell says that because Postma makes much more sense than “Climate Zombies” like himself.
Joe Postma has mental issues that make him intolerant to dissident thought. You have to agree with him on every detail and if you don’t he expels you from his blog. While that may seem a harsh judgment Joe is far more tolerant than Climate Zombies like David Appell.
I was getting along very well with Joe Postma at this thread shows:
https://climateofsophistry.com/2017/08/25/the-problem-with-climate-alarm-skeptics/
Soon after I said something that Joe objected to and was excommunicated. I have been excommunicated from many blogs including John Cook’s “Skeptical Science”, “andthentheresphysics”, David Appell’s “Quark Soup”, Joe Romm’s now defunct blog, Tim Lambert’s defunct “Deltoid” blog, the “Open Parachute” blog and many more.
There are only two blogs that excommunicated me that I would happily rejoin if invited to do so:
Joe Postma’s “Climate of Sophistry”
Barry Brook’s “Brave New Climate”
cam…”Joe Postma has mental issues that make him intolerant to dissident thought”.
I know he unloads on people but my favourite comment from him is apt. He claimed we build greenhouses to do what the atmosphere cannot do.
cam…”Joe Postma has mental issues that make him intolerant to dissident thought”.
I know he unloads on people but my favo.uri.te comment from him is apt. He claimed we build greenhouses to do what the atmosphere cannot do.
Postma is so afraid of alternative science that his foremost response is to ban it.
That’s really all you need to know about Joseph Postma. Also, that he is incapable of getting his claims published in the peer reviewed literature.
David, please stop trolling,
Russell Seitz is a great intellect yet we disagree on virtually everything. I find him to be an admirable person and I would probably enjoy spending an evening or two with him. While I was offended by Ted Kennedy’s publicly stated views I admired his engaging personality.
Here is a link to one of Russell’s blogs:
https://vvattsupwiththat.blogspot.com/
Russell Seitz (like the ACLU) in on the wrong side of every issue but you have to admire his energy and wit. Sadly his blog does not allow comments so we cross swords on neutral sites.
For example, enjoy the comments here that get interesting following comment #15 where Susan Anderson disses Lindzen, Soon, Baliunas, Happer, Dyson and anyone else who compares Alarmist predictions to observations:
http://scienceblogs.com/stoat/2016/12/31/mit-climate-scientist-dr-richard-lindzen-urges-trump-cut-the-funding-of-climate-science-by-80-to-90-until-the-field-cleans-up/
Note that the above exchange occurred on Stoat’s blog (William Connelley). While Stoat is a loony leftist idealogue he was still allowing dissenting comments as recently as 19 months ago.
The discussion went “Off Topic” by swerving into economic policy. While I am an amateur climate scientist I am a professional in economic development having built dozens of factories all around the world. I can tell you why the tax incentives to industry that Donald Trump is using are preferable to the “Targeted Incentives” that Barack Obama relied on.
“Targeted Incentives” are “Corporate Welfare” that bribe companies to build factories in your jurisdiction. Real dollars collected from taxpayers are given to corporations, “Up Front”. Unfortunately, there is never enough money to apply such bribes fairly so the government has to choose who benefits. The result is one scandal after another. The Solyndra scandal was ~$400 million, Next Era Energy at ~$1,600 million and a thousand more.
The Trump administration is using tax incentives that have the advantage of being fair given that they are available to everyone. The government is still in the bribery business but it is bribing companies with their own money by promising to reduce their taxes. This is the gift that keeps on giving.
“Real dollars collected from taxpayers are given to corporations, “Up Front”. ”
They are “government backed loans” which don’t get paid back- tax payers are paying for these insane “investment loans”.
But even were they “reasonable” loans which might get return on investment, they would still be real dollars from taxpayers
It a free lunch for all involved [except the tax payer], the lenders, lendees, and of course, politicians- which is not requiring the complicated governmental bureaucratic procurement process to be directly involved in this governmental loss.
“U.S. Expects $5 Billion From Program That Funded Solyndra,” Bloomberg News, 11/12/14
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2014-11-12/u-s-expects-5-billion-from-program-that-funded-solyndra
Almost 4 years later, how is that $5 billion ROI doing?
Mea culpa! There is another site that I miss. I am an amateur climate scientist and what little I know about the subject comes from ex-colleagues at Duke university such as Robert G. Brown and Nicola Scafetta.
Then there is “Science of Doom” with Leonard Weinstein and DeWitt Page who taught me many things. To my dismay SOD is moribund.
Back in 2010 I knew nothing about climate science. Here is DeWitt Page telling me where to look:
https://scienceofdoom.com/2010/06/12/venusian-mysteries/
What is your climate outlook gallopingcamel now next 5 years?
cam…”Then there is Science of Doom with Leonard Weinstein and DeWitt Page who taught me many things. To my dismay SOD is moribund”.
My experience with SoD is that it is run by pseudo-scientific gits. Their ramblings on the 2nd law and thermodynamics in general is sheer pseudo-science.
Gordon, please explain in detail what pseudoscience appears on SoD.
Gordon is like Chuck Weise — he thinks that because he says something, it is automatically true.
They never count on people being able to think for themselves.
DA, here’s what you said: “If the fluxes are j1 and j2, and both j1 and j2 are incident on the BB, then the average temperature of the BB is not (T1+T2)/2, where j1 = sigma*T1^4 and j2 = sigma*T^4.
It’s (T1^4+T2^4)^0.25
Pure pseudoscience!
Why?
Learn some physics, clown.
As always, nothing but snark.
Ge*ran
Roy Spencer may have banned the multiple asterisk version you had been using but this version seems to go through okay. Maybe you can go back to your old self and everyone will know you have returned.
JDH: Again, why?
Grinvalds, you’re back!
I knew when you left, you’d be back. That’s just another of your tricks, to run from reality. I’m a little surprised that you use such deception, having revealed your last name. Maybe the folks in your little community don’t have Internet yet?
DA, If you have to ask, then you don’t have the physics background to understand.
Your equation indicates that a BB, receiving flux from two 270K sources, would warm to a temperature of 321 K.
Keep asking silly questions. That’s what clowns do.
JDHuffman
??? YOU: “Grinvalds, youre back!
I knew when you left, youd be back. Thats just another of your tricks, to run from reality. Im a little surprised that you use such deception, having revealed your last name. Maybe the folks in your little community dont have Internet yet?”
I really don’t know what your point is or what you are trying to say.
What deception are you speaking of? What running from reality?
JDHuffman says:
Your equation indicates that a BB, receiving flux from two 270K sources, would warm to a temperature of 321 K.
So what’s wrong with that logic?
DA, it’s NOT logic. It’s pure pseudoscience.
Two blocks of ice will heat the BB to 48C (118F)!!!
I think you win the climate clown award, for the thread.
And so the correct answer is what, in your opinion?
Perfect situation, no losses, BB, etc. Two blocks of ice at 270 K should be able to “heat” the object to 270 K.
If you knew some physics, you might have been able to figure that out yourself.
JDHuffman says:
Perfect situation, no losses, BB, etc.
No losses of what?
DA, any distracting, silly, nonsensical questions will be ignored (while laughing).
Please try again.
Salvatore
From what I can tell (maybe I’m confused about this?) a cooling of North Atlantic SST corresponds with warming of the atmosphere (globally)
Conversely, the AMO was in a warm phase during the “pause” years:
https://curryja.files.wordpress.com/2015/09/slide1.png
From 1975 to 1998, the AMOC was in a slow phase. As greenhouse gases were accumulating in the atmosphere, Earth experienced distinct warming at the surface. From about 2000 until now, the AMOC has been in its faster phase, and the increased heat plunging in the North Atlantic has been removing excess heat from the Earth’s surface and storing it deep in the ocean.
From the article. The problem for them is data does not conform to what they say.
You need to look at the WUWT site that features the article twice and you will see how most people view what they say as jibberish.
My take is with a cold N. Atlantic you can kiss AGW goodbye.
Salvatore Del Prete says:
From 1975 to 1998, the AMOC was in a slow phase.
What is the “slow phase” of the AMOC?
What data are you referring to?
@ DA …he has no clue. You are flogging a dead horse so to speak. You are talking to a guy who says he writes like this “…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,….”.
Now compare that to “…What is your climate outlook gallopingcamel now next 5 years?..”, or “…My post sent at 9:50 am and 10:22am july 19th. if you read the articles and commentary that is the link.
You may not accept it but that is where I get it has already been proven wrong. it is through the data….”.
So do you think the same person who wrote the clearly stated paragraph from his supposed site, would then turns around to write in pidgin English?
I am with Richard Lindzen who predicted that the global average temperature will either rise or fall.
thanks
gallopingcamel
What about staying the same?
Norman,
Somehow I overlooked that possibility!
That might be the best outcome for folks like me who live in the balmy “South” but it could be a little awkward for Alarmists given that the Keeling curve ascends monotonically.
GC, where is your missing 150 W/m2?
Have you given up on trying to answer this question?
Keep asking, DA.
GC probably laughs every time you spout such nonsense.
How right you are. I doubt if anyone here knows or cares about David Appell’s 150 W/m2. It goes back to the days when I thought that David Appell was a rational physicist.
Here is the thread that David keeps referring to:
https://diggingintheclay.wordpress.com/2013/03/07/arrhenius-revisited/
The surface, at an average temperature of 288 K, radiates an average of 390 W/m2.
But only 240 W/m2 leaves out the top of the atmosphere.
Where is the missing 150 W/m2?
David, please stop trolling.
Salvatore
“The problem for them is data does not conform to what they say.”
How so? Looks to me like what you just quoted, and the chart I linked, are in perfect agreement.
According to what they say global temperatures should have been cooling from 2000 on. In addition N. Atlantic has been cooling while according to this article AMOC is still in the fast phase.
Salvatore Del Prete says:
According to what they say global temperatures should have been cooling from 2000 on.
Prove it. You can’t. It’s a lie.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/07/18/study-atlantic-ocean-circulation-is-not-collapsing-but-the-press-release-adds-climate-porn/
Here is the article you need to read the commentary on it. Not very positive.
Interesting article on remote ocean temperature sensing.
https://www.skepticalscience.com/ocean_temperature_part2.html
Salvatore
One for you, perhaps.
https://www.bbc.com/news/amp/science-environment-44875508
Which is already been proven wrong.
Link, please.
My post sent at 9:50 am and 10:22am july 19th. if you read the articles and commentary that is the link.
You may not accept it but that is where I get it has already been proven wrong. it is through the data.
They clearly said when the AMOC is in a fast phase like it has post 1998-present the global temperatures should cool. They have not cooled during that time period. They are wrong.
Evidence please.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/07/18/quote-of-the-week-from-curry-global-warming-hiatus-for-2-more-decades/
I am in this camp and I have much company. I put in my two cents.
Excellent discussion.
The last 5 years are the 5 warmest years on record.
Just a coincidence?
Some folks would like to see things get much hotter:
https://youtu.be/EiVM3hvl-IM
https://youtu.be/MOzht91No_8
Enjoy!
Why have the last 5 years been the warmest 5 years in the record?
Where is your missing 150 W/m2?
David, please stop trolling.
Sal
Look at this chart again:
https://curryja.files.wordpress.com/2015/09/slide1.png
The last cold phase of the AMO ended around 1998. It was replaced by a warm phase…. ~ 1998 through 2012 (That’s where the chart ends).
Do those dates sound familiar? (No warming since 1998, blah blah blah).
Recently, we have transitioned back to a colder phase, and according to the study, this is supposed to continue for about two decades.
I need to retract the last paragraph.
As mentioned at WUWT, SST’s in the North Pacific are quite volatile, so I shouldn’t predict a trend based on short term changes.
Here is an AMO chart that ends in 2016:
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/psd/data/timeseries/AMO/http://
Can anybody find one that’s up to date?
Go to Climate4you -> Oceans -> AMO (Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation) Index.
norman…”If you have a sphere with a one square meter surface area surrounded by ice that is maintained at 273 K, the sphere will maintain a temperature of 273 K in steady state condition with the surrounding ice. Now turn on a heat lamp inside the ice shell that is directed at the sphere and the sphere will reach a higher steady state temperature. The IR from the ice added energy to get the sphere to 273 K and it stays there until you add more energy and it goes up”.
*********
Norman…you are a complete idiot who is lost in a world of make-believe science. What an astounding thought experiment!!! You have outdone Snape with his incessant demolition of science using inane thought-experiments.
You talk about EM fluxes adding when no one knows if they exist. Photons are a theory based on them being DEFINED as particle of EM with momentum but no mass.
Here you are creating thought experiments using theoretical photons as a fluxes which can be added.
If photons are particles, they cannot form fluxes. Nor can they have frequencies. Electrons as particles can have frequencies based on their angular velocity in an orbit around a nucleus but electrons cannot form fluxes.
So tell me, when a theorized quantum of EM is emitted by an electron in an atom is it emitted as a straight-line flux field component or as a wavefront? Wavefronts can have wavelengths as measured from wave crest to wave crest and the count of wave crests per second is the frequency.
Theoretical photons emitted as a vector-based flux field component have no wavelength and no frequency. Until you can prove that EM is emitted as a flux field then your thought experiment has no basis in fact.
Waves can be added as long as they are in phase. However, space is flooded with EM waves from generations of radio wave emissions and there is no evidence of any of them adding.
Gordon thinks particles have to has mass. Funny.
DA…”Gordon thinks particles have to has mass. Funny”.
David’s mind fumbles with English, when it is not destroying science.
Why do you think a particle has to have mass?
Gordon Robertson
Not sure where you got this from: “If photons are particles, they cannot form fluxes. Nor can they have frequencies. Electrons as particles can have frequencies based on their angular velocity in an orbit around a nucleus but electrons cannot form fluxes.”
Why do you think electrons cannot form fluxes?
Here:
https://www.swpc.noaa.gov/products/goes-electron-flux
Gordon Robertson says:
If photons are particles, they cannot form fluxes.
Why not?
Nor can they have frequencies.
Ever hear of the de Broglie wavelength?
Of the two-slit experiment that Feynman talked about so much?
norman…”If you have a sphere with a one square meter surface area surrounded by ice that is maintained at 273 K, the sphere will maintain a temperature of 273 K in steady state condition with the surrounding ice. Now turn on a heat lamp inside the ice shell that is directed at the sphere and the sphere will reach a higher steady state temperature. The IR from the ice added energy to get the sphere to 273 K and it stays there until you add more energy and it goes up”.
*********
For one, you don’t understand what flux is. For another, IR from the ice is not warming the sphere, unless the sphere was colder than the ice to begin with. If anything, the ice has absorbed heat from the sphere and cooled it to 273K. If the sphere was independently heat, it would not cool to 273K and part of the ice would melt.
This is a dumb thought-experiment anyway. If the heat source had any power it would heat both the sphere and the ice.
This in no way proves that fluxes can be added.
The word flux comes from Newton’s fluxion, which means a derivative. When you calculate a flux field over an area, you sum the perpendicular incremental flows, of whatever is flowing, over the surface area.
You cannot add one incremental flux to another, that makes no sense. If you introduce a separate flux field, all you are doing is increasing the number of flux lines (vectors??) per unit area. The density over an area increases but the incremental amplitudes cannot increase.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flux
” In the case of fluxes, we have to take the integral, over a surface, of the flux through every element of the surface. The result of this operation is called the surface integral of the flux. It represents the quantity which passes through the surface.
— James Clerk Maxwell”
You have gotten yourself confounded with the DEFINITION of photons. You presume they exist and that one photon can add to another. How can definitions be added?
You can add fluxes because energy is conserved. Period.
Wrong. Period,
DA…”You can add fluxes because energy is conserved. Period”.
Conservation is one half of the axiom, the other half being that energy cannot be created. You cannot take one portion of energy, add it to another portion, and create a third. The only requirement is that the energy input equal the energy output.
In AGW, they create heat by warming the surface using it’s own radiated energy. The fact that alarmists are too stupid to see that is the issue.
Gordon Robertson says:
In AGW, they create heat by warming the surface using its own radiated energy.
Wrong — it’s the atmosphere’s radiated energy that warms the surface above and beyond what the Sun provids.
Have you ever worn a coat in the wintertime, Gordon?
How does it keep you warm?
DA,
Have you ever noticed that a store dummy wearing an overcoat is no warmer than one without?
Have you the brain power of that same dummy?
Are you too stupid to acknowledge that reducing the amount of energy reaching a thermometer does not make the thermometer hotter?
That’s why Arabs wear voluminous all encompassing robes (very dark coloured, in the case of Berbers from very, very, hot regions), Europeans and others wear broad brimmed hats in the blazing Sun, and why parasols are also called sunshades!
You might have heard of sunglasses, which reduce the amount of energy reaching the retina. Looking at the Sun can literally destroy your retinas – try it if you don’t believe me. No, I don’t have support from a peer reviewed climatological pseudoscientific piece of rubbish, either.
Carry on with your insane GHE delusion. At least it’s shared by the likes of Mann, Schmidt and other fumbling bumblers.
Cheers.
Mike Flynn
As far as I can tell, not one poster has made the claim you can warm up something by reducing the energy content.
I have asked you a few times now, but you won’t provide information,
How much solar input energy is removed by CO2 before it reaches the surface. You just will not provide the information yet you act like you know what it is.
It is true CO2 absorbs some solar IR. It is a very small amount of the total spectrum.
http://sustainablebalance.ca/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/Solar-Spectrum-GballEditz.png
You may be able to get a rough estimate of the total incoming solar energy that is absorbed by CO2.
There are also spectrum of DWIR and you can estimate CO2’s contribution.
If you would do this you might hold off on the insults. You would find out your assertions are false and misleading. CO2 does not absorb as much solar energy as CO2 emits to the surface.
N,
It is not just CO2, of course. The atmosphere as a whole prevents about 35% of direct sunlight reaching the surface. Of course, GHE enthusiasts insist that only GHEs can absorb radiation from the Sun, and the rest of the atmosphere is totally transparent to infrared (which is more than 50% of total insolation).
You may check with NASA if you wish.
So the GHGs prevent much radiation from reaching thermometers, but you seem to be claiming that reducing the amount of radiation reaching a thermometer on the surface makes the thermometer hotter – through the magic of climatological physics!
It doesn’t really matter, does it? You can’t actually say what the GHE is, define it, or say how it is supposed to work, but you are certain someone, somewhere, must have. You wouldn’t want to admit you fell for pseudoscientific nonsense, would you?
There is no GHE. Only the seriously deluded would believe such a foolish claim.
Cheers.
Norman, you were unable to follow the “john Henry” hint. (Nate beat you, shamelessly.) So, I’ll give you another chance to learn.
Your link (above) shows the CO2 notch in solar. You don’t believe that is much energy, compared to the CO2 notch in outgoing IR.
Hint: Here’s a comparison for you:
Solar notch = 2600 degrees F
Outgoing notch = -100 degrees F
See if you can figure it out. You’re never too old to learn some physics.
Ge*ran
Clue for you. Maybe learn how to use graphs. It could be an educational experience for you.
You can look at the Y-axis. it is Watts/m^2/nm. The entire solar energy in this graph would equal 1361 W/m^2.
You make zero sense with your hint.
“Solar notch = 2600 degrees F
Outgoing notch = -100 degrees F”
Since you could be thinking many things you would have to be more specific if you want me to understand what you are relating.
A rough estimate of the graph would have the energy absorbed by atmospheric CO2 as less than 10 W/m^2.
http://lidar.ssec.wisc.edu/papers/dhd_thes/img47.gif
You can use this to get a rough estimate of how much energy is reaching the surface from atmospheric CO2 emissions.
I am not sure on the conversion factor for steradian. Sometimes just pi is used for a hemisphere 2pi is used for a sphere 4pi is the conversion.
Let me know what you get.
Norman Grinvalds, such an obvious hint would be quickly picked up by someone that had a firm grasp on radiative physics.
Not happening, huh?
I was surprised, however that you couldn’t get the “John Henry” hint. All Nate had to do was search on “John Henry flux”, and figure it out from there.
And, I noticed Ball4 and DA didn’t figure it out either.
Oh well, keep pretending you know physics. And, if you find yourself trapped, there’s always your bag of tricks.
Ge*ran
Why don’t you stick to the topic? I was discussing the amount of solar energy CO2 in the atmosphere would absorb vs how much energy CO2 in the atmosphere would emit back to the surface.
Now you are on the John Henry point. How does that have anything to do with the discussion going on.
There is a term for what you are doing. “Moving the Goalposts”
You are changing the topic for no reason. There are many scientists I don’t know by first name. You could spend a little time looking up some first names and acting like you know some physics. Not really a valuable use of time. Maybe you would do better to read a textbook and learn the material rather than pretending you know physics.
Ge*ran
How about Gabriel Daniel?
Norman, your “interpretation” is wrong. I’m not changing the topic. The topic is your lack of understanding of the graphic you provided. My hint is to help you do some research to learn the correct physics. You will be more accepting of facts if you discover them for yourself.
I only mentioned the other hint to remind you that someone had solved it. I’m not giving you anything that is no solvable.
The hint is:
Solar notch = 2600 degrees F
Outgoing notch = -100 degrees F
If you can’t figure out the hint, just say so and I will give you another hint. Putting out some effort will help you learn and help you remember.
Ge*ran
You are back to your old self. Making statements that have no meaning.
YOU: “Norman, your interpretation is wrong. Im not changing the topic. The topic is your lack of understanding of the graphic you provided. My hint is to help you do some research to learn the correct physics. You will be more accepting of facts if you discover them for yourself”
The interpretation is quite correct. You can find W/m^2 using the graph of solar flux. It is not my understanding that is lacking. You make cryptic meaningless comments with no valid points.
You state my interpretation is wrong but you do not explain why you falsely think this. You just make a comment and hope it sticks. I guess that is what you do. Do you get paid money for you trolling or are you just bored?
Norman, I know you are stumped again. That’s why you have resorted to your bag of tricks.
If you can’t figure out the hint, just say so and I will give you another hint. There’s no need to run from reality. You can see dodging reality hasn’t helped the other trolls.
DA…”it’s the atmosphere’s radiated energy that warms the surface above and beyond what the Sun provids”.
Are you claiming that radiation from the 99% of the atmosphere comprised of N2 and O2 is warming the surface? Hope note. Seems you are referring to the 0.04% comprised of CO2, after all, that’s what AGW is about.
The AGW theory claims that solar energy passes through the atmosphere unobstructed to warm the surface. The surface then converts SW solar radiation to LW IR. AGW claims it is that LW IR that warms GHGs in the atmosphere.
It is that very same IR that is being returned to the surface and claimed to warm the surface to a temperature beyond what it is heated by solar IR in the first place.
norman…”Maybe learn how to use graphs. It could be an educational experience for you.
You can look at the Y-axis. it is Watts/m^2/nm. The entire solar energy in this graph would equal 1361 W/m^2.”
****
Speaking of learning to use graphs, all those you have posted are in MILLIWATTS/m^2.
Are you trying to slide one past us with your claim above of Watts/m^2.
I have already pointed out to you that based on a milliwatt absorp-tion, CO2 absorbs about 5% of out-going IR.
JD…”Norman, I know you are stumped again. Thats why you have resorted to your bag of tricks”.
You have no doubt noted Norman’s MO. He makes up science due to his limited education (1 year in chemistry) then he accuses others of making it up. When that’s not enough he follows up with attempts to belittle the opponent.
Gordon Robertson
I see you are back to your old dishonest ways. Why?
I have a degree in Chemistry. I have taken General Chemistry, Organic Chemistry, Analytical Chemistry, PChem.
I had one year of college physics.
Here you are most dishonest: “You have no doubt noted Normans MO. He makes up science due to his limited education (1 year in chemistry) then he accuses others of making it up. When thats not enough he follows up with attempts to belittle the opponent.”
You are the one who makes up your own version of physics on a continuous basis. What science have I made up? None! I support all my statements from valid sources of science. You do nothing of the sort. I just don’t know why you have to be a liar.
You are one twisted lying poster. Do you need to do this?
Gordon Robertson
Lying and making up crap and then claiming others do what you do. Most people are not the lying low life that you have become. A really sad character, actually you have no character. Just a dishonest liar that no one can believe.
YOU: “Are you trying to slide one past us with your claim above of Watts/m^2.”
Such a complete idiot Gordon. Dishonest idiot!
Look at the graph idiot before posting and accusing. What a low life you are!
It is the solar flux.
You don’t have the slightest idea how to use these graphs or calculate Watts/m^2 from them. Pretending you do is just another one of your many lies.
Yeah Gordon, I remember someone was able to put together a lot of information on Norman, from his comments. I don’t remember all the details, but his degree sounded very weak, kind of like “kitchen” chemistry. Above, he’s claiming a year of college physics, but I think he admitted to much less. It would be fun to go back and search his old comments.
I do remember his hero, Ger*, pointing out that Grinvalds worked at a dead-end job for either a state agency or some public utility. Some place where he could spend most of the day on blogs.
He’s quite the clown.
Gordon Robertson
Before you critique a post it might be useful to be able to read, correctly, the content of the post.
ME: “If you have a sphere with a one square meter surface area surrounded by ice that is maintained at 273 K, the sphere will maintain a temperature of 273 K in steady state condition with the surrounding ice.”
YOU somehow seem to have read something I did not write: “For another, IR from the ice is not warming the sphere, unless the sphere was colder than the ice to begin with. ”
Where in my conditions did I state that the ice was warming the sphere? The temperatures are the same, there is no change (warming) of the sphere from ice in my conditions. This is the steady state condition.
YOU: “For one, you don’t understand what flux is.”
There is a generic meaning of flux. We are talking about a specific type of flux. There are many types.
We are discussing radiant flux.
HERE:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiant_flux
OR here
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/vision/radiant.html
Radiant flux is watts. A 60 watt bulb has a flux of 60 watts.
If you add turn on two 60 watt bulbs that are near each other you have a radiant flux of 120 watts. The radiant flux added. You have twice the radiant flux with two bulbs than one. You can add watts. Not sure what point you are making or where you are getting your ideas from.
Norman, you are so confused, I hardly know where to start. Let’s keep it easy.
A 60 Watt light bulb does not have a radiant flux of 60 Watts. The 60 Watts is the electrical power to the bulb.
(Maybe you and Ms Snape should start a school for climate clowns.)
JDHuffman
Maybe you should look at my links before you post.
HERE FROM THE LINK: “That is, a 60 W incandescent lamp would have a radiant flux of 60 W, and a 250 W Mercury vapor lamp would have a radiant flux of 250 W.”
(Maybe you should quit with the JDHuffman and post once again a Ge*ran)
Grinvalds, you can’t even understand your own links.
“For instance, if we look at the standard incandescent lamp, we know that the flux output below .01 μm is negligible, and that there is also very little energy output in the microwave and radio regions of the EM spectrum. So we can reasonably assume that the Flux output for a standard lamp is restricted to be in the optical range, and in doing so we may take the nominal wattage as our radiant flux.”
Only about 15% of an incandescent bulb ends up as visible light.
And, the proof you must provide is, as described upthread, is to heat an object with a 60 Watt light bulb, to equilibrium. Then, using a flat sheet of ice in close proximity, raising the temperature of the object. THAT would prove your nonsense, that all fluxes add.
Ge*ran
Did you read the entire link? They explain in the first part that radiant flux is only UV, visible and IR EMR. Lower frequency EMR is not considered a radiant flux.
With the section you quoted they were explaining that the energy of a 60 watt bulb is given off almost completely in the radiant flux band they have defined (0.01 to 1000 microns) so that the 60 watts of electrical energy put into the filament is considered to be 60 watts of radiant flux.
YOU: “And, the proof you must provide is, as described upthread, is to heat an object with a 60 Watt light bulb, to equilibrium. Then, using a flat sheet of ice in close proximity, raising the temperature of the object. THAT would prove your nonsense, that all fluxes add.”
Not sure how many times I need to prove it. First, the conditions you describe are very sketchy. Not enough details.
If the ice was warmer than previous surroundings (say 3K space) it and the light combined will make the object reach a higher steady state temperature than if you remove the ice.
Conditions in your setup are necessary to prove anything. You have not given out enough information to provide any proof.
NG, again, an incandescent only emits about 15% visible.
“Considered” doesn’t hack it, in real science.
And all of your diversions are just that, diversions. Your scenario is basically fine: “3K, vacuum, 60 Watt incandescent in close proximity to an object. When object reaches equilibrium temperature, bring block of ice in close proximity to object, opposite side as light bulb. Record how much the ice raises the temperature of the object.
Correct answer: ZERO increase in temperature.
Now for your next diversion.
Ge*ran
I really can’t follow your points. The link stated that radiant flux is UV, visible and IR. The part of a incandescent that is not visible is IR which is still radiant flux. What is your point about the 15% and why is that meaningful?
Your last point. It would only be correct if the ice were at 3 K.
If the ice was at 0 C the object would warm and reach a higher temperature. You really need to be more specific on your conditions if you want reasonable responses.
Same old Ge*ran.
Norman Grinvalds, this is another example of your fascination with links. You found a link, and no one can convince you it is wrong.
Forget that one link and do a search on the percentage of visible light emitted by a 60 Watt incandescent.
The Internet is full of bogus information. You have to learn how to use it.
And, you’re the one that mentioned ice at 273 K. I was fine with that.
You obviously don’t want to understand the proof needed. Just another trick of yours.
Ge*ran
If you want me to address an issue you have it would be up to you to provide some form of explanation.
You ask: “Forget that one link and do a search on the percentage of visible light emitted by a 60 Watt incandescent.”
The link is a description of radiant flux. Radiant flux is considered to be UV, visible, IR (not microwave and radio bands).
What is the point of finding out how much visible light a 60 watt incandescent light emits? Radiant flux includes IR.
IF you have a point then explain it. Cryptic posts may amuse you but they really do not further a point.
What wrong of my are you trying to convince me of? What do you find wrong about the link. How do you define radiant flux and what is your source to prove this link is wrong?
Norman,
1) You are denying reality.
2) Incandescent light bulbs only emit about 15% in the visible.
3) For some reason you want to deny that. You want to claim my comments are “cryptic”.
Why are you afraid of reality?
Ge*ran
You make three nonsense points.
YOU:
“1) You are denying reality.
2) Incandescent light bulbs only emit about 15% in the visible.
3) For some reason you want to deny that. You want to claim my comments are “cryptic”.”
1) What reality am I denying? You make a statement with zero elaboration. You need to be more specific.
2) And, what is the point of that? How is that relevant? 15% visible 85% IR. So, what is the point?
3) Where am I denying that an incandescent light bulb only emits 15% visible light? Still you have no point.
Do you just post because you are bored? Have a point, make some type of valid statement that people can follow.
More tricks from Grinvalds.
No science, nothing relevant, just denial and tricks.
norman…”…so that the 60 watts of electrical energy put into the filament is considered to be 60 watts of radiant flux…”
There is no relationship between the 60 watt power consumption and the radiated flux. A 60 watt incandescent emits about 800 lumens while a 15 watt CFL emits about the same.
What we see of the radiation from a light source is the fraction that stimulates the human eye.
norman…”Radiant flux is watts. A 60 watt bulb has a flux of 60 watts”.
I have never heard of a light bulb being rated in flux. Light bulbs are normally rated in lumens, which are derived from candela.
As JD pointed out, the 60 watts does not refer to luminous flux, it refers to the electrical power consumption of the bulb.
Not all EM luminous flux is rated since a lumen is a quantity peculiar to reception by the human eye. A lumen does not included IR or UV radiated by a light source.
norman…”…a 60 W incandescent lamp would have a radiant flux of 60 W….”
You should have learned by now that articles on the Net can be wrong. Whoever wrote this article had radiation on the brain, the same idiosyncrasy that afflicts alarmists on this site.
The 60 watts refers to the resistance of the tungsten filament and much of the power is consumed in an I^2R loss through the tungsten. That’s why incandescents are so inefficient.
Heat is conducted and convected away from the bulb and the amount of power involved there has to be calculated first before claims are made about radiated power.
I say think and interpret it the way you like.
All that matters is what the overall oceanic sea surface temperatures will be doing from here moving forward which is going to be a continuation of the down trend.
If that happens that is it for AGW theory.
Very simple.
You could have said that many times in the past about dips in a time series like HadSST3 SSTs.
And you would have been wrong every time (and always have been).
Explain why this time is different.
http://woodfortrees.org/plot/hadsst3gl
Come on David. This time is different because this is the first time the two solar conditions I have said that are necessary for cooling are present. All of the other times they were NOT present.
In addition if you look at my web-site I say IF these solar parameters are met following several years of sub solar activity in general expect cooling.
The key word being IF which is in capital letters on my web-site.
I made it pretty clear.
Salvatore, TSI has been decreasing since the 1960s.
http://spot.colorado.edu/~koppg/TSI/TIM_TSI_Reconstruction_sm.png
Why is this time any different? Previously you said all factors are in:
“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
All solar activity should have caused warming up until year 2005. After 2005 solar activity switched gears and should cause cooling.
Lag times of 10+ years needed followed by very low average value solar parameters which we now have thus I expect cooling.
Salvatore Del Prete says:
All solar activity should have caused warming up until year 2005.
Why?
Solar irradiance has been decreasing since the ’60s:
http://spot.colorado.edu/~koppg/TSI/TIM_TSI_Reconstruction_sm.png
Salvatore Del Prete says:
Lag times of 10+ years needed….
Why?
What’s the physics behind such a lag?
Where does the energy hide for 10 years?
David, please stop trolling.
Sorry for duplicate, the first one did not seem to post. In the second, I thought better of it and retracted my claim that Norman is an idiot. Upon review, I think it was apt.
Don’t worry, Norman — when all they can do is call you names, it shows they’re incapable of finding fault with your science.
Don’t worry DA, Norman knows plenty about insults, attacks, and false accusations. And like you, he has no understanding of the real science.
See what I mean, Norman?
See what DA means, Norman?
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/04/uah-global-temperature-update-for-march-2017-0-19-deg-c/#comment-242921
Gordon Robertson says:
Temperature is related to frequency.
Whats the equation for it?
T(f)=?
DA,
Are you really that stupid – or are you just trolling?
The world wonders.
Cheers.
I really must laugh a bit when reading about AMO going into a ‘cool phase’.
Probably the people who wrote that were, as usual, looking
– at the detrended AMO (whose goal is to show AMO’s cyclic behavior, and not to show temperature change);
and looking above all
– at a period perfectly fitting to their narrative, e.g. 2010-2014.
If you want to use AMO for any temperature prediction, then you should use the original, undetrended time series:
https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/psd/data/correlation/amon.us.long.mean.data
That’s how the undetrended AMO looks for 2010-2014:
http://4gp.me/bbtc/1532041066802/001.jpg
and that’s how it looks for 2000-2018:
http://4gp.me/bbtc/1532041329375/001.jpg
A funny detail is that the detrended AMO which is free of trend when considering its entire period since 1871, is no longer.
Its trend for 1979-2018 is 0.12 C / decade, a bit higher than UAH’s ocean time series (0.11 C).
https://www.tropicaltidbits.com/analysis/ocean/natlssta.png
What matters is what overall sea surface temperatures do moving forward. In particularly the N. Atlantic.
Why?
Why didn’t SSTs matter in the past?
They did that is why the overall trend in the climate was warmer.
I think that has changed over the past year and I think it continues.
Why was the overall climate trend in the past warmer?
binny…”If you want to use AMO for any temperature prediction, then you should use the original, undetrended time series:”
You reference NOAA as proof, the cheaters, liars, and fabricators of the scientific community. NOAA has a vested interest in promoting climate alarm and they alter data in that regard.
Gordon is the kind of man who has no problem whatsoever making pejorative and serious claims about people while having on evidence whatsoever.
It’s a fundamental character flaw.
David, please stop trolling.
Upthread, I tentatively agreed with something Joe Postma had posted.
Does that make me a Postma fan? Hell no! He’s a blithering idiot with regard to other things much more basic.
Below, Dr. Spencer makes the sensible, obvious argument that clothing can make a warmer object even warmer. JP argues with that, and says clothes only make you FEEL warmer. Geez.
(How could someone like Galloping camel, with such an impressive science background, be a fan of this guy?)
Roy Spencer, “Even if you dont believe there is 2-way flow, and only 1-way flowthe rate of flow depends upon the temperature of both bodies, and changing the cooler bodys temperature will change the cooling rate (and thus the temperature) of the warmer body. So, yes, a cooler body can make a warm body even warmer stillas evidenced by putting your clothes on.”
JP, “When the cooler object warms up, this does not require the warmer object to warm up also. The cool and warm object come to equilibrium and energy then flows through the cold object to its other extremities. Putting your clothes on traps air between the skin and clothes, and this air then gets heated up by your skin, which then makes you FEEL warmer.”
Ms Snape, maybe you should tell everyone what an absolute fool you always make of yourself. Like the time you pretended to teach about TSI, and you had NO clue what you were talking about. Or, upthread, where you get your pseudoscience wrapped around your neck.
There may be one or two new readers that are not aware of your “background”.
S,
Couple of things.
How much does your temperature rise when you are clothed? Does the temperature of a corpse rise when you clothe it?
The other point is :
What has this apparent GHE believer infatuation with clothing have to do with a GHE which even true believers cannot describe? I can understand that religious worshippers cannot describe their deity, as a rule. Science is supposedly not religion – except where GHE true believers are involved.
Still no GHE, so you might as well talk about overcoats, plates, adding fluxes, unicorns, or Gavin Schmidt’s claim that continually discovering new physics stops his models from being properly documented!
Have fun.
Cheers.
snape….”Roy Spencer, Even if you dont believe there is 2-way flow, and only 1-way flowthe rate of flow depends upon the temperature of both bodies, and changing the cooler bodys temperature will change the cooling rate (and thus the temperature) of the warmer body. So, yes, a cooler body can make a warm body even warmer stillas evidenced by putting your clothes on.”
*********
My take is that clothing is not making the body warmer, it is slowing the rate of heat dissipation from the body.
The same argument is put forward that GHGs in the atmosphere do the same thing, acting as an insulator to make the surface warmer. However, radiative cooling of the surface is governed by the Stefan-Boltzmann equation:
q = ebA(T^4 – To^4).
The important relationship is the temperature gradient where T is the surface temperature and To is the atmospheric temperature. The atmosphere is made up 99% of nitrogen and oxygen and those two gases must set To. It’s unreasonable to presume that CO2 at 0.04% has anything to do with To. Even WV at 1% on average will have little effect on To.
The human body has a natural average temperature of 98.6F (37C). If the naked body is exposed to temperatures below that, and fuel intake is restricted, the body will naturally cool toward the ambient temperature. Much of the cooling is not due to radiation alone but to direct conduction to surrounding air and convection currents that carry the heat away.
I read an article recently about people dying of exposure in adverse conditions. It was pointed out that people are more likely to die from hypothermia if their clothing gets wet and they remain exposed to windy conditions. Using up energy by aimless walking in adverse conditions was another contributing factor. I guess it comes down to attempting walking to safety or conserving energy.
If the body is naked, and you pout on clothes, you immediately and dramatically cut down heat loss due to conduction and convection. Radiation loss does not matter a lot and R-rated insulation in homes ignores heat loss by radiation. R-rated is aimed only at slowing heat loss by conduction through walls and ceilings.
I might add that if you are already hypothermic to a serious degree, putting on clothes won’t help much. It takes a long time for the body to recover naturally from hypothermia.
Gordon Robertson says:
My take is that clothing is not making the body warmer, it is slowing the rate of heat dissipation from the body.
What’s the difference?
Is a body warmer with a coat on, or not?
Gordon??
David, please stop trolling.
LP
You’re awesome, as usual. Just the info I was trying to find.
OK Snape give us your climatic outlook from now through the next 5 years. I am curious.
And STILL you can’t distinguish natural fluctuations from climate.
You are hopeless, Salvatore.
David natural fluctuations determine the climate and they were in a warming mode until 2005.
Since late 2017 they are in a cooling mode.
I think it stays that way for many years to come.
Salvatore Del Prete says:
….natural fluctuations determine the climate….
Fluctuations determine climate? In fact, it’s exactly the opposite.
…and they were in a warming mode until 2005.
How so? Solar irradiance has been decreasing since the 1960s:
http://spot.colorado.edu/~koppg/TSI/TIM_TSI_Reconstruction_sm.png
DA,
DA,
You wrote:
“How so? Solar irradiance has been decreasing since the 1960s:”
What is your point? Can you describe the GHE? No?
Just say something sciency, eh?
Do you think that stating a fact demonstrates anything in particular?
Gee. Hot water is warmer than cold water! How scientific is that?
Carry on, David. Keep blinding us all with your PhD superpowers!
How about e=mc2? Amazing!
Cheers.
David I explained it . Look at my web-site if you need further explanations. climatebusters.org
Explained what?
The solar conditions/criteria I think are needed for cooling.
They have not been present until late 2017.
Not present until 2017???
The energy from the sun has been decreasing since the 1960s:
http://spot.colorado.edu/~koppg/TSI/TIM_TSI_Reconstruction_sm.png
It does not work that way David. The energy from the sun was strong enough to cause warming until year 2005.
Salvatore Del Prete says:
The energy from the sun was strong enough to cause warming until year 2005.
How so?
DA,
Are you disagreeing? Have you any facts to support your disagreement? No?
Just another trolling gotcha, I suppose.
Cheers.
Salvatore Del Prete says:
The energy from the sun was strong enough to cause warming until year 2005.
So even though the amount of energy Earth receives from the Sun has been decreasing, the Earth has been warming.
Wow.
DA,
You wrote –
“So even though the amount of energy Earth receives from the Sun has been decreasing, the Earth has been warming.”
Has it really? Where is your peer reviewed paper?
Are you quite mad, or just pretending?
Cheers.
If you don’t reply right underneath a comment, I have no way of knowing what you’re referring to.
DA,
You probably couldn’t understand, either, could you?
Time for more stupid gotchas, David. Off you go.
Cheers.
@Snape,
“(How could someone like Galloping camel, with such an impressive science background, be a fan of this guy?)”
I agreed with Joe Postma until he claimed that everyone (except Joe Postma) was wrong because they had overlooked the fact the Earth was not flat. This is crazy given that many people have one dimensional models that explain the Moon’s surface temperature with great precision.
What do I mean by “Great Precision”? Ashwin Vasavada, Tim Channon, this Camel and “br” have linear models that reproduce the Diviner LRE results with an RMS error of less than 1 Kelvin at all latitudes and all local times. This implies amazing uniformity in the thermal properties of the Moon’s surface. While there are areas of exposed basalt, most of the Moon is covered in at least 0.5 meters of regolith (basalt dust).
When it comes to bodies with atmospheres the best model I know is Robinson and Catling’s that is essentially one dimensional.
Joe Postma had a hissy fit when I pointed out that linear models work just fine for heat transfer problems involving spherical bodies. It is trivial (mathematically) to compensate for spherical geometry and I was surprised that he did not understand that.
“Joe Postma had a hissy fit when I pointed out that linear models work just fine for heat transfer problems involving spherical bodies. It is trivial (mathematically) to compensate for spherical geometry and I was surprised that he did not understand that.”
Not sure I agree. But I would like to agree.
What temperature of copper sphere at Earth distance [not in Earth orbit] and assume copper is oxidized like older penny?
gallopingcamel says:
Ashwin Vasavada, Tim Channon, this Camel and br have linear models that reproduce the Diviner LRE results with an RMS error of less than 1 Kelvin at all latitudes and all local times
Let’s see your model.
@David Appell,
My model was described in three posts on “Tallbloke”:
https://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2014/04/18/a-new-lunar-thermal-model-based-on-finite-element-analysis-of-regolith-physical-properties/
https://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2014/08/27/extending-a-new-lunar-thermal-model-part-ii-modelling-an-airless-earth/
https://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2017/06/06/extending-a-new-lunar-thermal-model-part-iii-modelling-the-moon-at-various-rotation-rates/
When Michael Mann was asked for the files backing up his MBH98 paper he could not produce them (the dog ate my homework).
My detailed calculations are recorded in Excel spreadsheets that I will happily share with anyone including hostile people like you. Just email me at info(at)gallopingcamel.info
So publish your spreadsheets on a public access site, and give us the links.
Or you can send them to me directly. My email address is shown at http://www.davidappell.com
And submit them to a good peer reviewed journal, so the entire world has access to your important insights.
So publish your spreadsheets on a public access site, and give us the links.
gallopingcamel says:
When Michael Mann was asked for the files backing up his MBH98 paper he could not produce them (the dog ate my homework).
Did you look on his site? They’re there. Mann’s files have been available for over a decade and a half.
David, please stop trolling.
Here is calculated profile of space rock at 1 AU:
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11214-016-0286-8
And:
Fig. 1
“Calculated temperature profiles as a function of surface thermal inertia for the equatorial region of an asteroid with a rotational period of 7.63 hours, where albedo=0.05 , emissivity=0.93 . ”
Says:
“Figure 1 shows an example of the temperature profile as a function of surface thermal inertia at the equatorial region of an asteroid with a rotational period of 7.63 hours, where the solar distance is 1 AU, the rotation pole is perpendicular to the asteroid orbital plane, and the surface albedo and emissivity are 0.05 and 0.93, respectively. For the very fluffy surface case (the thermal inertia I=10 TI ), the peak temperature is about 400 K almost at noon, while the temperature becomes 110 K in the nighttime. For the case of pebbles ( I=200 TI ), the peak temperature is about 370 K in the afternoon at 18∘ longitude while the temperature is higher than 210 K even during nighttime.”
So is about same as your models [or is it the same]?
DA…re the pseudo-science at Science of Doom.
Here’s a great example of the clowns writing articles there. In one of them The Real Second Law, they define entropy.
https://scienceofdoom.com/2010/09/27/the-real-second-law-of-thermodynamics/
“What is entropy? I will keep the maths to an absolute minimum, but we have to introduce a tiny amount of maths just to define entropy.
For a body absorbing a tiny amount of heat, δQ (note that δ is a symbol which means tiny change), the change in entropy, δS, is given by:
δS = δQ / T, where T is absolute temperature (see note 1)”
*********
Absolute garbage. It’s not dS = dQ/T it’s
S = integral (sum) dQ/T.
Clausius defined entropy for us in words. He claimed, entropy is the sum of infinitesimal changes of heat at temperature T over a process.
Get it? The SUM!!! That means S = the integral of dQ/T. The clowns at SoD think entropy is a variable that changes with heat. Of course, the clowns don’t even know what heat is.
If S =dQ/T and T is kept constant throughout the process by supplying the heat from a bath of constant temperature, you can pull T outside the integral sign and entropy becomes the total heat over a process. Anyone with half a brain in physics/math can see that by integrating dQ. However, the rocket-scientists at SoD think it’s a difficult concept.
Clausius elaborated on entropy. If a process is reversible, the entropy is zero. If the process is irreversible, the entropy is positive. That’s it, entropy can never be negative.
Heat transfer from a cold body to a warm body is negative entropy!!! It cannot happen without external compensation.
Then comes the zinger. “The net change in energy in the system is zero because 1000J leaves the first body and is absorbed by the second body. This is the first law of thermodynamics energy cannot be created or destroyed.
However, there is a change in entropy.
The change in total entropy of the system = δS1 + δS2 = -1 + 2 = 1 J/K.
This strange value called entropy has increased”.
*********
Complete and utter pseudo-science!!!
Between bodies of different temperature, S = Q(1/T2 – 1/T2). Entropy must be positive therefore T1, the hotter body, must be greater than T2, the colder body). We are interested only in the sign of the entropy, not a quantity.
********
Later…”To prove that the second law of thermodynamics has been violated someone needs to demonstrate that a system is reducing entropy. So we would expect to see an entropy calculation”.
No!!!!! All you have to do, according to Clausius, is prove there is no compensation, which there is not in the atmosphere. If there is no compensation then Clausius is absolutely clear that heat can NEVER be transferred from a colder body to a warmer body.
It might interest the clowns at SoD, but I doubt it, that Clausius stated the 2nd law as just stated then introduced entropy. He arrived at the stated law by painstakingly following the process of a heat engine and showed why heat cannot be transferred cold to hot.
Entropy cannot, as claimed by the SoD clowns, be used as they have incorrectly applied it. Besides, if they rally understood th 2nd law, they’d get it that transferring heat from cold to hot makes no sense without elaborate compensation driven by external power.
Gordon 12:26 AM inaccurately claims: “Absolute garbage. It’s not dS = dQ/T”
Clausius 1866 9th memoir p. 366 “On the determination of the Entropy of a Body” eqn. 1(B): dS = dQ/T
Clausius is correct (so is SOD), Gordon is not correct.
Clausius goes on to write his eqn. 1(B) “holds good for reversible changes solely.” and obtains with 1A and 1B: dU = dQ + dw
What is amazing is the unabilitiy of this dumbest commenter evah to search for correct information, e.g. by simply googling for ‘dS = dQ/T’.
*
Look at this comment written by bob droege…
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2018/07/summer-causes-climate-change-hysteria/#comment-312687
Perfect.
binny…”What is amazing is the unabilitiy of this dumbest commenter evah to search for correct information, e.g. by simply googling for dS = dQ/T”.
You should stay away from math that is clearly over your head. As I explained to another idiot/troll, ball4, I invoked the integral operator making it S = integral dQ/T.
dS = dQ/T is in differential form, meaning it represents instantaneous, infinitesimal changes. To get the entire picture you need to integrate all the differentials in a range to get a whole.
Clausius stated in words that entropy is the sum of infinitesimal changes of heat at the temperature T at which they occur. A sum in this case is an integral.
As far as Bob Droege is concerned re his comments of me bastardizing the 2nd law, he represents himself as yet another uninformed. My quote came directly from Clausius who created both the 2nd law and the concept of entropy.
There are too many idiots these days who regurgitate pap they have been spoon-fed from a university paradigm. They are idiots because they lack the insight to see what is wrong with the nonsense they are taught.
Of course, someone like you, with a fetish for authority, would not think to question anything you had been taught by an authority figure. You worship NOAA even though they have proved themselves to be data fudgers and manipulators.
“My quote came directly from Clausius who created both the 2nd law and the concept of entropy.”
Gordon, you did not quote Clausius directly, you used your own words so the OP was right and Gordon is wrong about what Clausius wrote fundamentally for 2LOT.
ball4…”Clausius 1866 9th memoir p. 366 On the determination of the Entropy of a Body eqn. 1(B): dS = dQ/T”
********
You need to learn to focus. I said S = (The INTEGRAL) of dQ/T.
Or don’t you understand the difference between an equation stated in differential form and one in the integrated form?
If I begin with dS = dQ/T and I apply integration, I get something like:
S = So + integral dQ/T
He derived entropy from the transformations in a body exchanging heat with another body or through the conversion heat to work or vice-versa. He chose the word entropy to represent ‘transformation’ of energy.
Gibs, who coined the term free energy thought the Clausius invention of entropy was brilliant.
Unlike what the rocket-scientists at SoD claim, it is not a difficult concept for anyone who takes the trouble to read Clausius to see what he intended. It becomes a difficult concept for idiots who try to create their own definition using obfuscated math.
Same with the 2nd law. The idiots at SoD have trouble with it because it contradicts their modernist notions of the science related to anthropogenic warming. So, they claim in a fit of pique that it is an imaginary law.
Only arrogant idiots do that. Again, had they taken the time to read Clausius to see what he meant it would have become clear. However, that would have meant changing their views on anthropogenic pseudo-science.
Gordon I clipped what you wrote verbatim. Exactly your words. You have no credibility to say otherwise. But then Gordon has little if any credibility anyway.
ball4…”Gordon I clipped what you wrote verbatim. Exactly your words. You have no credibility to say otherwise. But then Gordon has little if any credibility anyway”.
Here’s what I wrote you you imbecilic troll.
“S = integral (sum) dQ/T.
Clausius defined entropy for us in words. He claimed, entropy is the sum of infinitesimal changes of heat at temperature T over a process.
Get it? The SUM!!! That means S = the integral of dQ/T. The clowns at SoD think entropy is a variable that changes with heat. Of course, the clowns dont even know what heat is.
If S =dQ/T and T is kept constant throughout the process by supplying the heat from a bath of constant temperature, you can pull T outside the integral sign and entropy becomes the total heat over a process”.
*********
I made it clear in the first two equations that S = integral dQ/T. In the 3rd equation I omitted the integral sign and guess what ball4 the troll jumped all over it…a typo.
You don’t know your butt from a hole in the ground about thermodynamics. You think heat does not exist. What kind of a raving idiot thinks like that?
Gordon corrects his original “garbage”: “dS = dQ/T is in differential form, meaning it represents instantaneous, infinitesimal changes.”
Yes, thx. Gordon corrects his error to now agree with what Clausius wrote in eqn. 1(B) & Gordon now also agrees with SOD.
Proof that Gordon CAN make improvements in comments when prompted. Let’s see if that can continue by Gordon referring readers to what Bohr, Schrodinger, Boltzmann et. al. masters actually wrote instead of writing his own incorrect words.
ball4…”Clausius 1866 9th memoir p. 366 On the determination of the Entropy of a Body eqn. 1(B): dS = dQ/T”
Another cherry picked quote from ball4.
Earlier on page 357:
“we obtain the equation
[Integral] dQ/T = S – S0… (64)
which is merely a different form of the equation (60), by which S is determined. We might call S the transformational content of the body, just as we termed the magnitude U its thermal and ergonal [work-related] content.
But as I hold it to be better to borrow terms for important magnitudes from the ancient languages, so that they may be adopted unchanged in all modern languages, I propose to call the magnitude S the entropy of the body, from the Greek word [lost in WordPress translation]), transformation. I have intentionally formed the word entropy so as to be as similar as possible to the word energy; for the two magnitudes to be denoted by these words are so nearly allied in their physical meanings, that a certain similarity in designation appears to be desirable.
Wow, Gordon, this is your claim to insight??
Both the differential form and integral form are correct. (Otherwise the integral makes no sense.)
Gordon and Mike isn’t it amazing how they can’t accept the fact their theory is hogwash.
We both show how absurd their theory is. You guys do it more from the physics aspect, while I do it more through direct climatic evidence while touting an alternative theory.
Salvatore,
Bindidon did some wonderful graphs a few days ago that was revealing. Basically CONUS extreme temperatures are down since the first half of the last century. Going from an average of about 20 days north of 35C per year in the 1930’s to present decade of about 10 days north of 35C. What was most interesting is that Bindidon did some analysis of non CONUS sites showing that the extremes went from 7 days/year above 35C to about 13 days/year for this latest decade. These non CONUS sites are primarily Europe with some in Canada and Australia. I have been looking more into Australia lately. Alice Springs which is the only non coastal City with records going back over 100 years data suggest it is more likely similar to CONUS. But I want to start looking at the coastal cities to see if they showed a similar pattern.
The notion that CO2 is creating more extreme temperatures GLOBALLY is not apparent in the data. The regurgitation of new maximum records exceeding new minimum records are a result from new sites established during a cold period. Even in Alice Springs the max temperature of 42.5C in 1960 using Airport site and 47.5 in 1881 using Post Office site show no new maximum temperature tendency. Most sites that have records going back to at least 1920’s have extreme heat records prior to the 1970’s. So I would have to agree with you, the direct climatic evidence does not support the AGW = CO2 = GHE theory.
With that said, AGW does exist in the form of urbanization and deforestation. I have read that this is not much but do not have an opinion on the magnitude yet. What I also believe is that CO2 acts to keep minimum temperatures higher based on the temperature records. Thus, CO2 can raise average temperatures. I still believe a more comprehensive understanding of the dynamics is in order. That is why I appreciate your theory because it shows a more open minded approach.
You are right about urbanization and deforestation.
I think there is some miss understanding my position is on the GHG effect. I believe in the GHG effect I just think (oceans for example) determine how strong or weak it may be.
If surface oceans continue to cool the GHG effect is going to diminish in my opinion.
I believe we have a similar view. AGW is not simply CO2 and CO2 is not simply GHE. There are more variables at work here. I will say, I am not a big fan of GHG as a term, though I believe I understand what the attempt was. I worked in a greenhouse and I assure you oxygen and nitrogen were present. But again, I understand what many are trying to infer here. Just a bad analogy for me.
As far as your opinion that the GHG effect will diminish, I offer you an alternative thought. The GHG effect will be relatively the same, just the base temperatures will be lower. GHG, which I prefer to view more of the insolating/energy distributing property of the atmosphere, will continue to distribute energy from the sun and earth as it did in the past. However, the energy (solar/terrestrial spectrum) at earths surface itself will be different. Since energy cannot be created or destroyed, but can be in different forms, the amount in (TOA) will equal the amount out in a steady state situation (which of course never really occurs, but averaged out over time would be the closest to it).
So to use an analogy, compare a LED with an incandescent light of the same wattage. Both produce heat and visible light, but the LED is more efficient at producing visible light, thus lower heat generated. I believe the Earth does something similar. What you espouse would be a more efficient Earth (less heat generated).
Just a thought.
“With that said, AGW does exist in the form of urbanization and deforestation. I have read that this is not much but do not have an opinion on the magnitude yet. What I also believe is that CO2 acts to keep minimum temperatures higher based on the temperature records. Thus, CO2 can raise average temperatures. I still believe a more comprehensive understanding of the dynamics is in order. That is why I appreciate your theory because it shows a more open minded approach.”
I would say an actual greenhouse or parked car with window rolled up can increase the air temperature. But greenhouse purpose is mostly to stop temperatures at night from getting near freezing [so plants don’t die or are stunted], and in that sense the greenhouse effect is like a actual greenhouse.
So the mass of an atmosphere and other parts of atmosphere, like clouds, and greenhouse gases, and latent heat of water vapor, inhibit cooler temperature at night or winter.
Urbanization or urban heat islands effects also cause night time temperature to be higher AND can increase daytime high temperature due to building structures inhibting convectional heat- same thing as parked car with windows rolled up prevent convectional heat loss.
UHI effects have had largest effect in regard to conditions that effect humans, and no or very little effect upon global temperature [other than effecting temperature reading in urban areas which are used to measure global temperature].
So if any human could actually notice any effects caused but human activity, it would be UHI effect [which doesn’t require thermometer to detect, because the effect is a few or several degrees of temperature difference rather 1 degree or less]. Or if drive into a city and you can easily notice it.
gbaikie…”But greenhouse purpose is mostly to stop temperatures at night from getting near freezing ”
As R.W.Wood pointed out, N2 and O2, making up 99% of the atmosphere, can do that on their own. They don’t need GHGs.
How do N2 and O2 do that? What’s the physics?
A actual greenhouse [not the atmosphere is like a greenhouse] doesn’t need GHGs to stay warmer at night.
But if you put barrels of water in actual greenhouse, the thermal mass of the water does help it stay warmer at night
— David Appell says:
July 20, 2018 at 5:33 PM
How do N2 and O2 do that? Whats the physics?–
What the physics of CO2 at and below 20 feet above the ground, doing anything?
CO2 and other GHGs absorb IR.
How do N2 and O2 do that?
David, please stop trolling.
Thank Gbaikie, I will keep that in mind. The greenhouse I worked in (New Jersey), needed an oil furnace in the winter. But the ones in lower latitudes most like do not, so I am wrong there.
I have also read that UHI may even cause lower daytime temperatures.
The IPCC stated that “it is well-known that compared to non-urban areas urban heat islands raise night-time temperatures more than daytime temperatures.”For example, Barcelona, Spain is 0.2 C (0.4 F) cooler for daily maxima and 2.9 C (5.2 F) warmer for minima than a nearby rural station.
Though not sure if I would agree that occurs everywhere.
“The IPCC stated that it is well-known that compared to non-urban areas urban heat islands raise night-time temperatures more than daytime temperatures.For example, Barcelona, Spain is 0.2 C (0.4 F) cooler for daily maxima and 2.9 C (5.2 F) warmer for minima than a nearby rural station.
Though not sure if I would agree that occurs everywhere.”
I agree with IPCC that warming effect is usually more regarding night time temperatures, than daytime temperatures
Also weather can nullify UHI effects, so not always causing higher night or daytime temperatures. Or as in above of Barcelona, Spain, it might have a night having UHI effect of 10 C, but when averaged whether month or year, becomes a lower value.
“I have also read that UHI may even cause lower daytime temperatures.”
I guess it is possible, but I know no specific details of the hows and whys of it.
But I think most of time, a urban landscape would not cause lower daytime temperature [or lower night time temperatures] which not to say that city could not design it in some fashion so it makes the city have less UHI effect or even a negative UHI effect.
Salvatore…”Gordon and Mike isnt it amazing how they cant accept the fact their theory is hogwash”.
The thing that really bothers me is the number of incredibly naive politicians who are buying into this hogwash. My sole intent here in replying to the hogwash is giving third party readers the opportunity to weight the arguments and think for themselves.
I feel for your position. You are going out on a limb with your predictions, which I applaud. I hope you are right and that you are vindicated. One thing I have learned, however, is there is no way to accurately foresee the future.
We both know that something caused the Little Ice Age and whatever it was persisted for 400 years. There is evidence that the cooling was solar related.
We both know as well that we needed to reqrm from the LIA. As Akasofu claimed, the IPCC erred by not allowing for that re-warming in their AGW hogwash.
Gordon, what evidence says the LIA was due to solar?
PS: The LIA wasn’t global. See (again) PAGES 2k.
Gordon Robertson ways:
We both know as well that we needed to reqrm from the LIA. As Akasofu claimed, the IPCC erred by not allowing for that re-warming in their AGW hogwash.
Akasofu is a geophysicist.
By your own standards, they have no right to opine on climate science.
But electronics technicians do.
Huffy says
“And, the proof you must provide is, as described upthread, is to heat an object with a 60 Watt light bulb, to equilibrium. Then, using a flat sheet of ice in close proximity, raising the temperature of the object. THAT would prove your nonsense, that all fluxes add.”
The ice will displace something from the object’s field of view. Was that something warmer or colder than the ice?
If the ice is warmer than what was there before, the object’s temperature will increase. No magic. No tricks.
False Ms Snape…but funny.
DA…”Gordon Robertson says:
If photons are particles, they cannot form fluxes.
Why not? ”
*****
Because fluxes represent radiation in the context in which we are speaking. When we talk about photons, we are talking about EM, which has no mass. The photon was defined as a particle of EM with the proviso that it has no mass.
As I pointed out, flux comes from fluxion, the term coined by Newton to represent what we now call a derivative. As you should know, a derivative is an instantaneous rate of change and in the case of EM generated from a surface, or passing through a surface, it is the instantaneous rate of change of an electromagnetic field at an infinitesimal point perpendicular to the surface.
If you want to find the sum of those flux portions (lines of flux) you have to integrate over the surface using a double integral.
That cannot be done with EM as particles simply because they exist by definition only as a mass-less quantity. No one knows to this day if EM is a wave front or streams of photons.
Gordon Robertson says:
If photons are particles, they cannot form fluxes.
Why not?
“Because fluxes represent radiation in the context in which we are speaking. When we talk about photons, we are talking about EM, which has no mass. The photon was defined as a particle of EM with the proviso that it has no mass.”
What???
This a bunch of handwaving gobbleygook. EM fluxes are made of EM — there is no distinction between them.
No, the photon is not *defined* to have no mass. That’s an observation, not a definition.
Lordy.
@David Appell,
Even the amazing Albert Einstein could not figure out whether radiation is composed of particles or waves. If you have figured it out please explain for us little people.
In the meantime nothing much has changed since Gilbert Stead wrote this little song in 1926:
http://ww3.haverford.edu/physics-astro/songs/cavendish/hv_physics.htm
gallopingcamel says:
Even the amazing Albert Einstein could not figure out whether radiation is composed of particles or waves.
Einstein certainly knew the answer: both.
DAVE IF YOU CAN FIND THE SOLAR CRITERIA BEFORE 2017 SHOW ME.
Criteria
solar flux sub 90- is in
solar wind 350 km/sec or lower- still not quite but close
ap index 5 or lower – slightly higher but falling
euv light 100 units or less -is in
uv light off 5% or more – is in
solar irradiance – off .1% or more – is in
cosmic rays – 6500 units or higher – is in
None of the criteria was in until about a year ago when it started to come about. This is what is needed to have solar impact the climate in my opinion. This following 10+ years of sub solar activity in general which we have not had since the Dalton Solar Minimum.
OVERALL SURFACE SEA SURFACE TEMPERATURES – VITAL
and they should fall if the above solar conditions are present all modified by a weakening geo magnetic field.
Why doesn’t Earth’s warming depend ultimately on the amount of energy it receives from the Sun?
Or do all these parameter limitations somehow imply that a less energetic sun can create higher temperatures?
This is the criteria which shows how much less energetic the sun has to be in order to have a significant cooling effect.
This has not been even close to being present until late year 2017.
But early you wrote that all factors are in.
Do I need to quote that again?
OK, if you insist:
“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
If these criteria are exceeded then the temperatures are not going to fall.
Lag times of 10+ years of sub solar activity are needed due to the oceans which are very slow to react.
Salvatore Del Prete says:
Lag times of 10+ years of sub solar activity are needed due to the oceans which are very slow to react.
What is “sub solar activity?”
Why 10 years, when the ocean overturning time is about 1500 years?
If 10 years, then cooling won’t happen for 10 more years, right?
We already have had the 10 years of sub solar activity . Sub solar activity is when a given solar cycle is less average then the aggregate of all the previous solar cycles combined.
If ocean over turning of 1500 years controlled the climate it would be impossible to have abrupt climatic changes. For example the beginning and ending of the YD, or the 8200 cold period, or the dark ages cold period to name some. All took place in decades or even less.
It is only the temperature of the surface oceanic waters that matter when it comes to the climate.
“If ocean over turning of 1500 years controlled the climate it would be impossible to have abrupt climatic changes. For example the beginning and ending of the YD, or the 8200 cold period, or the dark ages cold period to name some. All took place in decades or even less.”
Not sure what mean by “ocean over turning of 1500 years”
Warming the entire volume of ocean takes a long time.
And the temperature of entire volume of ocean controls global average temperature.
So we have entire volume of ocean average temperature of about 3.5 C.
Global average surface air temperature would affected “a lot” if instead entire volume of ocean average temperature is 3 C or if 4 C.
If it was 4 C, one could grow oranges in Oregon. If it was 5 C, you could grow oranges in Germany. And 3 C means can’t grow oranges in California.
But just because you can’t grow oranges in California, it does mean you won’t have hot summers in California and could sometimes could get pretty hot winters [as is the case presently], but it does mean California will tend to be drier and have more times of freezing weather [and not even requiring such freezing weather to be during the winter].
So warmer or colder ocean, changes regional climates and global climates.
And a 4 C ocean in terms of global average air temperature is about 17 C [though over centuries it vary by +/- 1 C]
Or ocean surface temperature which is now about 17 C would be about 18 C and vary +/- .5 C, within a century of time and that would significantly increase average land surface temperature average temperature, and depending if average ocean surface was 17.5 or 18.5 C.
Salvatore Del Prete says:
If ocean over turning of 1500 years controlled the climate it would be impossible to have abrupt climatic changes.
Not if you understand what the causes of abrupt changes are.
gbaikie says:
Not sure what mean by ocean over turning of 1500 years
“Because deep-water masses circulate very slowly, the GCB takes about 1500 years to complete, meaning that the oldest water in the oceans is about this age.”
GCB = Global Conveyor Belt
https://www.e-education.psu.edu/earth103/node/686
–gbaikie says:
Not sure what mean by ocean over turning of 1500 years
“Because deep-water masses circulate very slowly, the GCB takes about 1500 years to complete, meaning that the oldest water in the oceans is about this age.”
GCB = Global Conveyor Belt
https://www.e-education.psu.edu/earth103/node/686 —
GCB is important element in regards to global climate, but it does not mix the entire ocean in 1500 years, as above seems to imply, and other reference claim it’s waters are about 1000 rather than 1500 years.
And there other references claim the oldest large bodies of ocean water [one that has not mixed with surface] is about 2000 years.
[Just google: oldest ocean water.]
“About 1500 years” includes 2000 years (for a limited subset).
I’m surprised there’s no comment from Roy on the Santer et al paper in this week’s issue of Science. Hopefully he’s on vacation.
Santer, B., S. Po-Chedley, M. Zelinka, et al, 2018: “Human influence on the seasonal cycle of tropospheric temperature”, Science, 361 (6399), eaas8806, doi: 10.1126/science.aas8806
DA…”Im surprised theres no comment from Roy on the Santer et al paper in this weeks issue of Science”.
Why would anyone in his right mind want to comment on the utterances of an alarmist eco-weenie?
Spoken like a true denier afraid of the science.
David, please stop trolling.
bilybob says:
July 20, 2018 at 7:08 AM
“Bindidon did some wonderful graphs a few days ago that was revealing.”
Thanks for having appreciated what I wanted to show.
1. “What was most interesting is that Bindidon did some analysis of non CONUS sites showing that the extremes went from 7 days/year above 35C to about 13 days/year for this latest decade. These non CONUS sites are primarily Europe with some in Canada and Australia.”
It seems that you did not read some of my replies to you.
I showed somewhere upthread a list of all countries having participated to a maxima series in which CONUS stations were excluded, since they make up 50% of the stations worldwide.
Somewhat later I presented a maxima series where all station data had been averaged in UAH-like 2.5 degree grid cells, with as goal to supress worldwide station overweight: isolated stations no longer compete with 30,000 other stations, but only with about 2,000 grid cells.
This gives a more representative picture.
Instead of a CONUS-dominated series like
(a) http://4gp.me/bbtc/1531434876862/001.jpg
we now have
(b) http://4gp.me/bbtc/1531434949535/001.jpg
but without excluding CONUS stations.
2. “Alice Springs which is the only non coastal City with records going back over 100 years data suggest it is more likely similar to CONUS.”
I have shown already that using only stations active during the entire period (1895-2017) does not modify much.
Australia shows moreover a somewhat different behavior concerning temperature maxima per station.
Here you see the chart of a maxima series for Australia where all stations are averaged together each year:
(c) http://4gp.me/bbtc/1532129655654/001.jpg
and here is a chart showing the series with station data averaging into cells prior to yearly averaging:
(d) http://4gp.me/bbtc/1532130260391/001.jpg
The reason for this huge difference might be found in the fact that here as well, the single step averaging favors a considerable amount of adjacent locations with very similar behavior.
This plays a minor role in CONUS due to the very high amount of stations but is a more important factor in Australia.
3. “The notion that CO2 is creating more extreme temperatures GLOBALLY is not apparent in the data.”
Who does pretend that?
But we nevertheless need a consistent explanation for the maxima increase shown in chart (c), regardless wether natural or man-made.
Typo
But we nevertheless need a consistent explanation for the maxima increase shown in chart (b)…
I agree Bindidon, it would be nice to have a consistent explanation for chart (b).
After looking at your list and checking the GIST site for distribution, these sites are weighted to Europe and do not represent the rest of the Globe. South America, most of Africa and a portion of Asia are under represented. I was hoping these sites would be broadly scattered. And 100 or so would be sufficient.
So given Australia is different from CONUS which is different from Chart (b), then obvious explanation is that there is more than CO2 that explains temperature. Since CO2 is distributed evenly throughout the world. And given the vast difference of these charts, CO2 must have very little to do with Global Temperatures.
As far as who pretends that CO2 is causing more extreme temperatures, I was basing that on the blog article by Dr. Spencer, and comments submitted by some on this blog. I do not recall you ever saying that. And the data simply does not support that conclusion.
However, if I were to try to explain Chart(b) simultaneously with CONUS and now Australia charts (thank you for that one). I would say that Gbaikie and Salvatore theories would explain most of that. Solar conditions change the dynamics of the system, including the energy level of the oceans, and both atmospheric and ocean currents explain the impacts globally. The overall trend is warming due to planetary cycles, again the Ocean is exposed to highest solar input ( Earth is tilted to southern hemisphere closest to sun). ENSO can explain sub decade variations.
Your thoughts?
Thanks bilybob for the answer.
I’ll come around with thoughts this evening (I mean UTC+2).
“After looking at your list and checking the GIST site for distribution, these sites are weighted to Europe and do not represent the rest of the Globe. South America, most of Africa and a portion of Asia are under represented.”
Please keep in mind that this list was generated out of no more than about 120 stations having ALL been active over the period 1895-2017 (it was your wish).
“I was hoping these sites would be broadly scattered. And 100 or so would be sufficient.”
100 sites sufficient for the whole world ???
The answer is clearly no. Some pseudoskeptics mean that even 10,000 stations would not be!
And keeping everything based on historical sites: that makes no sense at all. Explanation follows.
Salvatore Del Prete wrote:
July 22, 2017 at 9:21 AM
“I am sticking with it which is global temperatures by summer of 2018 will be at or below 30 year means.”
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/07/warming-in-the-tropics-even-the-new-rss-satellite-dataset-says-the-models-are-wrong/#comment-256283
==
The UAH LT global anomaly 30-year average for each of June, July and August (summer) is 0.09 C. That adds to 0.27 C.
UH LT global anomaly for June 2018 was 0.21 C. So there is only 0.06 C of padding left for Salvatore to be right.
So if (but not only if) UAH LT global for July 2018 >= 0.16 C, Salvatore will be wrong.
I am very pleased with the trends in both oceanic and global temperatures which is down.
Your AGW theory is the one that is becoming more off with time while my prediction is looking better with time.
AGW theory is about long term climate Salvatore, your theory is about short term weather prediction.
Ball that argument is an excuse to keep the theory you embrace alive. It won’t go over.
Salvatore’s understanding so bad he is hopeless. He will never understand because he does want to. He’s happy with simple minded ideas that support his biases.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/07/20/climate-modelers-cant-predict-future-so-now-concentrate-on-the-past/
Saying it already Ball.
Salvatore, you are confused, that WUWT article is about computer climate models not basic text book meteorological theory and experiment. Your short term weather observations and predictions for 2018 are not climate predictions.
David, Ball4, please stop trolling.
oceanic surface temp +.13cabove 1981-2010 means and that is good enough for me at this juncture and they will be going lower.
SDP, you wrote:
“What matters is what overall sea surface temperatures do moving forward. In particularly the N. Atlantic.”
Can you please explain how small changes in solar activity affect the North Atlantic more than elsewhere? Why would cooling appear in this region rather than somewhere else?
I am curious. What is the mechanism you have in mind?
Since any changes in solar radiation should affect all regions equally.
Oceans temperature are ultimately determined by the amounts of energy they absorb. The source of the energy is the sun especially in the UV /NEAR UV light wavelengths.
When the sun enters a period of time of VERY low activity the UV light declines perhaps 10% which penetrates the surface of the oceans to some 50 meters. The result is less energy imparted to the oceans.
In addition TSI as a whole is now off .1% from 2012-2014 levels which although it may seem small that is a big number due to the immense amounts of energy coming from the sun. Those wavelengths will also cause less energy to the oceans the result as you can see is for overall sea surface temperatures to cool.
Changes in solar radiation will not effect all areas equally because the ocean is not static it moves.
The N. Atlantic is tied into the AMOC and any changes in that will magnify that area of the ocean. I think this is slowing which means the amount of heat being brought up for lower latitudes to higher latitudes in declining thus the N. Atlantic cools.
The N. Atlantic is important due to it’s geographical position.
I wish they had edited. WUWT site does. for should be from
in should be is
In the above post.
“The N. Atlantic is tied into the AMOC and any changes in that will magnify that area of the ocean.” Huh?
“The N. Atlantic is important due to its geographical position.” Why?
I’m sorry. That does not cut it for an explanation. You obviously have no clue.
Myki…”Im sorry. That does not cut it for an explanation. You obviously have no clue”.
Coming from an alarmist idiot who uses the alarmist ‘gotcha’ technique’, your comment carries no weight. If you have anything to say, try doing it with intelligence and based on science.
Oh, I forgot, you’re the kind of idiot who scours Google for reports of record warming then comments on science without having a clue what you’re talking about.
Gordon Robertson says:
Coming from an alarmist idiot who uses the alarmist gotcha technique….
Above all, deniers fear questions.
Salvatore Del Prete says:
In addition TSI as a whole is now off .1% from 2012-2014 levels which although it may seem small that is a big number due to the immense amounts of energy coming from the sun.
It’s 1.4 W/m2 at the TOA, about 0.2 W/m2 at the surface.
How much temperature change will that cause?
In other words, what is dT/dS?
Salvatore Del Prete says:
Those wavelengths will also cause less energy to the oceans the result as you can see is for overall sea surface temperatures to cool.
Did that happen during the last cool phase of the AMO?
If so, where are those data?
The N. Atlantic is tied into the AMOC and any changes in that will magnify that area of the ocean.
Where will this “magnified heat” go? Will it just disappear into thin air?
David, please stop trolling.
Nate says, July 14, 2018 at 4:08 PM:
For the nth time, Nate: It’s not “my alternative OLR records” and not “my version” OF the data. It IS the data. I’m showing what the DATA says. As far as the DATA goes, it IS reality (or the closest thing we have TO it). Then Allan et al. come along and CHANGE the data. To make it look flat instead of increasing over time. But you support this as a valid version. Even though you have clearly stated that this is NOT how science should work. But you support it, because you like the result, you like its implications.
That’s a clear case of what we call “confirmation bias”, Nate.
It’s the RAW data (you claim). Have you processed it? If so, how?
David, please stop trolling.
I posted this blurb earlier on entropy for ball4, quoted directly from Clausius, but it is wasted on twits like ball4. All he wants to do is find fault without intelligent debate.
There is a good deal of misunderstanding of entropy on the Net and some go so far as to claim the version of Clausius is wrong. Eh?? He invented the concept of entropy, gave it it’s name, explained it really well, and was complicated by Gibbs (free energy) for coming up with the idea.
Clausius explains entropy as a transformation involving heat when their is a conversion of heat to work, or vice versa, or an exchange of heat between bodies of different temperatures.
He explains two factors: dH, which is the change of heat in a body from it’s initial conditions, and dZ, a change in what he calls disgregation. Aggregation means a coming together of elements therefore disgregation means a shaking up of the order. He refers to entropy S as H + Z.
I think that’s brilliant. Clausius was somehow able to see, well before quantum theory, that atoms are affected by heat, and as the heat increases in a body, the atoms become more disgregated. That means they vibrate harder till bonds are eventually broken and substances fall apart.
Therefore, entropy to him is the increase/decrease of heat, taken from or given back to a heat reservoir, in a body over a process and the extent to which the atoms change their state of vibration. If the process is reversible, the process returns to initial conditions and entropy, S = 0. If the process is irreversible, the entropy is +ve. He claimed negative entropy is not allowed.
Of course, the popular interpretation of entropy is a movement toward disorder and Clausius was the first to note that.
In the following quote from Clausius (page 357) in the Mechanical Theory of Heat (1864, I think…it has 9 memoirs) I have added two comments in brackets [….] but I have not altered the initial text other than the Greek for entropy which WordPress did not allow through.
**********
“we obtain the equation
[Integral] dQ/T = S – S0… (64)
which is merely a different form of the equation (60), by which S is determined. We might call S the transformational content of the body, just as we termed the magnitude U its thermal and ergonal [work-related] content.
But as I hold it to be better to borrow terms for important magnitudes from the ancient languages, so that they may be adopted unchanged in all modern languages, I propose to call the magnitude S the entropy of the body, from the Greek word [lost in WordPress translation]), transformation. I have intentionally formed the word entropy so as to be as similar as possible to the word energy; for the two magnitudes to be denoted by these words are so nearly allied in their physical meanings, that a certain similarity in designation appears to be desirable”.
I suspect Dr. Roy is blocking my responses to David Appell’s questions such as:
“How do N2 and O2 do that? What’s the physics?”
cam…”I suspect Dr. Roy is blocking my responses to David Appells questions such as:
How do N2 and O2 do that? What’s the physics?”
Cam…don’t think it’s Roy. I have seldom seen him block anyone unless they become absolute nuisances or have a personal disagreement with him.
It’s more likely words or combination of letters. d-c will do it without the hyphen therefore NCD-C does not work, nor Had-crut.
refrig-e-rator won’t work either.
Mess around with the post and try posting it in sections to see what posts and what won’t.
Sometimes it’s a link with a word that doesn’t work. To test a URL I do the post without the URL using a placeholder marked something like
****placeholder for URL****
If it turns out to be the URL, troubleshoot it for errors and post it later.
Gordon, “refrigerator” goes through.
JD…”refrigerator goes through”.
It has stymied me in the past. Maybe the system is being fickle and has become alarmist.
Thanks GR. Given Dr. Roy’s benign moderation policy your explanation is probably correct.
I will try responding to DA by pointing to links on this thread that have addressed his question.
cam…”I will try responding to DA by pointing to links on this thread that have addressed his question”.
Won’t do any good, he was not taught at alarmist propaganda school that N2 and O2 can warm and cool like any other atom/molecule. He doesn’t buy into the notion that N2/O2 can be heated by the surface and rise into the atmosphere. He thinks it’s only GHGs and WV rising.
Gordon Robertson says:
…N2 and O2 can warm and cool like any other atom/molecule.
Explain how.
Obviously without N2, O2, and argon, Earth atmosphere would be a near complete vacuum like Mars.
Or there would not be a greenhouse effect.
gbaikie says:
Obviously without N2, O2, and argon, Earth atmosphere would be a near complete vacuum like Mars.
Or there would not be a greenhouse effect.
Not true. Mars has a greenhouse effect. So does Venus. Both atmospheres are 96% CO2.
–David Appell says:
July 22, 2018 at 3:12 PM
gbaikie says:
Obviously without N2, O2, and argon, Earth atmosphere would be a near complete vacuum like Mars.
Or there would not be a greenhouse effect.
Not true. Mars has a greenhouse effect. So does Venus. Both atmospheres are 96% CO2.–
We had this discussion before, and you were wrong.
Let’s try something different, how much greenhouse effect could Mars have.
Now keep in mind, some are pretty sure there was a liquid ocean on Mars- somewhere around 3 billion year old. And also thought Mars had plate tectonic, billions of years ago. And can’t remmeber but I think a magnetic field- global.
I should check that:
“The question of whether there is life on Mars is woven into a much larger thatch of mysteries. Among them: What happened to the ancient ocean that once covered a quarter of the planet’s surface? And, relatedly, what made Mars’s magnetosphere fade away? Why did a planet that may have looked something like Earth turn into a dry red husk?”
https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2015/10/mars-magnetic-field-ocean/409021/
They don’t seem to like Mars very much- and nothing much there.
Well, this interesting:
https://www.sciencenews.org/article/wate-may-have-killed-mars-magnetic-field
but no mention when Mars stopped having a magnetic field, oh, wait:
“Mars did have a magnetic field more than 4 billion years ago. Scientists have struggled to explain how it vanished, ”
So longer than I thought.
Here something:
“Facts about Mars’ magnetic field
Unlike the Earth, Mars has no inner dynamo to create a major global magnetic field. This, however, does not mean that Mars does not have a magnetosphere; simply that it is less extensive than that of the Earth.
The magnetosphere of Mars is far simpler and less extensive than that of the Earth. A magnetosphere is a kind of shield that prevents charged particles from reaching the planet surface. Since the particles borne by the solar wind through the Solar System are typically electrically charged, the magnetosphere acts as a protective shield against the solar wind.”
And:
“Despite the fact that Mars no longer has an internal dynamo capable of generating a large global magnetic field as on Earth, there is evidence to suggest that Mars may once have had such a dynamo. This is mainly supported by observations from the American satellite mission MGS (Mars Global Surveyor), which from 1997 to 2006 measured the magnetic field of Mars using a small magnetometer from an altitude of 100-400 km above the planet’s surface. These measurements showed the existence of powerful magnetic crustal fields on the planet’s surface, far more powerful than those found on Earth.”
Anyhow they don’t know, but a guess is Mars molten core froze up about 4 billion years ago.
Now got check when imagine Mars had ocean:
“The scientists found that, if Arabia started forming on Mars at least 4 billion years ago and existed, perhaps intermittently, during as much as the first 20 percent of the growth of Tharsis, the volcanic province could have deformed Arabia’s shoreline over time. Similarly, irregularities seen in the shoreline of Deuteronilus could be explained if it formed about 3.6 billion years ago, during the last 17 percent of Tharsis’ growth.”
So that was:
Ancient Oceans on Mars May Have Been Older and Shallower Than Thought
By Charles Q. Choi, Space.com Contributor | March 19, 2018
https://www.space.com/40019-ancient-mars-oceans-older-and-shallower.html
And as article says they still arguing about whether Mars had ocean.
But assuming Mars had ocean and assuming Mars had a stronger Magnetic field, and assuming Mars was not warmed by volcanic activity [though volcanic activity could have emitted a significant amount of greenhouse gases] how much warming could Mars have warmed by a greenhouse effect. How warm could the shallow oceans have gotten to, 3 to 4 billion years ago?
I cannot believe this silly nonsense (non-science) saying stating that this is a regional heatwave. It is PURE make-believe.
Cherry picked USA statistics of REGIONAL. How the entire profiling of the Northern Hemisphere.
Siberas, Japan, Africa, Sweden, Polar Regions, England.
Regional???
What on earth do we get for brains here in the blog?
We get nothing but ideological political bias!
https://www.inverse.com/article/46736-heat-maps-reveal-record-breaking-temperatures-across-the-globe
Just for confusion lets get this thing straight. Queensland Australia is suffering from a TRUE REGIONAL COLD SNAP this Winter. That is true regional! The rest is made up cherry unscientific nonsense about heatwaves harassing the NHS on the map after maps!
This is characteristic of a warming globe common to a well-known causation of increasing heat wave periods – mankind has increased CO2 levels causing the greenhouse effect. Read facts – stop kidding yourselves with useless theories and cherry-picked data.
Republicans are now on the 50% threshold for the first in accepting climate change AS FACT. It is not a scam. Shame about your news corp propaganda machine – Fox News.
50% coincidently of the evangelical church also believe that climate change is caused by increasing greenhouse emissions.
When this number gets to 60% look out you climate catastrophic denying dinosaurs. Future generations will rue the day that you of all people affected the policies in Washington that DELAYED ACTION. You will be held up for ridicule. When you return to the dust of this earth you will be blown by winds of time – remembered for what you WERE.
ross…”mankind has increased CO2 levels causing the greenhouse effect. Read facts stop kidding yourselves with useless theories and cherry-picked data.”
No proof relating anthropogenic CO2 to warming. Even the IPCC cannot state a proof, they go on fudged confidence levels. The IPCC also admitted no warming between 1998 – 2012 and we are currently back to that no warming mark. How do you explain nearly 20 years of no warming with the AGW theory?
It’s eminently more likely the warming is related to natural factors like ocean oscillations, recovery from the Little Ice Age, or just plain cumulative errors in the surface record.
The surface record has been fudged to death by Had-crut, HOAA, and GISS, who all draw their data from the GHCN database.
GR, you are so confused!
1.”No proof relating anthropogenic CO2 to warming.” implies the existence of warming.
2. “How do you explain nearly 20 years of no warming with the AGW theory?” implies no warming exists.
3. “It’s eminently more likely the warming is related to natural factors” implies the existence of warming.
4.”The surface record has been fudged to death..” implies no warming exists.
For god’s sake, make up your mind!
Myki how are you going to explain the next 10 years of no temperature rise?
SDP how are you going to explain the next 6 months of no cooling?
Salvsatore – Your cooling theories are completely shot to pieces by the latest NH data. 1/2 the Globe – Northern Summer heatwave is not just the USA.
ross…”Your cooling theories are completely shot to pieces by the latest NH data”.
Have you forgotten the alarmist mantra?
Weather is not climate.
myki…”GR, you are so confused!
1.No proof relating anthropogenic CO2 to warming. implies the existence of warming”.
**********
I have never claimed there has been no warming, I just don’t think CO2 has anything to do with it.
In the past 20 years we’ve had spurious bouts of warming, followed by cooling, due to extreme El Ninos. Since the Little Ice Age ended circa 1850, the planet has re-warmed nearly a degree C. We should be just about back to conditions following the Medieval Warm Period circa 1000 AD which was just as warm, if not warmer, than today.
I have no issues with any of that.
I don’t even have an issue with the UAH figure of 0.12C/decade warming. I don’t think any of it has anything to do with CO2. Half of it is rewarming following cooling by volcanic aerosols and the rest is a largely unexplained jump circa 2001 following the 1998 super El Nino. Following that jump the trend was flat for 13 years.
I think it all has perfectly natural explanations. Of course, the surface record has been fudged so badly prior to the satellite time series that the degree of warming during that era is unreliable.
Gordon Robertson says:
Since the Little Ice Age ended circa 1850, the planet has re-warmed nearly a degree C.
Why is the Earth warmer now than at the beginning of the (not global) LIA?
Gordon, you don’t even try to pretend to be honest anymore. How did you get to this point?
Gordon Robertson says:
The IPCC also admitted no warming between 1998 2012 and we are currently back to that no warming mark.
Old science.
Again, Gordon, I’m really curious — how doe a man get to the point where he doesn’t even try to be honest anymore?
David, please stop trolling.
“When this number gets to 60% look out you climate catastrophic denying dinosaurs. Future generations will rue the day that you of all people affected the policies in Washington that DELAYED ACTION. You will be held up for ridicule. When you return to the dust of this earth you will be blown by winds of time – remembered for what you WERE.”
It has long been considered that a warming world is a good thing.
And world has warmed since the end of Little Ice age, which widely considered to have ended around 1850 AD.
Or worldwide, glaciers stopped advancing before 1850 and retreated after this.
By around 1970, it appeared glaciers were beginning to advance again, and there was public hysteria, we going to return to conditions of the Little Ice Age [or worst], but was only case that was blip, and glacier did not advance much at all, and they began retreating again. Before this period, there was much said about the world warming, and that continued after the ice age scare. And global warming religion slowly began in earnest.
And you have been brainwashed.
Btw polls:
https://news.gallup.com/poll/231530/global-warming-concern-steady-despite-partisan-shifts.aspx
Think the seriousness of global warming is generally exaggerated
Republican 66 69
Independent 32 34
Democrat 10 4
So this kind of intelligence test
In 2017 66% of Reps thought global warming was , and in 2018 69 % thought it was exaggerated.
So they got slightly smarter within a year of time.
Truthfully, one has to think it has been exaggerated.
Even if you are a believer, you got to admit, that some times it has been exaggerated [some were saying we would be dead, already. And whole host of things which didn’t happen].
And you know the dems are just lying {they are that stupid}.
Gbaike,
80% of Repubs think Trump did well in his meeting with Putin.
Trump and Putin had long closed door meeting, 80% may have confidence it went well.
Perhaps that Trump wants another meeting, fairly soon, indicates it went well.
gbaikie says:
Perhaps that Trump wants another meeting, fairly soon, indicates it went well.
Went well for whom? Trump? Or the United States?
It’s no longer clear their interests are the same.
“David Appell says:
July 22, 2018 at 3:10 PM
gbaikie says:
Perhaps that Trump wants another meeting, fairly soon, indicates it went well.
Went well for whom? Trump? Or the United States?
It’s no longer clear their interests are the same.”
A Lefty who at one point in time, thought it was clearly the same interests?
That is very interesting.
It’s in US interest to have the US president having enough dialogue with the evil dictator of country which as many nuclear weapons as Russia has.
Russia also has a powerful conventional military and has been involved militarily in many regions of world, so in addition to a potential nuclear threat, it has been involved in conventional military operations in regions which US is also involved and which are regarded as being national security interests of US.
Would anyone rather have the US commander-in-chief be playing golf instead of meeting with one of the sworn enemies of the free world?
Trump btw, really likes to play golf.
And claims he is pretty good at the game.
Meanwhile, US has had good economic growth and record low unemployment.
And not to forget, Trump has added Judges which apparently, are going to follow the US Constitution.
But what I like best is that Trump, the Destructor is making it obvious that the Left is ineffective and bat crazy, which for whatever reasons, was not clear enough to majority of people.
And that the Distructor has paid some lip service to exploring the Moon, I also like, but, so far has yet to demonstrate any real and meaningful action, as he done in so many other areas.
It seems to me if Trump actually wants to make America great that this is the direction to go in- but in terms political realities, it’s understandable it is not on front burner.
Trump has flipped-flopped just this week on Russia meddling many times.
TRUMP MEANT “WOULDN’T,” NOT “WOULD”: Pres. Trump says he misspoke at joint presser with Vladimir Putin, meant to say there was no reason “it wouldn’t be Russia” behind election meddling.
Yesterday we returned to its all a big hoax.
“So President Obama knew about Russia before the Election. Why didn’t he do something about it? Why didn’t he tell our campaign? Because it is all a BIG HOAX, that’s why, and he thought Crooked Hillary was going to win!!!” Trump tweeted.
We don’t need a President to bring drama into our lives. For that we have reruns of Jersey Shore, Osborns, or Kardashians.
“We dont need a President to bring drama into our lives. For that we have reruns of Jersey Shore, Osborns, or Kardashians.”
Yes, but apparently, we do.
You should become a conservative never trumper- they been saying this stuff for quite some.
I got very good article for you to read:
https://www.nationalreview.com/g-file/donald-trump-nato-new-world-disorder/
[he is funny and smart]
One would have to have a selective filter for news/ data that supports your narrative..
The news conference:
‘After talks with only interpreters present that lasted more than two hours, Trump and Putin appeared together at the podium. Asked about his own intelligence agencies finding that Russia hacked the 2016 election, the US president declared: I dont see any reason why it would be. I have great confidence in my intelligence people, but I will tell you that President Putin was extremely strong and powerful in his denial today.
With that, Trump, presented with a football by Putin a day after the World Cup final in Moscow, scored one of the most spectacular own goals ever seen on a global stage.’
C’mon, even the reliable Trump supporters on Fox News morning thought it was quite bad.
The topic was not the news conference, but rather the meeting.
The reporter asked and Trump said it was discussed- and apparently Putin seems to take it seriously enough to mention that legally there was way it could actually, could be done.
Or wasn’t “really” a complete waste of time for Mueller to indict these Russians if he wanted to follow an international legal way of doing it.
Of course it still, doesn’t diminish what joke it was for Mueller to indict Russian citizens.
Not that Russian citizens have such constitutional protections as US citizen does, but US does, and is asking what would be violation it’s own laws.
Or the legal term is, it lack jurisdiction [unless you want to follow this agreement which was between US and Russia- and we don’t, as it’s bad/silly agreement [probably made by a crazy lefty idiot, or maybe, perhaps some legal mumbo-jumbo in order to exchange spies].
Trump thought Putin’s proposal to hand over private US and British citizens and former ambassadors to Russia for interrogation was a good idea. It was under discussion.
Until the senate voted 98-0 to state unequivocally that this should never be allowed to happen.
–Nate says:
July 23, 2018 at 7:35 AM
Trump thought Putin’s proposal to hand over private US and British citizens and former ambassadors to Russia for interrogation was a good idea. It was under discussion.
Until the senate voted 98-0 to state unequivocally that this should never be allowed to happen.–
So, it might not be a good idea to indict more Russia citizens which are living in Russia?
What happens if the Russians decide they to want to come the US in order to face the criminal charges by Mueller?
Would these Russian need to pay legal fees?
So Russian say we good people and we want to show up at US courts because Mueller indicted us.
It seems it would required the US would have to pay for best legal
team available, and this legal team would laughing all the way to the bank.
Let’s try this scenario, let’s treat the Russians the same as we are treating US citizen which Mueller has indicted?
And say France says, we don’t like how the US is treating these poor and innocent Russian, we will pay for legal team put the Russian in five star hotel and provide dancing girls while they wait for the slow US legal system to try their case.
Or Iran could offer the same thing.
Weird scenario, gbaike. Not sure of your point.
I don’t know if you live in the US or a western democracy, but as someone who does, here is my concern.
Putin said he favored Trumps election, and we know now from the recent indictment, how he helped him to win.
Putin’s goals, to destabilize western democracies, to destabilize the European Union, to destabilize NATO, and to destabilize western trading blocks, seem to be completely aligned with Trump’s actions.
He appears to have gotten everything he could have hoped for in a US President.
‘Its in US interest to have the US president having enough dialogue with the evil dictator of country which as many nuclear weapons as Russia has.’
Yes Russia has a strong military, but they did not have what we have had up until now, a strong western alliance.
Look here, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeasement
and I hope you’ll see what the big concern is.
–I dont know if you live in the US or a western democracy, but as someone who does, here is my concern.
Putin said he favored Trumps election, and we know now from the recent indictment, how he helped him to win.–
Putin didn’t help Trump win the election, Ms Clinton helped Trump win the election.
Another the main factor helping Trump was the Main Stream Media.
Who wouldn’t want to see the news anchors weeping after the elections?
So they got off their fat and deplorable asses, and voted.
So everyone knows Republicans are stupid, Trump somehow managed to be, less stupid.
And generally speaking with 8 years of any Dem, it gives a favorable chance of winning the next election- why else were 18 reps running in primary? So one understand why so many rep candidates were mad that Trump won. Or as they see it, a golden opportunity, wasted. And to someone they thought was probably a dem.
The Never Trumpers were almost as amusing as MSM.
— Putins goals, to destabilize western democracies, to destabilize the European Union, to destabilize NATO, and to destabilize western trading blocks, seem to be completely aligned with Trumps actions.–
It not idle comment that Trump is the Destructor.
And Clinton was not the only one who thought Americans were deplorables. And if she expressing an original thought, Clinton might even have gotten points for it.
–He appears to have gotten everything he could have hoped for in a US President.–
You know what they, be careful of what you hope for.
Which reminds me, in your opinion which top three presidents, fundamentally transformed America in last 50 years?
{And would nice if you provided your reasons of why you think that}.
–Its in US interest to have the US president having enough dialogue with the evil dictator of country which as many nuclear weapons as Russia has.
Yes Russia has a strong military, but they did not have what we have had up until now, a strong western alliance.–
What about Germany so screwing up it’s energy policy that it then decides to be seriously dependent on Russian energy?
Such dependence does cause a strong economic alliance [or dependence].
‘It not idle comment that Trump is the Destructor.’
Yes many voters seemed to want to throw hand grenades at the govt. Sounds like you are one of them.
But the problem is many were standing close enough to get hit by the shrapnel.
Eg now with the tariffs. We’ll see what else.
Maybe you’re far enough away not to care.
I am not liberal/Lefty.
I am not ms Clinton nor play any part of MSM
Glenn Reynolds: Liberals have chosen The Donald as their ‘Destructor’
https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2015/12/09/glenn-reynolds-liberals-have-chosen-donald-their-destructor/76996298/
Ross, Myki, and all other Alarmists, when you calm down, consider how much time, and money, has been wasted on this hoax. It’s been going on for nearly 30 years. Hundreds of billions of dollars wasted! How many cures for diseases could have been developed? How many hospitals built? Roads, schools, transportation systems, nuclear poser plants, recreational areas, new communities?
So much time and money wasted because the hoax caught on, and was fueled by greed and egos.
Correct JD! A scam.
When will you dinosaurs realise fossil fuels are on the way out?
When will you dinosaurs realise nuclear power plants are far too expensive?
When will you dinosaurs realise that economics favour renewable energy ?
When will you dinosaurs realise you are now irrelevant and the world has bypassed you?
When will you learn you do not get to make up your own “reality”. The truth is out there, but you just don’t want to see it. You have to twist, spin, distort the data and the science. That’s running from reality.
myki…”When will you dinosaurs realise fossil fuels are on the way out?”
We have been hearing that propaganda for 30 years or more.
Remember ‘peak oil’. The planet was running out of fossil fuels. Alarmist scam.
Yes, the problem with oil is that there is too much.
Burning all known petroleum reserves might not take us over 2 C warming on its own, but that neglects extraction technology improvements.
Here is Dr. Roy’s latest GLOBAL temperature record:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/latest-global-temperatures/
If the heat wave was truly global the graph would you not expect the graph to be trending upwards?
Ooops! I messed that up but Ross should be able to figure out what I was trying to say.
Where is your missing 150 W/m2?
My point gallopingcamel.
I agree with you. CO2 is according to them the climate driver under all circumstances as is evidenced by their climatic outlook which shows only increasing temperatures, never a stall or down turn.
They have set up the climate test due to their climatic outlook.
Wrong, Salvatore. CO2 is a control knob, but hardly the only driver of climate — just a prominent one today.
How could you read anything about climate and not know this?
While Richard Alley is an amusing person his idea that CO2 is the control knob for global temperature is absurd BS.
You are in no way qualified to make judgements about someone like Alley. Prove his science wrong, and then you can brag.
David, please stop trolling.
I am not going to have to explain the next 6 months of no cooling because there will be cooling.
I think you have to explain why the global temperatures are not going up and don’t use ENSO as the fall guy.
Myki ,let me say this.
What we need to do is monitor the climate and see which way it goes and then address issues based on that.
Nothing goes up or down in a straight line so we have to see what the overall trends are.
Based on that then we can make our points.
I say so far from my point of view it is favorable of late,
but I have a long way to go before I can celebrate. .
On the other hand global temperatures have to become warmer almost year in and year out if CO2 is the driver. In other words I do not think AGW theory holds up if an extended period of time of steady temperatures comes about much less cooling.
The test is on and we can speculate all we want but we have to see what the actual data shows and go from there.
“On the other hand global temperatures have to become warmer almost year in and year out if CO2 is the driver.”
Salvatore, that’s simply your misconception as year in and out is weather & ENSO et. al. short term ocean surface T cycles affect global weather. Climate is commonly 30+ years of weather. Your predictions are for weather not climate.
If CO2 were the only variable, physics predicts a warming of 0.02C/year.
In the real world short term variation alone (ignoring big perturbations like ENSO) means that annual global temperatures bob up and down in a band about 0.2C deep. One year’s contribution from CO2 is about a tenth of that, and gets lost in the noise.
You only see trends when you compare current data with past temperatures. Over two or three decades a 0.02C/year trend will has time to emerge from the short term variation.
EM +1, arguably closer to 0.01C/year for added observed CO2 ppm but that minor difference is not worth debating around here.
Salvatore can improve by learning the difference between climate and weather predictions.
UAH being globally warmer in June than May is weather and CO2 surface warming, upper atm. cooling is a very small component but nonzero in larger weather cycles. Salvatore’s weather predictions for 2018 could well be observed in UAH series being cooler and CO2 added ppm surface warming, upper atm. cooling will STILL be a very small component in larger weather cycles.
Most people agree with my take on climate versus weather.
That aside AGW calls for a slow gradual continuous warming. I see no place where it has forecasted a pause let alone a cool period of temperatures..
If they knew what they were talking about they would at this time ESPECIALLY at least say a pause looks likely for some x years then we expect warming to resume some x years later.
They will not do that. Instead they have a constant gradual warming trend in every single climatic outlook they have.
Show me an AGW climatic outlook that shows a period of time of cooling. You will not find it because they (not you guys on this site necessarily) think CO2 is so strong a climate driver that even at this time when natural factors point to cooling they still have the CO2 contribution to the climate over coming this.
They can’t bring themselves to show at times other factors might over come CO2.
They make it easy by that stance to make themselves very vulnerable to being wrong.
So if the global temperatures fall or even stay the same they will be wrong because of the stance they have taken. Blame them not me.
“Most people agree with my take on climate versus weather.”
Science is not set by popular vote. Many people are just as wrong as Salvatore’s take on climate vs. weather.
“I see no place where it has forecasted a pause let alone a cool period of temperatures.”
Correct, and EM 9:26am is also correct that weather cycles are many times greater in magnitude than CO2 ppm effects on weather. UAH short term global temperature pauses, warm and cool short term trend periods are weather. The entire series is now getting long enough to show differences in climate as the shorter weather cycles run their course.
So if the UAH global temperatures fall, increase or even stay the same basic meteorology is unaffected because there is a reasonably agreed defined difference between short term weather trends and long term climate trends.
So what will you say if temperatures 10 years from now are colder then today?
Question for Entropic man.
“So what will you say if temperatures 10 years from now are colder then today?”
Could very well happen in July of 2028 as EM points out weather cycles in global surface T are much larger than added CO2 ppm monotonic ~0.01-0.02C per year. If the added CO2 ppm continues as today for 10 years the global surface T component from CO2 ppm will be around 0.1 to 0.2C higher and the upper atm. regions around 0.1 to 0.2C cooler than without that added ppm. Weather cycles could add or subtract many times that mean T change or even pause it & to both atm. regions. Basic meteorology texts will be unchanged.
Em says: “…physics predicts a warming of 0.02C/year.”
No Em, that’s NOT physics, that’s your imaginative pseudoscience. The real physics predicts CO2 cannot heat the planet, since it brings no new energy into the system
“CO2 cannot heat the planet, since it brings no new energy into the system”
Very good point JD, experiment and observations show CO2 added ppm warms the global near surface atm. and equally cools the global atm. upper regions for no change in planet wide mean atm. temperatures as CO2 does not burn a fuel like the sun.
Yes, Ball4, their imaginative pseudoscience is as you say, filled with invalid experiments and questionable observations.
Pseudoscience gone wild.
JDHuffman says:
The real physics predicts CO2 cannot heat the planet, since it brings no new energy into the system
Then explain why the Sun delivers an average of 240 W/m2 to the Earth’s surface, but at an average temperature of 288 K the surface radiates 390 W/m2.
DA…”Then explain why the Sun delivers an average of 240 W/m2 to the Earths surface, but at an average temperature of 288 K the surface radiates 390 W/m2″.
Smoke and mirrors.
ball4…”…experiment and observations show CO2 added ppm warms the global near surface atm…..”
No experiment anywhere, just conjecture based on climate models programmed with pseudo-science.
Gordon Robertson says:
Smoke and mirrors.
You don’t accept the SB Law?
Gordon Robertson says:
No experiment anywhere, just conjecture based on climate models programmed with pseudo-science.
“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
More papers on this subject are listed here:
http://agwobserver.wordpress.com/2009/08/02/papers-on-changes-in-olr-due-to-ghgs/
The models are not experiments nor observation Gordon. You have much to learn about meteorology.
DA, you still cling to the same pseudoscience.
You can not average solar.
Learn some physics.
‘ thats NOT physics, thats your imaginative pseudoscience. The real physics predicts CO2 cannot heat the planet, since it brings no new energy into the system’
JDG sees no use for home insulation, since it brings no new energy into a house!
JDG must also think blankets and coats serve no purpose since they bring no new energy to your body!
Nate, you miss a subtle point JD is making. Winter added insulation can increase the temperature on the interior side of your house which you care about and equally reduce the temperature on the outside of your house which you don’t care about. Insulation alone cannot increase the temperature of your entire house.
Similar physics considerations show added CO2 increases near surface atm. temperature which is of interest and decreases temperature in the upper atm. regions which is not of interest. Added CO2 alone cannot increase the temperature of the entire planet system inside the TOA.
JDHuffman says:
You can not average solar.
Why not?
‘Nate, you miss a subtle point JD is making.’
I have seen no evidence that JD/Ger*an is capable of making, much less understanding, a subtle point.
I assume you are being sarcastic, Ball4.
When he says ‘heating the planet’ he is obviously talking about heating the surface and LT, to explain their temperature records.
If JD had written heating the surface it would not be a good point, but what JD wrote was heating the planet which is a good point.
David, Nate, and Ball4, please stop trolling.
If you look at it in context, it was
JD: ‘Em says: physics predicts a warming of 0.02C/year.
No Em, thats NOT physics, thats your imaginative pseudoscience. The real physics predicts CO2 cannot heat the planet,’
The discussion seemed to be about surface heating.
entropic…”You only see trends when you compare current data with past temperatures”.
You mean past ‘FUDGED’ temperatures.
Here’s an excellent report on the extent of the fudging at GHCN, which supplies temperature data for NOAA. GISS, and Had-crut.
https://chiefio.wordpress.com/2012/06/20/summary-report-on-v1-vs-v3-ghcn/
“Looking around the continents we see some warming, some not. Whatever Global Warming is, it is not Global. Looking at individual parts of the data (such as by Region or continent) we find large differences. A well mixed gas causing widely disseminated Global Warming ought to produce changes that are more consistent from region to region. We might expect to see some cycles that are complimentary (such as warming in Europe while North America cools) due to weather cycle, but over a hundred+ years, we would expect both places to rise proportionately. That is not seen”.
He goes on to explain it continent by continent.
Gordon lies again.
Because that’s the man he is — a liar.
He gives all other Canadians a bad name.
David, please stop trolling.
https://www.tropicaltidbits.com/analysis/ocean/cdas-sflux_ssta_relative_global_1.png
Ren (or anyone) if your there what is the difference between this map and the one that shows departures from 1981-2010 baseline for sea surface temperatures on the ocean tid bits web-site?
I can not figure out what SSTA is.
Your map represents the local anomaly minus the global anomaly of SST. The sum of the values represented is nil by definition. It is a representation that focuses attention on the differences in geographical evolution.
It is almost the same as the 1981-2010 baseline deviation.
thanks
And that Ball will be their downfall. Any pause let alone cooling will render this theory to the sidelines. That is how it will be.
Alternative theories will be acceptable and gain credibility at the expense of AGW theory.
I know I am correct on this. So for the sake of AGW you should be very afraid of any down turn in global temperatures for any length of time and or degree of magnitude fall.
“And that Ball will be their downfall. Any pause let alone cooling will render this theory to the sidelines.”
Again, Salvatore you continue to confuse weather and climate. UAH series already shows weather pauses, warming trends, and cooling trends. Basic meteorology texts have not been affected (no downfall evident) by those observations in mean global near surface T.
I will try one more time Ball. What duration of time does it take for you to say a climate change? What degree of magnitude change does it take for you to say it a climate change?
You must have some answer for this. Maybe you don’t.
There’s some decent debate questions Salvatore 11:04am, 11:09am. 11:24am.
Take a look at the UAH series around 2012 to 2013 oscillating around the ’81-’10 trend line. The short-term weather cycles had pretty much run their course in that period.
75 years earlier basic meteorology predicted the global mean T ought to be about o.6C higher (or about 0.01-0.02C/yr) give or take due the added CO2 ppm that actually occurred with some reasonable analysis. The mean line in that earlier period has recently been shown to really have been about 0.6C lower so a reasonable observation exists.
Many named weather cycles (ENSO, AMO, PDO, sunspot) run their course in much shorter cycles than 75 years so the monotonic CO2 surface T mean signal ought to start showing thru in long term 75 year mean T climate observations. And it does pretty much on target to what was predicted back then.
There may well be a 75-year unnamed surface mean T cycle that is about to peak and trend down for the next 75 years but that will in no way change the basic meteorology texts built on experiment, 1LOT, 2LOT, Ben Thompson’s convection & Planck radiation.
No global mean T event will change my mind about basic meteorology texts built on 1LOT, 2LOT, Ben Thompson’s convection & Planck radiation. I would use those shoulders to stand on to look for a reasonable explanation of any such event.
So I have a question for you. In the past CO2 increased at a rate more then today. Why did the warming each time from the CO2 increases end?
What caused the increase CO2 /warming cycle to end in the past?
Ball you want it both ways. I know no one other then you who is into AGW theory that would ever entertain the thought that AGW theory would still be viable if the temperature trend was down for the next 75 years! Even 2 years is going to cause people to start questioning it.
I don’t think even David would still believe in AGW theory, with a 75 year down trend in temperatures.
You are entitled to your opinion and that’s what makes this a ballgame. If we all agreed it would be boring.
Salvatore, basic meteorology principles work in uptrends and downtrends no matter the length. It being cooler today than yesterday does not mean suddenly the relevant climate atm. opacity CO2 physics needs improvement since that’s only weather.
Past warming from monotonic CO2 effects hasn’t ended, only turned to cooling trends or pauses because the weather cycles hugely overwhelmed the CO2 component just as EM points out.
Too, CO2 added ppm effect on near surface global Tmean reduces logarithmically which was known and accounted for 75 years prior to 2013.
What I want, if anything, is for the basic meteorological science to be better utilized in these discussions so they make progress in understanding rather just be so opinionated.
Ball, the pushers of AGW theory allow for only one thing which is a continuous gradual warming trend as is shown in their projections.
You need to tell them. They made this a climate test by their relentless predictions of all degrees of global warming as we move forward.
Therefore what you said could possibly be correct never say never, but it will not do any good in a practical sense because AGW theory has set the tables ,which is beyond a doubt it is going to continue to become warmer as the years go by on average, natural cycles or not.
So if it should become cooler then average as the years go by on average they set themselves up for failure.
“the pushers of AGW theory allow for only one thing which is a continuous gradual warming trend as is shown in their projections.”
Maybe so. I read that too & I can live with it, laugh some of it off, because of an understanding of basic meteorological principles I’ve built up over the years. Steppenwolf has a song about the pusher man, ha.
You should laugh at, condemn the erroneous pushers too when they say such things & they exist both ways. I think Salvatore can pretty much understand the principles too.
Start with what EM wrote about and just look at the global near surface mean T magnitudes of cyclic weather events in UAH series far exceeding the current monotonic magnitude of CO2 added ppm effect appropriately predicted over the last 75+ years.
So that at least gets me back on topic with the top post title.
Salvatore Del Prete says:
Ball, the pushers of AGW theory allow for only one thing which is a continuous gradual warming trend as is shown in their projections.
No one says it has to be “continuous” — natural fluctuations still exist in an AGW world.
But this has been explained to you so many times that you clearly aren’t interested in understanding.
Salvatore Del Prete says:
I dont think even David would still believe in AGW theory, with a 75 year down trend in temperatures.
Depends on the cause — a large asteroid or comet strike on Earth? Maybe then.
But the evidence is already in for AGW — it clearly exists. Therefore there won’t be an 75-year cooling trends. That’s how science works.
ball4…”What I want, if anything, is for the basic meteorological science to be better utilized in these discussions so they make progress in understanding rather just be so opinionated”.
What a crock. Your MO is to discredit any POV that disagrees with yours even if you have to claim heat does not exist and that the 2nd law has no meaning.
Salvatore…”They made this a climate test by their relentless predictions of all degrees of global warming as we move forward”.
Since ball4 thinks we should laugh at inconsistencies in science let him laugh at this. In TAR, the IPCC admitted boldly that climate cannot be predicted. Then they went ahead and predicted it based on probabilities garnered from climate models.
When expert reviewer, Vincent Gray, pointed out the obvious, that the models are not validated hence can predict nothing, the IPCC simply changed the word predict to project. Ever since they have been scamming the public with veiled ‘projections’ of imminent catastrophe.
Why is ball4 talking about meteorology and climate model propaganda in the same breath? Meteorologists do use models but they are programmed with real data and a wealth of experience interpreting the data. As a result, they have become pretty good at ‘predicting’ weather, even though the honest ones will admit it’s often an educated guess.
The climate alarmists are making it sound like they have an insight the rest of us lack, that they can see the future of climate. They are deluded idiots.
GR, typical. Denialists struggle and fail to link to any reputable experts to bolster their pathetic cause.
“Vincent Gray describes himself as an “Expert Reviewer for the IPCC” since 1990 although this consideration has been challenged and considered misleading since it does not require any expertise at all, but only that “he asked to see the draft report” and signed an agreement not to publicly comment on the draft report.
Gray has never been published in a peer-reviewed journal on the subject of climate change.”
Gordon, correctly my MO is in part to discredit any POV that disagrees with experiment, show that Clausius defined heat as only a measure, and show that Gordon has little fundamental understanding of the 2nd law.
Who is Vincent Gray?
Wikipedia says he’s a chemist. By Gordon’s own criteria, he therefore is not allowed to opine about climate science.
But electronics technicians are allowed.
ball4…”correctly my MO is in part to discredit any POV that disagrees with experiment, show that Clausius defined heat as only a measure, and show that Gordon has little fundamental understanding of the 2nd law”.
I did not say ‘with experiment’ I said ‘with your opinion’.
Clausius claimed that heat is the kinetic energy of atoms. His entire theory is based on that premise since the internal energy, U, he defined for the 1st law, and everything related to entropy is about atoms and the heat they ‘contain’.
Clausius talked a lot about the heat content of a body and it’s relationship to the vibration of atoms in a body.
Your definition of heat as a measure is flaky. Temperature is a measure, a measure of relative heat content. Humans invented temperature to keep track of the relative amounts of heat in substances. They based temperature on the set points of freezing water and boiling water.
Everyone seems to know, but you, that an acetylene flame has heat and when the flame is applied to metal, heat is transferred from the flame to the metal. Subsequently, the metal expands as the atoms absorb the heat, causing the atomic vibrations to expand.
What do you think is transferred from a hot flame to metal?
DA…”Wikipedia says hes a chemist. By Gordons own criteria, he therefore is not allowed to opine about climate science”.
He [Vincent Gray] opined loudly enough that the IPCC took notice and amended their usage of ‘predicted’ to ‘projected’. That’s what expert reviewers do, point out inconsistencies.
http://www.klimanotizen.de/2008.07.12_Gray_Spinning_the_Climate.pdf
http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2014/03/ipcc-expert-reviewer-dr-vincent-gray.html
Gordon, Gray wasn’t a climate scientist. By your own criterion, he therefore does not get a say about climate science.
Hoist by your own petard.
Gordon Robertson says:
…and everything related to entropy is about atoms and the heat they contain.
Wow do you have a lot to learn.
Do you know what equation appears on Boltzmann’s tombstone?
S = k log(W)
(S=entropy)
Gordon intentionally misquotes: “Clausius claimed that heat is the kinetic energy of atoms.”
Clausius: “..heat is a measure of their kinetic energy.”
Gordon intentionally misquotes many authors to suit his personal views. Gordon has little credibility due this continuing disservice to readers.
Ball4, please stop trolling.
Ball I am curious over what duration of time do you consider climate to be rather then weather? Is it 5 years ,10 years etc.
What degree of magnitude change in temperature would you consider a climate change rather then weather?
The WMO says 30 years.
Ball there has to be a point of duration or degree of magnitude change n temperature or a combination of both that would change your mind.
What is it?
It was a nice conversation Ball.
SDP:
“Myki how are you going to explain the next 10 years of no temperature rise?”
Myki:
“SDP how are you going to explain the next 6 months of no cooling?”
SDP:
“I am not going to have to explain the next 6 months of no cooling because there will be cooling.”
Guess what my next response should be in this exchange.
(SDP, you have never studied logic, nor engaged in any formal debating, have you?)
Myki my answer again is let’s se what happens and debate as the data comes in.
Salvatore, the data has been in for 150 years.
You just want to ignore it because it doesn’t say what you’d like it to say.
I go by the data we just disagree on what caused the warming. I say natural up to year 2006,you say it is not natural.
This is why the next few years(2017 on) are very important and beyond.
If I am correct the trend from here out should be overall down.
If you are correct the trend should continue to be up.
2006 then followed by a 10+year lag time and finally the solar criteria for cooling being sufficiently met in year 2017.
Salvatore Del Prete says:
I go by the data we just disagree on what caused the warming. I say natural up to year 2006,you say it is not natural
Natural due to what causes?
Salvatore Del Prete says:
2006 then followed by a 10+year lag time and finally the solar criteria for cooling being sufficiently met in year 2017.
What physics gives that time lag?
David, please stop trolling.
Salvatore Del Prete
You were asking what might change my mind about AGW.
This is UAH v.6.0.The red line is the linear trend. Dr Spencer specifies 95% confidence limits of +/- 0.1C for the trend, shown by the blue line and the green line.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah6/from:1978/every/trend/plot/uah6/from:1978/every/trend/offset:-0.1/plot/uah6/from:1978/every/trend/offset:0.1/plot/uah6/from:1978/every
Note that the green line, the lower 95% confidence line is currently about anomaly 0.2C, as are the most recent monthly figures. If the running 13 month average drops below 0.2C and stays there for five years (El Ninos excepted), then I will take your theory seriously.
Appreciate that thanks.
entropic…”This is UAH v.6.0.The red line is the linear trend…”
If you are interested in reality, take that red trend and bend it so it goes flat for 15 years around 1998. Your red trend line is a number crunched trend of all data points regardless of the REAL contexts present throughout the range.
From 1979 to about 1997, the trend represented negative anomaly data that you have conveniently omitted. That trend represents one context related to recovery from cooling.
The flat trend from 1998 – 2015 is another context, albeit unexplained. The IPCC have admitted to 12 years of the flat trend even though the cheaters at NOAA went back and created a trend retroactively by fudging the SST.
There is another context beginning Feb 2016 due to a major EN. We have been cooling since then so your graph should show a negative trend for 2 1/2 years. Where is it?
Gordon Robertson says:
entropicThis is UAH v.6.0.The red line is the linear trend
“If you are interested in reality, take that red trend and bend it so it goes flat for 15 years around 1998.”
Then it wouldn’t be a linear trend, Einstein.
DA…”Then it wouldnt be a linear trend….”
Where is it written that trends over a range have to be continuous? There seems to be an established protocol that it’s fair games to crunch numbers over a range to arrive at a generalized trend but what good is that if it does not adequately represent the reality of the data?
You alarmist climate clowns are so steeped in tradition that you lack the ability to seek the reality in data.
Gordon Robertson says:
Where is it written that trends over a range have to be continuous?
It’s the definition of “trend.”
DA…”It’s the definition of “trend.””
A trend is generally described as a best fit to data in an attempt to determine a pattern. In that regard, there is no need to draw a best fit average over an entire range. You could break the range into sub-ranges and determine trends in each portion. In many cases that would indicate a better fit to data patterns.
Gordon, do you know what the statistical significance of a trend is? What it means? How it’s calculated?
You can’t just spout any old trend for any old interval and consider it valid. It has to meet certain criteria. Criteria you prefer to ignore.
DA…”Gordon, do you know what the statistical significance of a trend is? What it means? How it’s calculated?”
I just told you in my previous reply. Pay attention.
Gordon Robertson says:
The flat trend from 1998 2015 is another context, albeit unexplained.
Come on Gordon, I know you can cherry pick better than this is you really tried.
You choose a period just after the end of a large El Nino, to just before the beginning of a large El Nino.
What happens if you also control for the La Ninas in-between?
DA…”You choose a period just after the end of a large El Nino, to just before the beginning of a large El Nino.”
So, you’re saying that without ENs the trend would be flat. Even with the ENs it’s essentially flat from 1998 onward.
DA…”You choose a period just after the end of a large El Nino, to just before the beginning of a large El Nino.”
You’re saying that without ENs the trend would be flat. Even with the ENs it’s flat from 1998 onward.
Gordon Robertson says:
Youre saying that without ENs the trend would be flat.
I didn’t say that at all.
I wrote that you want to ignore the El Ninos, by careful cherry picking, but not the La Ninas.
Gordon Robertson
This is UAH V6.0 with the linear trend and its 95% confidence limits showing the uncertainty in t
This site is becoming a pain in the donkey to post on!
Second attempt.
Gordon Robertson
This is UAH V6.0 with the linear trend and its 95% confidence limits showing the internal variation in the trend.
I have also included your 1998-2015 pause.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah6/from:1998/to:2015/every/trend/plot/uah6/from:1978/to:2019/to/every/plot/uah6/from:1978/to:2019/every/trend/offset:-0.1/plot/uah6/from:1978/to:2019/every/trend/plot/uah6/from:1978/to:2019/every/trend/offset:0.1/plot/none
Note that your pause fits almost entirely within the internal variation of the longer trend. There are papers discussing this pause and the internal variation which caused it.
In the larger context of long-term climate change the pause has no statistical significance and has made no long-term difference to the rate of warming.
entropic….”In the larger context of long-term climate change the pause has no statistical significance and has made no long-term difference to the rate of warming”.
An essentially 20 year flat trend has no statistical significance???
Maybe it’s time to start examining the bs passed off as statistics. The 0.12C/decade trend cannot be explained if it goes till 1998 then the trend flattens out. Not unless you maintain it with a temporary extreme El Nino in early 2016.
Number crunching is dangerous to science.
Gordon Robertson
When you can measure what you are speaking about, and express it in numbers, you know something about it, when you cannot express it in numbers, your knowledge is of a meager and unsatisfactory kind; it may be the beginning of knowledge, but you have scarely, in your thoughts advanced to the stage of science.
― William Thomson, 1st Baron Kelvin
bilybob
I continue our little discussion concerning the distribution of GHCN sites all over the world.
You wrote upthread:
“I was hoping these sites would be broadly scattered. And 100 or so would be sufficient.”
Here is a chart showing those 2.5 degree grid cells (70,000 km2 surface) into which GHCN V4 daily station data has been averaged (35,000 stations in the sum, over 10,000 in each year since 1953):
http://4gp.me/bbtc/153221571054.jpg
The grid has 72 latitude bands, each consisting of 144 longitude cells.
In 2018, GHCN V4 stations contributed to data within 2,220 grid cells, i.e. about 22 % of the Globe or 75 % of its land surface.
Maybe you manage to recognize some details of our planet here and there :-))
Here is a plot representing the GHCN V4 stations active in each year:
http://4gp.me/bbtc/1532217327242/001.jpg
I hope you REALLY won’t expect from me to show you how the same chart would look like with only 100 stations.
Thanks Bindidon,
I wanted to revisit the point I have been trying to make related to historical sites. I am sometimes not clear in expressing my intent. It is related to the blog article and the following comment.
“every heat wave must now be viewed as a reminder of human-caused climate change”
Also, many times it is posted on this blog that there are dozen more heat records than cold records. So that is why I have been looking at the historical data only. Not to try to imply a global temperature (average or extreme), you mention upthread about using the historic record for a global analysis, I am not. But to point out that extreme temperatures are not higher for places that have the records in the first part of the 20th century.
I have always said the data supports a higher average temperature since 1900. So though I do appreciate the grid based analysis for looking at worldwide analysis I prefer your non grid based charts on the historical data.
So if CO2 is causing more heat waves, then why is it not showing in the historic sites. Even your non CONUS charts show a current average of number high temperature days below that of CONUS.
I am OK with AGW, GHE, GHG (though not a fan of the GH term), just not this discussion by some that extreme heat events are on the rise.
As for those who keep posting the number of new heat records, why so surprised. 10000 new/active temperature stations put out after the hottest part of last century produces 3,650,000 new daily data in a year, they really think it is amazing that they produce 10 times new extreme heat records than the historic records that have been established and already have seen extremes and only number just north of 1000.
So for the global analysis we are limited to going back to the 1950’s only. I a generally agree with your charts. But I am interested in understanding why heat records persist for the historical. I can only conclude that the 100 ppm of CO2 did little to raise the extreme temperatures from the early 1900’s.
Your thoughts?
PS, the grid charts you did are great too. If you are interested in discussing them, I don’t mind. The certain show Global changes from the 1950’s to present, it just breaks down going back to 1900. As said, the distribution is just not there.
bilybob says:
As for those who keep posting the number of new heat records, why so surprised. 10000 new/active temperature stations put out after the hottest part of last century produces 3,650,000 new daily data in a year, they really think it is amazing that they produce 10 times new extreme heat records than the historic records that have been established and already have seen extremes and only number just north of 1000.
The hot record vs cold record data is properly expressed as ratios, not as absolute numbers:
http://www.climatesignals.org/data/record-high-temps-vs-record-low-temps
If the world wasn’t warming, there’d be as many cold records being set as hot records, regardless of the number of stations.
There aren’t.
David,
My point is the ratio. These records are from new max records are from sites that only go back 50 years. They are useless. The 1000 (rounded) historic sites produce 365,000 new temperature data related to extremes each year. They have been established pre 1950 (the record temps). To then add 10,000 active sites (3,650,000 max temp records or 10 times more than established sites) post 1950 during a cool period and exclaim, look a new heat record is disingenuous. I would venture to say that these new active sites have set multiple new highs since 1950 would you not agree. Yet the original 1000 sites max records still stand dated to the first part of the 20th century.
Given that the ratio is only 2 to 1, I think in 2012 it was as high as 6 to 1, I would conclude that maximum temperatures have declined. The ratio should be much higher than 10 to 1 to be convincing.
ball4 in his misinterpretation of heat has confused temperature with heat. Temperature is a measure while heat is the phenomenon being measured.
A quote from Clausius:
“In all cases where a quantity of heat is converted into work, and where the body effecting this transformation ultimately returns to its original condition, another quantity of heat must necessarily be transferred from a warmer to a colder body ; and the magnitude of the last quantity of heat, in relation to the first, depends only upon the temperatures of the bodies between which heat passes, and not upon the nature of the body effecting the transformation”.
If heat is not a real phenomenon, how can it be converted to work, and vice-versa? How can it be transferred?
Temperature is defined as the average kinetic energy of atoms. Kinetic energy means energy in motion and is a generic term used to describe all forms of energy in motion. In the case of energy related to atomic motion and vibration we need a name to distinguish it from other forms of energy like electromagnetic, mechanical, electrical, chemical etc., so we named it thermal energy, which is also known as heat.
We can prove that. We can add heat to a metal bar by applying a flame to it and the bar will expand it’s dimensions. If anyone has a different definition of that form of energy then let’s hear it.
If we apply heat to one end of the bar we can measure a temperature gradient down the length of a metal bar which translates to a diminishing effect of the heat as we move away from the source.
We can also note that dipping the cold end of the bar in ice water will not cause the hotter end of the bar to warm. Unfortunately these facts go over the heads of alarmists like ball4, who change the laws of thermodynamics to accommodate their alarmist theories.
Temperature is a measure of the relative levels of heat. There is no other explanation. We humans invented that measuring system by comparing different levels of heat in bodies to the set points where water freezes and boils. In the Celsius scale, 0C is the DEFINED temperature at which water freezes and 100C is the DEFINED temperature at which it boils, providing the measurements are made at sea level.
I might add wrt to the definition of the set points of freezing and boiling water that a substance like mercury was inserted into a bulb with a narrow column located vertically above the bulb. As the bulb was applied to a heat source, the mercury expanded up the column.
Mercury does not freeze till -38C nor does it boil till 357C, therefore it was ideal for normal temperature scales. Therefore, it was simple enough to dip the bulb in water till ice formed and marked that on the column, after judicious debates on exactly where water froze.
Then it was a matter of inserting the bulb in water and heating it till it boiled, making another mark. Then the space between the marks was divided into 100 gradations. I don’t know how many bulbs broke in the boiling water before they found a glass that would endure such heat.
Nothing significant about temperature, it is the energy being measured that is significant. That energy is thermal energy, or heat.
“so we named it thermal energy, which is also known as heat. “
Its starting to sound like a broken record, but what you name as “thermal energy” is commonly labeled “U” and is commonly called “internal energy”. The quantity known as “heat” is labeled “Q” and is a distinct entity that shows up separately in equations.
ΔU=Q-W
U (internal energy) and Q (heat) are not the same thing.
“If anyone has a different definition of that form of energy then let’s hear it.”
EVERYONE teaching and learning the fundamentals of thermodynamics (for the past 50+ years) has a different definition — the one I just gave.
(Yes, colloquially “heat” is sometimes used in a variety of other contexts, which is why it is SO much better to say Q or U or W, not “heat”.)
Tim…”Its starting to sound like a broken record, but what you name as thermal energy is commonly labeled U and is commonly called internal energy. The quantity known as heat is labeled Q and is a distinct entity that shows up separately in equations”.
Maybe you should take some time and read Clausius, the scientist who invented U, internal energy. He described it as the work done by atoms as they vibrate in solids and the heat required to maintain the work. You should know that heat added to a body as Q causes atoms to vibrate faster and the heat level in the body to rise.
He did describe Q and W as external work and heat but he also defined U as internal work and heat.
I have no idea where you guys get this obfuscated modern misinformation about heat. Differentiating between heat and thermal energy is just plain silly.
“EVERYONE teaching and learning the fundamentals of thermodynamics (for the past 50+ years) has a different definition the one I just gave”.
I have no interest in the blunders of modern teachers and students, I am interested only in the interpretation given by the scientist who defined Q, wrote the version of the 1st law as Q = U + W, wrote the 2nd law, then introduced entropy.
Modern teachers who pass on the propaganda you have revealed don’t know their butts from a hole in the ground.
Gordon,
1)if you bothered to actually understand Clausius, you would see that he definitely does distinguish between “Q” and “U”. His language is a bit outdated (as are some of his ideas), but he realized the need to distinguish between the energy IN a body and the energy transferred TO other bodies.
2) Science doesn’t work by looking at what the first person says about an idea. No matter how smart Newton was, his laws of motion are flawed. No matter how smart Darwin was, his understanding of evolution was incomplete. No matter how smart Boyle or Charles were, their gas laws are incomplete. And the same goes for Clausius! You need to stop this religious fervor and absolute faith in one early scientist!
GR says:
Differentiating between heat and thermal energy is just plain silly.
By that definition a sunburn doesn’t burn because its source is EM radiation.
All you’re doing is arguing about rhetoric and how things are labeled, and insisting that only your labeling of things can be correct.
Gordon 7:01pm again avoids Clausius’ definition of heat as a measure of the kinetic energy of atoms and molecules. Clearly Clausius’ thermodynamic internal energy U would be a measure of their total kinetic energy while temperature is a measure of their average kinetic energy.
“We can add heat to a metal bar by applying a flame to it and the bar will expand its dimensions.”
Consider two alternative ways of describing this process: 1) the temperature of the metal bar has increased following the process, 2) heat was added to the metal bar.
Notice the difference. The first is a concrete statement about a measurement that can be made with an IR thermometer and a mercury thermometer. The second is abstract by invoking a mythical, hypothetical entity that can at best be inferred indirectly only from temperature measurements.
Writing that the temperature increase was a consequence of added heat is word jazz, not a physical explanation.
ball4…”Gordon 7:01pm again avoids Clausius’ definition of heat as a measure of the kinetic energy of atoms and molecules. Clearly Clausius’ thermodynamic internal energy U would be a measure of their total kinetic energy while temperature is a measure of their average kinetic energy”.
**
Clausius did not say heat is a measure of the kinetic energy of atoms, he said it ‘IS’ the kinetic energy of atoms.
***********
“Notice the difference. The first is a concrete statement about a measurement that can be made with an IR thermometer and a mercury thermometer. The second is abstract by invoking a mythical, hypothetical entity that can at best be inferred indirectly only from temperature measurements”.
**
What kind of energy is the thermometer measuring? Can a thermometer measure electrical energy, mechanical energy, electromagnetic energy? No, a thermometer measure thermal energy.
Has it escaped you that the name is THERMOmeter? What does thermo mean? Does it not mean heat, as in thermal?
Thermos on Greek means hot or warm.
What does a thermostat do? It controls heat.
Has it also escaped you that ‘thermo-‘ was in use before thermometers were invented. There was the thermoscope which measured heat, but like the sundial it had no scale.
Finally, the thermos is used primarily to keep a liquid hot. It retains heat.
Give it up bally, you are up a tree sitting on a branch and you are sawing off the branch between you and the tree.
It seems you are not alone, there are a lot of screwed up modernists who are thoroughly confused as to the meaning of heat. Some define it as a flow of energy which is absolute madness.
What energy is flowing? Is it electrical energy, gravitational energy, nuclear energy? No, it’s thermal energy. So, according to you rocket scientists heat is the defined as the flow of thermal energy.
Duh!!!??
To end the debate about how Clausius defined heat I checked up his own writings.
Chapter 1 page 21
https://archive.org/details/mechanicaltheor03claugoog
Gordon is correct on this one. Clausius states Heat consists of the motion of particles. The point that gets it confused is that the he then uses the term “heat quantity” to state this is the measure of that motion.
So heat would be the motion of particles (according to Clausius, modern science has changed the definition). Heat quantity is the measurement of that motion. That should at least clear up how Clausius understood the term heat.
See the last full sentence by Clausius on the ref. you provide Norman: “…heat is a measure…” so Gordon is actually incorrect per Clausius writing.
Then read the first full paragraph for an explanation that heat is not a substance “present in bodies”; heat is only a measure of the total KE of the body’s particles (gas, liquid, solid, plasma).
Once you can physically understand Clausius meaning then you can begin to understand where Gordon is wrong about various other thermodynamic internal energy transfers between objects. On point around here is then one can better understand thermodynamic energy transfer from the atm. (backradiation, convection) to/from the L&O surface.
As those process occur, energy is transferred both ways once you follow the writing, meaning and intention of Clausius & not Gordon.
ball4…”See the last full sentence by Clausius on the ref. you provide Norman: heat is a measure…”
Nice cherry-pick Bally. The full statement is that ‘…Heat consists in a motion of the ultimate particles of bodies and of ether, and that the quantity of heat is a measure of the Vis Viva (kinetic energy) of the motion’.
We all know that the motion of atoms is represented by their kinetic energy. However, kinetic energy is a generic form of energy which simply means the energy represents motion, as opposed to potential energy, which is static. KE tells you nothing about the form of energy at work. The word heat tells you that.
Clausius has given the energy a name, heat. It was actually a brilliant observation for a scientist of his time.
Kinetic energy is also common to work and heat. You can express W = force x distance to kinetic energy = 1/2 mv^2. Clausius has defined heat as the KE of particles, therefore heat can be related to work. In fact, heat and work have an equivalence as proved in a paper by Joule.
http://www.citycollegiate.com/workpowerenergy_Xc.htm
An electron orbiting a nucleus also has kinetic energy as determined by Schrodinger’s wave equation. That is, it’s not only the atoms as a whole that have kinetic energy as they move through space as a gas, the electron has KE as well. The electron is a particle and it’s motion is KE, which is also heat.
Amazingly, electrons also conduct heat through a conductor. Something has to do it.
If an electron rises an energy level, the atom heats, and that’s because it’s kinetic energy increases at higher energy levels, which are further from the nucleus. That’s how EM transfer heat to atoms when it is absorbed by an electron and causes it to rise to a higher energy level.
********
From Norman’s book reference which ball4 has cited:
“We will therefore start with the assumption that Heat consists in a motion of the ultimate particles of bodies and of ether, and that the quantity of heat is a measure of the Vis Viva of this motion.
The nature of this motion we shall not attempt to determine, but shall merely apply to Heat the principle of the equivalence of Vis Viva and Work, which applies to motion of every kind; and thus establish a principle which may be called the first main Principle of the Mechanical Theory of Heat”.
*********
What he is trying to do at this stage is lay a framework that relates heat to work. After all, the name of the book is the Mechanical Theory of Heat. Mechanical obviously refers to work and the theory tries to relate that work to heat.
Later in the chapter, he goes on to develop the first law, where heat (Q), work (W), and internal energy (U = heat + work) are related to each other.
In the development he makes it clear that Q and W represent external heat and work and that U represents internal heat and work.
GR says:
What he is trying to do at this stage is lay a framework that relates heat to work.
The energy of EM radiation can also do work.
norman…”Gordon is correct on this one. Clausius states Heat consists of the motion of particles”.
Appreciate your comment. I am not on an ego trip, trying to be right or to win arguments. Believe it or not, I am simply trying to learn what science is about.
I am amused by your insinuation that I make this stuff up. Believe me again, I’m not that smart. I am intrigued by scientists like Clausius who was that smart.
If you follow the chapter from which you quote, where he develops the 1st and 2nd laws (principles) you will get a first class insight into how thermodynamics should work. He lays out excellent proofs of his work and the question I have to ask is where the proofs are from modernists who have re-defined his work.
You will find instances where he does insinuate that heat can be transferred both ways but if you arrive at such a statement without understanding what he is talking about you can get caught in a context trap.
I have no beef with heat being transferred both ways as long as means are in place to compensate the transfer from cold to hot. Refrig.e.rators and air conditioners do it all the time.
If you want to see why Clausius is adamant about a one-way flow, follow his excellent diagrams of pressure, temperature, and volume starting on page 69…Chapter III – Second Main Principle of the Mechanical Theory of Heat.
For the open-ended Gallup Poll question:
“What do you think is the most important problem facing this country today?”
Of the fifty or so economic and non-economic problems given, climate change does not ever appear.
“Gallup Poll Social Series: Consumption Habits, July 1-11, 2018.”
https://news.gallup.com/file/poll/237392/180718SatMIP.pdf
http://www.climatedepot.com/2018/07/21/new-gallup-poll-americans-do-not-even-mention-global-warming-as-a-problem-36-problems-cited-but-not-climate/
I would say the lack of leadership in regards to space exploration.
Trump is apparently directing NASA to explore the Moon and then Mars, and president Bush also indicated that NASA should do this, but exploring the Moon should be done, a decade ago [or decades ago].
I would identify a major problem in this regard is NASA having the delusion, that it will mine the Moon.
Rather than NASA exploring the Moon to determine whether the Moon is minable.
Another delusional aspect related to NASA is their desire that NASA should be rocket launch company. So you had the Shuttle program- which was suppose to lower launch cost [and it didn’t] and you have the SLS program [space launch system also called the Senate Launch System- because it’s driven by Senate pork].
And it started with NASA building the Saturn V rocket. The Saturn V rocket was the largest rocket ever launched and had 100% launch success rate and was the Saturn V rocket was only reason, the US beat the soviets to the Moon. It was a pretty rocket, which NASA throw away, because it was too expensive to operate, and Shuttle program was suppose to be cheaper [and it wasn’t].
The only reason NASA was able to build the Saturn V was because the US had vibrant launch industry [or generally because the US private sector and Soviets didn’t have such wonderful asset which it could use].
US still has a wonderful private sector and that private sector could mine the Moon- if the moon is minable- which we still don’t know, due to the lack of adequate exploration.
One could also say, that depending on any government agency to lead is generally a kind of a dumb idea.
And there was the illusion that NASA did lead- because it landed people on the Moon.
And it was commonly said if we could land person on the Moon, we can do [fill in the blank]. So you had the war on poverty and war on drugs [still on going] and etc and etc.
But we went to the Moon to beat the Soviets to the Moon, it was actually part of an actual war effort [cold war].
Despite Apollo program being PR effort, and there were primitive tribes all over the world which knew the US put a men on the Moon [so, HUGELY successful in terms of PR] and it probably the most successful exploration effort ever- wildly successful and with exploration being of secondary importance of the effort- almost an after thought of “well since we are already here, sort of thing”.
Soviet also did stuff in space for PR purposes. But there is a reason it works as PR. Or there a lot reasons to works a PR- perhaps a infinite number. But basically, space is the future, and everyone knows it.
Space is also heaven, and everyone knows it, or people will point up, if asked the direction to heaven- and people from the being time, have been looking up. You really can’t have decent religion without involving the heavens in some fashion.
Now what is wrong with going to space is going to space is expensive. But we have global space industry which is totals about 250 billion per year, and getting to space is not expensive, rather it is cheap. Or getting into space is the cheaper part of entire expense related to this industry. Or poorest countries in the world want and have Earth satellites. Can’t afford clean water, but have to have satellites- because it cheaper to have them than compared to not having them.
Anyhow, getting to space can be much cheaper than it is right now.
And what will make it cheaper is the private sector- competition is what makes anything cheaper.
Everyone knows it, and government fears the private sector making stuff, too cheap. Large amounts of government attention is focused upon the problem of competition “getting out of control” and having prices getting too low.
It is what called a financial depression, as in the Great Depression.
So, it is known what causes things to become cheaper- and insanely cheap is feared and it known what causes lower prices.
The reason we have cheap computers and phones is because there is enough market demand for them and there is competition.
So we have cheap rocket launch because we have 250 billion industry [the dollar amount indicates the level of demand] and if continue to have competition and market were to rise to 1 trillion dollars per year, rocket launch will become cheaper. And this space market has been and is growing at more than 5% per year.
Though one can argue that by offering lower prices of launching satellites, it does increase global demand.
The leader of doing that was Europe, but currently it’s SpaceX and others are getting into the game.
….and government fears the private sector making stuff, too cheap.
huh??????
Wiki:
“In economics, deflation is a decrease in the general price level of goods and services. Deflation occurs when the inflation rate falls below 0% (a negative inflation rate). Inflation reduces the value of currency over time, but deflation increases it. This allows one to buy more goods and services than before with the same amount of currency.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deflation
So government not worried about 2 to 3 % inflation rate [goods and services increase in prices by 2 to 3 % per year] but governments will get quite worried with 2 to 3 % deflation rate.
And the fear of deflation have, are, and will cause the Fed to raise interest rates- which is a mechanism of forcing prices up. As is decreasing it is a mechanism of lower prices. Such mechanism don’t always work as planned. But if Fed believes it can’t stop deflation, that would be a very worried Fed.
Granted, deflation is a very serious problem, and if that’s what you meant I agree. But the prices of lots of things have come down over time, without perturbing the government — computers, clothing, televisions, new cars, many foods, etc.
gbaikie says:
“Fed to raise interest rates- which is a mechanism of forcing prices up.”
It’s the other way around, raising rates will reduce liquidity and aggregate demand.
–Svante says:
July 25, 2018 at 3:22 AM
gbaikie says:
“Fed to raise interest rates- which is a mechanism of forcing prices up.”
It’s the other way around, raising rates will reduce liquidity and aggregate demand.–
That is the other way [in terms of basic economics] to look at it.
You can look at the supply or the demand.
The producers and/or the market demand.
And money is product that many people like- it is a useful device/tool.
Yes, market price is where supply and demand intersects.
Alfred Marshall put them together like this:
https://tinyurl.com/y7u9gxab
Anyhow, that would something a government could do, but a government stop doing things might be better.
So for example:
“UN Ambassador Nikki Haley, US and EU government agencies, and real human rights advocates should challenge and denounce AgroEcology agitators and their financial enablers for advancing fraudulent claims that perpetuate malnutrition, poverty and human rights abuses in the worlds poorest countries. They should also cut off funding to any government agencies that support AgroEcology nonsense.”
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/07/22/luddite-eco-imperialists-claim-to-be-virtuous/
So government ceasing to support very bad things, would be huge and important thing to do.
But I tend to think exploring the Moon, is a easier thing for a government to do, as I tend not have much faith in government doing anything which is hard to do.
And government controlling global climate is amazingly and surprisingly foolish fantasy [nuthouse type stuff].
jimc: regarding your comment that ‘of the fifty or so economic and non-economic problems given, climate change does not ever appear’ – maybe it’s because the IPCC was formed 30 years ago in 1988, and despite all the doom-mongering since, we’re all still waiting for the dangerous man-made global warming climatic changes we’ve been reassured will happen.
I’m nearly 70 years old, I’ve lived in the UK for all of those years, and the British climate is unchanged. Dry, hot summers, wet summers, cold winters (for this part of the world), warm winters, storms, floods – nothing new at all.
In the last 70 years, the Had_ley Cent_ral Eng_land Temperature has increased by 1.06 C.
Source:
https://tinyurl.com/hfuevxq
“I’m nearly 70 years old, I’ve lived in the UK for all of those years, and the British climate is unchanged. Dry, hot summers, wet summers, cold winters (for this part of the world), warm winters, storms, floods – nothing new at all.”
That is because the average temperature of entire ocean is about 3.5 C, and that temperature has not changed much in last hundred years, nor will it change much in next hundred years.
The average ocean surface temperature is about 17 C, it’s changed a bit over last hundred years and could change in next 100 years.
The ocean surface is 70% of entire surface of Earth, and ocean surface is or controls Earth average air temperature.
Without an ocean, the UK would have very cold average temperature, and presently UK just has cold average temperature.
The average global average temperature of 15 C is not warm, and UK average temperature of less than 10 C is good temperature to store vegetables:
A general rule for vegetables is that cool-season crops should be stored at cooler temperatures (32 to 35°F), and warm-season crops should be stored at warmer temperatures (45 to 55°F). There are exceptions to this rule, though.”
So if UK was constant temperature of 10 C, it will be good temperature to store lettuce and tomatoes, milk is better at below 5 C. But of course it goes up and down, too cold for refrigerator and obviously too warm, but 1/2 of the year, fairly nippy. And the warmer regions of UK, tend to be more favorable/desirable.
The average ocean surface of 17 C has that average raised due to the tropical ocean which is much warmer and is about 40% of the entire surface area of Earth.
What ocean temperature around UK:
https://www.seatemperature.org/europe/united-kingdom/
so right now, showing about 14 to 18 C near various towns, and 18 C [64 F] is too cold for me to swim in- unless using a wet suit.
Oh, here:
“Overall, the average sea temperature in the British Isles ranges from 6-10 °C in the winter to 15-20 °C in the summer depending on region and yearly variation.”
https://www.thebeachguide.co.uk/sea-temperature
So if winter had instead about 15 C or warmer, UK climate would change. And if summer was 5 C, that would also be change.
Gordo, Nice to see that you understand basic physical definitions. But, you are still confused by semantics, insisting that the word “heat” can only refer to one form of energy, i.e., kinetic energy. You are stuck with ideas from early investigations into the physics of energy, when “heat” was thought to be a separate element within material objects. Over many decades, the understanding of the basic energy transfer processes has been much improved, but along the way, the usage of the work “heat” has continued as a shorthand for “internal energy”.
One could simply delete the work “heat” from any discussion and still describe those processes we all know and love. One would then need to write “thermal energy”, “kinetic energy” “radiative energy” or “electrical energy” instead, being more precise but also more wordy. Adding the word “transmission” to those terms would make things much more difficult to talk about.
So, back to your definitions. Suppose you’ve got 1 kg of water at 100C and 1 kg steam at 100C, both at atmospheric pressure. Cooling the water to 30C would result in less energy transferred than cooling the steam to 30C. The early thermodynamicist were attempting to explain those processes, as well as what happens at higher pressures in steam power plants. BTW, “cooling” is another short hand word which describes thermal energy transfer, but in the opposite sense.
I think you need to get over your hangup with the word “heat”.
swannie…”Gordo, Nice to see that you understand basic physical definitions. But, you are still confused by semantics, insisting that the word heat can only refer to one form of energy, i.e., kinetic energy”.
I keep trying to emphasize that kinetic energy is not a form of energy, it’s a descriptor for energy in motion. KE applies to all forms of energy.
If you have a boulder at the edge of a 100 foot cliff, it has potential energy. If you push it off it has kinetic energy. The kind of energy is mechanical energy. Electrons stored in a battery have potential energy. If you connect the battery to a closed circuit and close the switch the electrons move and have kinetic energy. The kind of energy is electrical energy.
In the case of atoms in motion, we need to name the kind of energy and we named it thermal energy, or heat.
“Over many decades, the understanding of the basic energy transfer processes has been much improved, but along the way, the usage of the work heat has continued as a shorthand for internal energy”.
Clausius defined U = internal energy. The U in the 1st law is his definition and he is clear that internal energy is the sum of internal heat and work. He is also clear that external heat (Q) or work (W) can affect the internal energy U. How can they do that is they are not one and the same, or an equivalent form of energy?
The Clausius definition makes eminently more sense than the modern definition. If you add heat to a body, some of it is converted to internal work that causes the atoms to change their mode of vibration (work). Energy is added to the atoms that affects their motion.
What kind of energy is it and what is internal energy if it is not heat, or it’s equivalent, work?
” Cooling the water to 30C would result in less energy transferred than cooling the steam to 30C”
Of course, to get steam from water you have to add energy to break the molecular bonds in the water to produce the steam. First, you have to heat the water to boiling point. When you reverse the process you are giving up a larger amount of energy than you are by cooling straight water.
Either way, you are adding heat and removing heat.
Gordon: “Clausius claimed that heat is the kinetic energy of atoms.”
Clausius: “..heat is a measure of their kinetic energy.”
Gordon is incorrect.
Heat is only a measure of & NOT the actual KE of atoms. Example: it is incorrect to write heat flows because in Gordon’s metal bar the atoms vibrate in place, their avg. KE changes as T changes not their location, there is no flow of the measure of their KE.
“What kind of energy is the thermometer measuring?”
The avg. kinetic energy of the atoms and molecules.
A thermostat controls temperature & temperature is not heat.
Gordon: “Some define (heat) as a flow of energy which is absolute madness.”
Gordon: “Yes, heat can be transferred without EM. It’s done all the time in conductors where thermal energy flows”
Gordon calls his own writing “sheer madness”. Gordon makes up his own physics and cannot keep his personal version of physics consistent.
Ball4, please stop trolling.
ball4….”Heat is only a measure of & NOT the actual KE of atoms. Example: it is incorrect to write heat flows because in Gordon’s metal bar the atoms vibrate in place, their avg. KE changes as T changes not their location, there is no flow of the measure of their KE”.
*********
We should clarify that energy is a mysterious phenomenon that no one can explain. The generalized definition of energy is the capacity to do work but that does not explain the phenomenon that is doing the work.
We also know there are different forms of energy. Maybe at some level they draw from the same source at a sub-atomic level, but the different forms seem to affect atoms differently.
For example, electrical energy relies on electrons and their properties, namely the charges they carry, and not on the entire atom. The related energy, electromagnetic energy, seems to have its derivation in the electric charge in an electron and the magnetic field carried by a moving electron.
Gravitational energy ‘SEEMS’ to be about the overall charges in mass since larger masses tend to attract smaller masses to them. Mechanical energy is related to the difference in potential and kinetic energy of objects (aggregation of atoms).
Heat involves atoms in motion. As you say, atoms are bound in lattices in conductors and are not free to move. They do vibrate, however, and their degree of vibration is related to the heat content of the body. From that perspective you could claim the degree of vibration is a measure of kinetic energy of the atoms and heat is the name we have given to that energy.
*********
As to your claim above, the atoms in a solid conductor vibrate in place but the valence electrons that bind the atoms together are capable of passing both electrical charge and heat from valence electron to valence electron. Not only that, valence electrons are free to move from atom to atom, a basis of current flow. If they are excited due to heating, they will pass that thermal energy on down the line.
What is not generally understood is that electrons don’t flow at the speed of light through a conductor but electric charge does. That means that the charge is passed electron to electron while the electrons are moving at a slower rate.
It’s the same with heat. Electrons near the heat source gain more energy than electrons further down the chain and they become excited. That can mean they jump to higher energy levels within the atom and/or they jump to other atoms in the case of valence (outer shell) electrons.
In any case, energy is flowing and we need a name for that energy to distinguish it from other forms of energy, so we call it thermal energy, or heat.
If you have a copper bar and you apply a negative electrode to one end and a positive electrode to the other end via an adequate resistance, to limit the current, electrons will move from the -ve electrode to the +ve electrode through the bar.
If, at the same time, you heat the negative end of the bar, you set up a thermal gradient down the bar. How are we going to distinguish between the two forms of energy? We can measure the electrical energy with an ammeter, or calculate it using a voltmeter. We can measure the thermal energy with a thermometer.
Both energies are forms of kinetic energy, so which KE is which?
Under normal circumstances, if the electric current is such that it does not heat the bar appreciably, the current should not disturb the vibrations of the atoms. However, heating one end of the bar will affect vibrations right down the bar.
Therefore, heat is affecting the KE of the atoms themselves at all electron energy levels whereas electrical energy is only affecting the KE of valence electrons.
The thermometer is measuring the relative amount of heat in the bar, at a specific locale, which is the average KE of the atoms themselves. If a thermometer is measure the relative level of thermal energy, which is energy related to heat, then how can heat be a measure of itself?
By the same token, if heat is only a definition of the transfer of energy, what energy is being transferred? It’s heat, and to claim heat is the transfer of heat is plain silly.
Amazing!
Finally David Appell said something that is demonstrably correct:
S = k log W is inscribed on Boltzmann’s tombstone.
I didn’t receive a copy of the spreadsheets you claimed you made.
No problem. Where do you want me to send them…..email or snail mail?
I recommend email as you will be able to see all the links and formulae.
I already told you you can send them by email. My email address is given on http://www.davidappell.com
David a simple question.
You claim the underlying temperature trend has been up due to CO2 increasing. You also say at times natural variation can cause the trend to pause or even decline.
My question to you is what will you say if the underlying temperature trend is down?
What will your explanation be for this change if it should occur?
Keep wishing, Salvatore. I’ll stick with science.
David will have no explanation.
You make up scenarios and then pretend they have already happened, with no science involved whatsoever.
Soon if it warrants I am going to ask David why the overall trend in oceanic sea surface temperatures has reversed.
Reversed since when?
Salvatore, you entire schtick is pretending that very short intervals of months of a couple of years are indicative of climate.
They aren’t. If you don’t understand this you are incompetent. If you do then you’re dishonest.
That is the cover AGW theory will use but that will only work so long.
AGW has strong science behind it. You have delusions behind your claims.
DA,the “strong science” is AGAINST AGW.
You just don’t know any “strong science”, so you have delusions behind your claims.
Really? What science is that?
Yes, really. It’s called “physics”.
Learn some.
That is where your wrong David. All the observations, historical data and the premise the theory is based on do not support AGW theory.
JDHuffman says:
Yes, really. Its called physics.
Learn some.
I knew you didn’t have any such evidence.
David, please stop trolling.
Imo, Dr Roys EMT needs an enforcement wing to go along with the Emergency Moderation Team to make the EMT more effective.
We have a small spot:
http://spaceweather.com/
“Tiny sunspot AR2716 poses no threat for solar flares. “
The small spot vanished, and day 1 of spotless begins again.
Hello again bilybob,
each time before trying to answer to your question ‘Your thoughts?’ I first have to reply to some basic points.
1. You write
“Also, many times it is posted on this blog that there are dozen more heat records than cold records.”
Well, while I am totally disgreeing about all heat waves suddenly having to be primarily related to AGW (what a nonsense!), my experience in analysing temperature time series e.g. in CONUS indeed is that in this country, incredibly more daily records above 40 C were reported by stations than such below -40 C.
When extracting days with a temperature below -40 C, I obtained in May 2018 no more than 9,399 of them, whereas extracting days with a temperature above +40 C gave me… 885,959 days.
The top 20 in the -40 C list
1954 1 20 -56.70
1933 2 9 -54.40
1933 2 9 -52.80
1899 2 11 -51.70
1985 2 1 -51.70
1905 2 12 -51.10
1936 2 15 -51.10
1943 1 18 -51.10
1951 2 1 -51.10
1963 1 12 -51.10
1985 2 1 -51.10
1989 12 22 -51.10
1996 2 2 -51.10
1899 2 9 -50.60
1903 2 16 -50.60
1924 12 19 -50.60
1936 2 15 -50.60
1936 2 15 -50.60
1954 1 20 -50.60
1916 1 12 -50.00
As you can see, the Dust Bowl era was not only a period of drought, wind and heat!
The top 20 in the +40 C list
1913 7 10 56.70
2007 10 13 55.60
1913 7 13 55.00
1913 7 12 54.40
2016 9 26 53.90
2013 7 1 53.90
2007 7 7 53.90
2005 7 20 53.90
1998 7 18 53.90
1960 7 18 53.90
1915 8 23 53.90
1913 7 9 53.90
1913 7 11 53.90
2012 7 4 53.70
2013 7 4 53.30
2013 6 30 53.30
2013 6 27 53.30
2012 7 12 53.30
2009 7 19 53.30
2007 10 12 53.30
And yes: there are in this list a little bit more days in the 2000’s than some would expect.
Only dumb, paranoid people would imagine this be due to GHCN data manipulation.
2. You write
“But to point out that extreme temperatures are not higher for places that have the records in the first part of the 20th century.”
Sorry: again you restrict your view to CONUS stations, i.e. to 2 % of the Globe, and 6.5 % of the Globe’s land surface. Looking at the graphs upthread showing the Globe without CONUS gives you a completely different picture, regardless wether you take all stations or restrict them to those active from 1895 till today. Averaging all stations into grid cells gives the same result.
3. You write
“As for those who keep posting the number of new heat records, why so surprised. 10000 new/active temperature stations put out after the hottest part of last century produces 3,650,000 new daily data in a year, they really think it is amazing that they produce 10 times new extreme heat records than the historic records that have been established and already have seen extremes and only number just north of 1000.”
Excuse me please: this is nonsense.
John Christy’s Fig. 5 and my graphs consider maxima per station per year!
If you compare the graph showing CONUS with all contributing 18,000 stations
http://4gp.me/bbtc/1531066690920/001.jpg
and that showing CONUS with only 900 contributing historical stations
http://4gp.me/bbtc/1531159766688/001.jpg
you can see how similar they are.
The same holds when comparing the Globe minus CONUS with all contributing about 18,000 stations
http://4gp.me/bbtc/153106726076/001.jpg
and the Globe minus CONUS with only about 120 historical stations
http://4gp.me/bbtc/1531159856270/001.jpg
I am a layman wrt this CO2 discussion. But if you ask for my guess concerning its possible influence on temperatures, I would rather think about daily minima becoming higher over the long term.
Same mistake as 2 weeks ago.
The 4th graph
http://4gp.me/bbtc/1531159856270/001.jpg
must be replaced by
http://4gp.me/bbtc/1531211290411/001.jpg
(same plots, different heading).
You say, “Well, while I am totally disgreeing about all heat waves suddenly having to be primarily related to AGW”
I believe we actually agree here, heat waves are not related to AGW.
You say “Sorry: again you restrict your view to CONUS stations, i.e. to 2 % of the Globe, and 6.5 % of the Globe’s land surface.”
Yes again, we agree, historically the 1000 plus sites only covered CONUS mostly, Canada, Australia and Europe secondarily. Not sure of the cumulative total as far as percent of globe/land.
You say “Excuse me please: this is nonsense.” in reference to the number of data per year prior to 1950 and after 1950.
I rounded my numbers, but I believe I am correct from a magnitude level. There are 10 times more data records collected post 1950 from sites started during a cool period. This point is strictly to those (not you) claiming the ratio of new max records to cool records translates to more heat waves currently compared to prior to 1950. There is no data to support that on a global scale, I think we agree on that. You can see my reply to David for more detail on that.
You say “I am a layman wrt this CO2 discussion. But if you ask for my guess concerning its possible influence on temperatures, I would rather think about daily minima becoming higher over the long term.”
Yes, minima is higher. Maxima are either the same or possibly lower. Overall average is up. This is supported by the historic data. As far as CO2, I generally try to stay away, I am interested in a more comprehensive view of the atmosphere.
Heading out for now, may be a few days before I check back in.
While you are arguing here if taking a piss into the ocean raises the sea levels somebody does a real science ,
and its cooling all the way from here into a full blown ice age.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IOqVaWa4LX0
Maybe we can persuade David Appell to watch that video. Liked the music too!
I doubt it , Appells climate education stopped with watching Al Gores Movie, he has learned everything he will ever need to know about climate from that one.
That video is just the usual solar pseudoscience.
Odd how cooling is always just in our future, yet somehow it never arrives.
That now has changed David.
NO FURTHER WARMING WILL BE OCCURING FROM HERE ON OUT.
Wrong as usual.
eben…”While you are arguing here if taking a piss into the ocean raises the sea levels ….”
The cumulative amount of peeing and pooping into the ocean has to raise sea levels. The IPCC seems oblivious to this issue.
David Appell keeps searching for his lost “150 Watts/m^2”. He keeps making comments like this:
“The surface, at an average temperature of 288 K, radiates an average of 390 W/m^2.
“But only 240 W/m^2 leaves out the top of the atmosphere.
“Where is the missing 150 W/m^2?”
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2018/07/summer-causes-climate-change-hysteria/#comment-312833
DA is subtracting 240 from 390, and then assuming the difference, 150, means something.
First, the “390” is a bogus number. You cannot average fluxes, because they are the result of the nonlinear fourth-power in the S/B equation.
Second, the “240” number is also a bogus number. It is the S/B result of a black body surface at a temperature of 255 K. The Earth is NOT at an average temperature of 255 K!
Third, you can NOT treat radiative fluxes arithmetically. It’s like trying to add hyenas to strawberries.
Fourth, David is trying to “conserve” flux. IOW, he is trying to imply that the result of his errant subtraction should be zero. Wrong! Radiative flux is NOT conserved. A radiative flux consists of photons. For example, you can have 5 photons absorbed by a surface, and 10 photons emitted by the surface, yet the surface temperature does NOT change, even though the surface “lost” 5 photons. Reason: Photons can have different energies. They are not always the same. Energy is conserved, but photons are NOT conserved.
Learn some physics, David Appell.
(It’s always interesting how the trolls will jump in to attempt to deny reality. Let’s watch.)
JDG,
It is comical that you think David, who has degrees in physics, needs to be schooled in physics by you, the class clown.
‘Third, you can NOT treat radiative fluxes arithmetically. Its like trying to add hyenas to strawberries.’
We’ve been over this at length. Apparently you forgot already. Fluxes are scalars and can be added.
Even in vector form, as Poynting vectors, they can be added. And you already agreed to that.
‘Second, the 240 number is also a bogus number.’
This is the absor*bed solar flux! It’s bogus?
Anonymous clown Nate is the first to take the bait.
Nate, the only two things you got right were my two direct quotes. Keep quoting me accurately, it helps keep you from being COMPLETELY wrong.
You learned about the Poynting vector, due to my hint. But, that’s only the first reason fluxes don’t add. Your next hint is “Set phasors to ‘stun'”.
See, learning physics can be fun.
JDhuffman says:
First, the 390 is a bogus number. You cannot average fluxes, because they are the result of the nonlinear fourth-power in the S/B equation.
The average temperature of the Earth’s surface is 288 K. (Well, now 289 K.) An blackbody with a temperature of 289 K and emissivity =1 radiates 396 W/m2.
Second, the 240 number is also a bogus number. It is the S/B result of a black body surface at a temperature of 255 K.
No, it’s the average radiation the Earth receives from the Sun:
(1-albedo)S/4 = 240 W/m2.
It’s also the average amount of radiation that leaves the Earth out of the top of the atmosphere. (How does that work, when the Earth radiates 396 W/m2? Where is the missing, here, 156 W/m2? Where did it go?)
DA, I note you are now changing 390 to 396. Just arbitrarily change your “fake-reality” as needed. See why it’s bogus?
And the 240 is just as bogus. That is NOT the “average amount of radiation that leaves the Earth”. There are NO accurate measurements of such an average. There’s only assumptions, models, and your “fake-reality”.
Ge*ran
It is amusing to see you pretend to be an expert at physics over one that actually did take the time to study the real material from textbooks (not PSI blogs).
Anyway I am commenting because you are peddling incorrect information.
YOU: “And the 240 is just as bogus. That is NOT the average amount of radiation that leaves the Earth. There are NO accurate measurements of such an average. Theres only assumptions, models, and your fake-reality.”
There is actually quite a bit of measured values from satellites. Your statement is not true and needs to be called out.
Here is one composite of IR emitted at TOA over a few years.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outgoing_longwave_radiation#/media/File:AIRS_OLR.png
When you say there are “NO” accurate measurements you are just making it up hoping it sticks.
Yes fluxes add. You can take two light bulbs and see this for yourself. Flux is radiant energy in watts. Radiant energy is UV, visible, IR. You can directly adds watts and make more. Really you need to get off this blog. You are wasting time with your endless ignorant statements.
Learn physics and come back when you know what you are talking about. At this time you know very little real physics and have a cobbled version of pseudoskeptic blog physics that is full of many holes.
People waste time trying to correct you. Learn real physics and be a positive contributor to the real science.
Grinvalds, that’s a pretty graphic. It’s too bad there’s no meaningful data attached. But, you don’t want in “meaningful data”.
And, you keep playing with light bulbs. The discussion is about fluxes of different wavelengths. Try to keep up.
390 went to 396 because the temperature I used went from 288 K to 288+1 K (global warming).
240 W/m2 is true, in this model, because the Stefan-Boltzmann law is well established experimentally. And because that’s what how much radiation the Earth receives from the Sun.
DA, 240 Watts/m^2 would only apply to a BB at temperature of 255 K.
You are still clinging to your pseudoscience. You don’t know the actual flux leaving at TOA. You just want to believe you know it. “Beliefs” are NOT science.
Besides, you can’t subtract 240 Watts/m^2 from 390 Watts/m^2, and expect it to mean anything.
You’re grasping at straws.
Yes, the Earth’s “brightness temperature” is 255 K. And its surface temperature is 289 K.
And, subtracting 240 Watts/m^2 from 390 Watts/m^2 is just pseudoscience for kids.
You keep avoiding questions.
The Earth receives 120 trillion kilowatts from the Sun. How then does its surface radiate 200 trillion kilowatts?
DA actually asks: “The Earth receives 120 trillion kilowatts from the Sun. How then does its surface radiate 200 trillion kilowatts?”
DA, If you knew any physics, you would know that such a question just makes you look stupid.
Still avoiding questions. Your specialty.
Still resorting to irresponsible, irrelevant, and incoherent questions. Your speciality.
My experience is that deniers never try to seriously answer this question. They dance all around it with insults and such, but that’s all.
DA, you should learn why your question is stupid.
Do I have to tell you everything?
I don’t know why my question is stupid. Why don’t you set me straight by telling us
1) how much energy the Earth receives from the Sun.
2) how much energy is radiated by the Earth’s surface.
DA, your question is stupid because Earth’s surface is NOT emitting 80 trillion kilowatts more than it is absorbing.
Learn some physics.
You’re just being silly. Anymore irresponsible, silly questions will be ignored.
JDHuffman says:
DA, your question is stupid because Earths surface is NOT emitting 80 trillion kilowatts more than it is absorbing.
I never said it was. Read more carefully.
Again:
1) how much energy does the Earth receive from the Sun?
2) how much energy is radiated by the Earths surface?
DA now denies he was asking how the Earth could radiate 80 trillion kilowatts more than it receives:
“The Earth receives 120 trillion kilowatts from the Sun. How then does its surface radiate 200 trillion kilowatts?”
He just can’t get anything right.
You still aren’t reading carefully.
One numbers refers to the TOA.
The other refers to the surface.
So what’s your explanation?
My explanation is you need to learn some physics. The Earth does NOT radiate 80 trillion kilowatts more than it receives.
No matter how many times you try to deny what you implied.
Silly clown.
You’re purposely pretending to misunderstand. Probably because you can’t address the questions.
Enough of your unconvincing posturing.
Just learn some physics, DA.
Then you won’t have to spin, twist, backtrack, and deny your own words.
There’s nothing wrong with reality.
JDhuffman says:
Third, you can NOT treat radiative fluxes arithmetically. Its like trying to add hyenas to strawberries.
If an object receives coincident fluxes of j1 and j2, the net flux is receives is j1+j2.
Radiative flux is NOT conserved. A radiative flux consists of photons. For example, you can have 5 photons absorbed by a surface, and 10 photons emitted by the surface, yet the surface temperature does NOT change, even though the surface lost 5 photons. Reason: Photons can have different energies. They are not always the same. Energy is conserved, but photons are NOT conserved.
The assumption that photons are conserved was made nowhere. The SB flux is just energy received per unit area per unit time, and energy is conserved.
Nope, you’re still in denial. Fluxes don’t add, and are not conserved. (Fluxes ARE photons, duh!)
Even if you had the CORRECT average flux leaving the surface, and the CORRECT average flux leaving at TOA, you could not expect the arithmetical difference to have any meaning. The two fluxes have different spectra. Their peak wavelengths are too far apart. You are confused and making up your own brand of physics, to suit your beliefs.
Learn some real physics and embrace reality.
JDHuffman says:
Even if you had the CORRECT average flux leaving the surface, and the CORRECT average flux leaving at TOA, you could not expect the arithmetical difference to have any meaning. The two fluxes have different spectra. Their peak wavelengths are too far apart.
The classical definition of flux is energy flow through a surface per unit area per unit time.
That’s the flux j that appears in the Stefan-Boltzmann law. Integrated over all wavelengths.
If you want to use a different definition, then define it. But even for wavelengths, coincident per-wavelength fluxes add — a flux j1 at a wavelength and a flux j2 at the same wavelength add to j1+j2 at that wavelength. It’s just conservation of energy.
Well now you are making the fluxes the same wavelength.
See, you can learn.
Don’t you wish you could go back and delete all your previous nonsense?
I wrote fluxes *at* the same wavelength.
Still, if two coincident fluxes j1(wavelength1) and j2(wavelength2) move through an area A, the net flux through A is j1+j2 whether or not wavelength1=wavelength2.
Still wrong, DA. Consider the AM radio station example. Different wavelengths do not add.
But, keep trying, it’s amusing.
“Flux” as in the SB Law is ENERGY per unit area per unit time. If you have a different definition of flux, then give it.
DA, that’s very good. It’s important to learn definitions and units.
That will prepare you for the big time, where you will learn that different radiative fluxes do not add arithmetically.
Hi JDHuffman,
I don’t agree with you when you wrote “Consider the AM radio station example. Different wavelengths do not add.”
This is true only if you consider a narrow band receiver, in case of a wide band receiver which bandwidth comprises the 2 wavelengths the energies add indeed into the receiver.
If you apply a dummy load to a wide-band receiving antenna and irradiate the antenna with two signals which the wavelengths fall inside the antenna resonating frequency range, you converts the sum of the two incoming power to heat.
If you ever worked with a spectrum analyzer and attached it to a broadband antenna into the heavily trafficked 88-108MHz FM band you surely experienced that widening the spectrum analyzer bandwidth you get an higher measurement for every single band segment, that because more signals adds inside the wider BW of the receiver for each band segment.
As Norman pointed out before is the receiver selectivity that avoids the signal with different WL to add together.
Note that this is the very reason that narrow band receivers are more sensitive than wide band receivers, in fact the natural thermal noise background is well distributed along the frequency spectrum and for not too wide bandwidths it can be considered flat, but widening the BW of the receiver the noise background is higher because the theoretically infinite emissions in the receiver bandwidth sums each other, narrowing them instead the natural noise reduces allowing a better reception of very tiny signals.
It’s also the very reason for wich the ham radio prefers very narrow modulation such the SSB or the CW for extremely critical communications.
Fluxes of different wavelength adds if the receiving surface absorbs both.
Have a great day.
Massimo
What is the definition of “radiative flux?”
Massimo, you don’t seem to understand the conversation. The issue is NOT about receiver bandwidth. The issue is about separate radiative fluxes. In an ideal world, there would be no tuning of the transmitter required. Everything would be on channel. Consequently, the different spectra would remain separate.
That’s the problem with coming into a conversation midstream. You miss the flow. The issue is based on the fact that it makes no sense to subtract 240 Watts/m^2 from 390 Watts/m^2, and then claim that the difference (150 Watts/m^2) means anything.
Unless you believe CO2 can “heat the planet”. In that case, your have served your cause well. More confused pseudoscience.
The issue is based on the fact that it makes no sense to subtract 240 Watts/m^2 from 390 Watts/m^2, and then claim that the difference (150 Watts/m^2) means anything.
You still haven’t explained why. Instead you just keep repeating yourself that it can’t be right.
I made it more direct by putting it in terms of energy (=flux*surface_area):
The Earth receives 120 trillion kilowatts from the Sun. So how can its surface radiate 200 trillion kilowatts?
PS: Of course CO2 warms planets. I just like seeing how far people like you will go to deny the obvious.
DA, I explained why, here:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2018/07/summer-causes-climate-change-hysteria/#comment-313213
You are just in denial. You have to resort to your tricks.
I didn’t expect anything different. Your pseudoscience is busted. Science is served.
I addressed all the points in that link.
Let’s see your numbers – how much energy the Earth receives from the Sun, and how much energy is radiated by the Earth’s surface.
Numbers.
Hi JDHuffman,
“Consequently, the different spectra would remain separate.”
I don’t agree with you if the different spectra can be absorbed by their fluxes target area.
The capability or not of absorbing of the target area is the equivalent of the receiver bandwidth in the AM receiver example.
If you point one red laser on a black cardboard and at the same time you point on the very same black cardboard a green laser the heat produced is from both the two light sources and its originating fluxes are no more discernible (the same is if you use two not coherent light source of different WL of course).
I have here in my home laboratory a very nice Crookes radiometer (I use it with a Stirling exothermic engine to amaze the youngest). So, if I point on its vanes my 50mW red laser its “mill” turns at a certain speed, but if I point on the same vanes also the 40mW green laser I got almost twice the speed of before.
IMHO this unequivocably demonstrates that energy fluxes of different WL sums each other.
Of course they don’t necessarily maintain the WL of one of them, but they could.
I’m not arguing other than this.
Have a great day.
Massimo
Massimo, you are WAY off track. The photons from lasers are NOT radiative fluxes. They are NOT derived from the S/B Law.
If your goal is to add confusion to their pseudoscience, you’re doing a GREAT job.
Again, what is the definition of “radiative flux?”
Hi JDHuffman,
I’m not sure what you are talking about, lasers are coherent radiative fluxes indeed.
I don’t understand what you are arguing about the SB law derived fluxes.
Fluxes are fluxes, and “if” (I repeat “if”) the target can absorb them, it heats up according to the sum of them.
Said that, I agree with you that we don’t really know the effective outgoing radiation at TOA because of the narrow FOV detection the satellites currently uses to measure it.
Have a great day.
Massimo
Massimo, again, lasers are NOT applicable to this discussion. The photons from lasers are high energy photons. Laser beams are not limited by the inverse square law. Their photons are not emitted from a surface, in accordance with S/B. The photons are STIMULATED, not emitted.
DA, I’m glad to see you finally take some interest in learning physics.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiative_flux
“Nope, you’re still in denial. Fluxes don’t add, and are not conserved. (Fluxes ARE photons, duh!)
Even if you had the CORRECT average flux leaving the surface, and the CORRECT average flux leaving at TOA, you could not expect the arithmetical difference to have any meaning. The two fluxes have different spectra. Their peak wavelengths are too far apart.”
JD,
Strangely, Im trying to understand where you’re coming from, when you say fluxes of different wavelengths don’t add.
I think you are saying that the electric fields don’t add. If the electric field amplitude of red light is 1 and green light is 1, then they don’t add to give an amplitude of 2.
Agree with this. Because they are incoherent waves.
But the ENERGY and POWER of the red and green light does add, if they are hitting the same object. The Watts add.
So if I shine a 1000 W red spotlight and a 1000 W blue spotlight and a 1000 W yellow spotlight on an object, it is going to sum to 3000 W (of white light).
Make sense?
Nate, like several, you are trying to confuse the issue. It’s not hard to understand, unless you don’t want to understand.
Ice emits about 300 Watts/m^2. Do you deny that?
If radiative fluxes add, then you could stack blocks of ice in your home, to heat it this winter.
If you have a five-room house, you could easily have 100 square meters of ice–30,000 Watts!
If radiative fluxes added….
Lets get light of different wavelengths straight before talking about ice. What do you disagree with in my post and why?
Anonymous Nate, radiative fluxes do NOT add. Why do you want to confuse the issue. Ice is all you need to understand. If the radiative flux from ice cannot warm you in winter–case closed.
Why do you run from reality?
We can discuss your ice, which adds geometrical complication, but first lets figure out where we disagree on the fundamentals.
Do you disagree with this, and why?
‘So if I shine a 1000 W red spotlight and a 1000 W blue spotlight and a 1000 W yellow spotlight on an object, it is going to sum to 3000 W (of white light).’
No, because radiative fluxes don’t add.
But, your statement is most revealing: ” We can discuss your ice, which adds geometrical complication…”
“Geometrical complication!”
Translation: You plan to ignore ice, because it puts your nonsense in the trash.
Noted.
What other tricks do you have planned?
‘No, because radiative fluxes dont add.’
So No because, just cuz.
But is it cuz of the different wavelengths of three lights that they don’t add?
If all three were red, would they add?
When they don’t add, with 3 1000 W fluxes input NOT producing a NET of 3000 W, you need to explain where the 3000 W went?
After all I think you believe in conservation of energy.
As anticipated, anonymous Nate (now “nate”) returns with his bag of tricks: 4 questions and one red herring, all in one comment.
And, of course, he still ignores the simple example of ice, which would answer all his questions.
But, anonymous Nate doesn’t want answers. He wants to push his belief system.
And that makes him just another climate clown.
JDG,
You seem afraid to discuss the fundamentals, such as how to make your answer satisfy conservation of energy.
I get that. Exploring the fundamentals may expose the flaws in your logic. Best to obfuscate.
Does ice heat your house? No. Duh.
I answered with as much of answer as you did mine.
If you want to know more about ice, ask me a responsible non-strawman question about it.
So now you are admitting you can’t heat your house with ice?
Then, where do the 30,000 Watts go, since you believe fluxes add?
‘Then, where do the 30,000 Watts go?’
Ice is cold. Net flow of heat is from hot to cold, as you should know.
If your house is at 10 C, and ice is at 0C, then
ice emits 315 W/m^2, but house emits 360 W/m^2, so of course NET is 45 W/m^2 from house to ice.
No ice does not heat the house. Dumb question.
Also shows that fluxes need to be summed to find NET.
Meanwhile we are still missing 3000 W of red, blue and yellow light. Where did all those watts go?
Nate, you are playing games. You are making assumptions to support your nonsense. I’m trying to show you ice cannot warm the house, so you start with a house that is warmer!
Your tricks don’t work.
The house is -100 C. Now, show how the ice can warm the house to 25 C. That’s what you much do to prove fluxes add.
And, if you need more ice, that’s allowed….
It is JD (and certain banned 2 time losers) playing tricks with entertaining nonsense games while ignoring 1LOT not Nate sticking to the basic science consistent with 1LOT:
“The house is -100 C. Now, show how the ice can warm the house to 25 C. Thats what you much do to prove fluxes add.”
Much do?
1) No ice steady state equilibrium:
Space radiating at house 2.7K, 0.000003 W/m^2, house radiating -100C, 51 W/m^2. Too cold for running water in the house.
—-
2) With added 0C ice in between house and space steady state T equilibrium again achieved:
Ice radiating at house 0C, 315 W/m^2 (enough ice for an increase of 31,500 watts on the side facing space), house radiating 25C, 448 W/m^2, running water inside & toasty to “show what you much do to prove fluxes add.”
JDG,
Since you don’t give me any parameters, I used something reasonable. 10C is a cool house that needs warming.
If -100C, I think you can figure out yourself.
The net flow of heat will be from ice at 0c to house. The house will warm, and reach equil at a higher temp.
What do these examples prove?
Again if fluxes dont add, where are the missing 3000 W?
‘The house is -100 C. Now, show how the ice can warm the house to 25 C. Thats what you much do to prove fluxes add.’
Strawman, JD.
Of course ice cannot warm the house to 25C, and it is quite silly to think it must.
As I showed already, when the house is warmer than 0C, the net flow of heat is from house to ice.
That is just 2LOT, and nothing to do with fluxes adding.
Look again at my example. Where did the 3000 W go?
Nate, you must have stopped reading before you got to the “25 C”.
Try again:
“The house is -100 C. Now, show how the ice can warm the house to 25 C. That’s what you must do to prove fluxes add.”
“must do”
Thank you. Proving even JD can learn.
“Of course ice cannot warm the house to 25C”
Sure it can. You can bake a turkey with ice if you set up the experiment correctly in a way that JD cannot even imagine possible.
Added cirrus ice clouds W/m^2 increased the thermometer temperature of summer surface water in Dr. Spencer’s atm. experiment. Same thing. Ice radiation increased free to evaporate water temperature! Amazing things for those that haven’t passed a basic college meteorology course. Routine for those that have passed one or the equivalent.
The advantage of being an anonymous troll is that you can make erroneous, incorrect, mis-leading statements, with no consequences, while pretending to be knowledgeable.
That’s why there are so many anonymous trolls. What loser ever wants to face reality?
“What loser ever wants to face reality?”
The former 2 time loser banned around here and JD. Just as I wrote, JD cannot even imagine how to face experimental reality as demonstrated by Dr. Spencer.
The advantage of being an anonymous troll like JD is that you can make erroneous, incorrect, misleading assertions, without the discipline of actually doing experiments or citing them, while pretending to be knowledgeable writing stuff that ignores the 1LOT et. al. physical laws.
When you have no original ideas, or knowledge of science, it’s best to cling to Dr. Spencer’s shoelaces.
It’s just one trick after another, huh?
No tricks JD, no ignoring 1LOT, just experiment based discipline from a known source.
You ought to try actually experimenting JD, pick yourself up & stand out from the anonymous assertion-only climate sophistry crowd. Experiments are fun but demanding. I doubt JD is up to the task.
JD,
I answered your questions about ice, your followup questions about ice, I explained the 30,000 Watts.
So please answer my one question. Where did the 3000 W go in my example.
A reminder 3 lights 1000 W, red, blue, yellow, each shined on the same object (say a black object). I say they sum to 3000 W, which is NET power added to the object. You say the fluxes dont add.
Then where did the 3000 W go? Simple question. Should be a simple answer.
No Nate, you did NOT answer my question. You threw out several incoherent conjectures, over several comments, but there was no meaningful answer.
If you answer correctly where the 60,000 Watts from ice go, then you will have answered where your 3000 Watts go.
But, you can’t answer, because you have trapped yourself. Radiative fluxes don’t add.
‘Then where did the 3000 W go? Simple question. Should be a simple answer.’
I guess the answer is not so simple, otherwise you would surely give it, to reassure everyone that you do have an answer.
Guess not.
BTW, I did answer your questions. You don’t agree with my answers, but that’s irrelevent.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2018/07/summer-causes-climate-change-hysteria/#comment-313690
Ok, so on the one hand we have a dude asserting:
Fluxes dont add.
on the other hand we have:
The first law of thermodynamics.
The guy refuses to explain how his made-up idea can avoid a collision with 1LOT. He refuses to account for missing energy that ‘fluxes don’t add’ seems to require.
Where are the 3000 W?
He thinks ducking, and dodging and distracting and destroying strawmen will get him a pardon for breaking the first law.
I wonder, who’s right?
“The house is -100 C. Now, show how the ice can warm the house to 25 C. Thats what you must do to prove fluxes add.”
Like saying ‘Now show that cats can bark. That’s what you must do to prove that penguins are birds’
False premise, non sequitur, just plain silly.
Okay Nate, are you now admitting that the 30,000 Watts can’t warm the house? (I don’t want to put words in your mouth, like people try to do to me.)
If you agree that the 30,000 Watts can NOT warm the house, then you now understand fluxes don’t add.
But you need to confirm.
“If you agree that the 30,000 Watts can NOT warm the house, then you now understand fluxes dont add.”
G, recall what you got banned for last time. Twisting Roy’s words to try to make him say things he did not agree with.
You are doing that again.
As I clearly explained already, NO, ice does not warm the house above the temperature of ice.
The reason is the second law, nothing else. The net flow of energy is always from hot to cold. From warm house to cold ice, if the house is warmer.
The 30,000 W is NEVER the NET flow of energy to the house, it is only the one-way emission from the ice.
I don’t know why this is difficult for you. What about the second law do you not understand?
There, are we done with ice?
Now can you find me my 3000 W?
False accusations just got you banned, bumpkin.
Hooray!
Nate, please stop trolling.
JD,
You must be quite desperate to avoid answering what ought to be a simple question.
Where did the 3000 W go?
No, Nate. Please STOP trolling.
DREMT/JD/Ger*an
By now everyone has turned on their DREMT noise cancelling headphones.
Nate, PST.
@JDH,
Given that so many people here are well informed, capable of thinking for themselves and not easily persuaded, trolls don’t get much traction. Our resident troll may help by stimulating discussion on this site.
He may be an idiot but he is a “Useful Idiot”.
I think more and more people see through the clowns.
Here, I clearly identified four reasons DA was wrong. The reasons are well established. DA, Norman, and Nate have been unable to responsibly dispute any of my points. DA has started his nonsense questions. Next should come the insults, attacks, and false accusations.
Their pseudoscience, as usual.
I responded to your four points above. Each one of them.
No DA, you did not offer a responsible response. Let’s take the first point. I said the 390 Watts/m^2 is bogus. You changed it to 396, as in your imagination, that would help your case. But, the 390/396 remains bogus. There is NO average flux from Earth’s surface. It is all assumed, calculated, manipulated, modeled, tortured, and poisoned.
If the 390/396 is NOT bogus, where is the measured, verifiable data?
I explained the 390/396. Stop trying to invent controversy where none exists.
There is NO average flux from Earth’s surface.
There is a flux — energy per unit time per unit area — from each point of Earth’s surface. These can be added together. Therefore there is an average flux. If one had the data for Norman’s graph, it’d be straightforward to calculate.
Norman’s graph:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outgoing_longwave_radiation#/media/File:AIRS_OLR.png
DA builds his pseudoscience on “IF”:
“If one had the data for Norman’s graph, it’d be straightforward to calculate.”
This exchange reminds me of watching a primary school teacher working with a slow learner. It requires enormous patience.
Still avoiding. You know exactly what I meant — given the flux data for each point on the Earth’s surface, they can be averaged.
PS: Again, what is “radiative flux?”
Hi David,
The AIRS instrument that built that graph has a FOV of 1.1 by 0,6 only (it uses an array of 6 by 5 FOVs indeed and averages on them).
For that, that graph say nothing about the effective outgoing radiation because it misses the outgoing radiation spread from the nadir by the so called GHG which exits the atmosphere with different angles than Nadir.
The assumption that the Earth is a spheroid so it suffices to measure the flux that exits the ground at the satellites nadir is wrong, that because the Earth has an IR active atmosphere so the TOA outgoing fluxes are not homogeneous along the angles that range from the nadir and the tangent to the atmosphere.
Have a great day.
Massimo
DA can’t wait to learn some physics, now. I’m such a motivational teacher.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiative_flux
Myki, pay close attention. If DA can learn, you may be able also.
The class is in session.
That’s the same thing as I’ve been calling “flux”:
“Radiative flux, also known as radiative flux density or radiation flux, is the amount of power radiated through a given area, in the form of photons or other elementary particles, typically measured in W/m2.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiative_flux
So now that we’re each referring to the same thing…
1) what is the average radiative flux received from the Sun?
2) what is the average radiative flux emitted by the Earth’s surface?
The average is defined as for any continuous scalar function over a surface.
DA, you can search these values, if you don’t know them. Do it as a learning experience. I’ll tell you if you get the wrong answer.
As with all my students, I can tell you the answer, but then you won’t learn.
OK, I’m tired of your little smart aleck digs and refusal to answer straightforward questions. It’s just so typical. I’m done here.
DA, you were “done” when you started.
Learn some physics.
myki…”This exchange reminds me of watching a primary school teacher working with a slow learner. It requires enormous patience”.
I agree, David is an extremely slow learner as are the rest of you alarmists. After we are well into a cooling period, alarmists will still be claiming it was predicted by AGW.
Hi David,
while the Sun radiation is well measured if the radiometer gets the whole Sun dish in its FOV, the Earth is not. That because AFIK the satellites have very narrow FOVs, that don’t take the whole outgoing Earth radiation which comes also from the tangent to the atmosphere, with very different spectra.
A long time ago I pointed out that the tangent emission spectrum is almost complementary to the nadir one, for that without taking the whole Earth dish flux the measurement is useless.
Doing a parallel to the incoming radiation, it is like measuring the Sun radiation just getting the flux coming from a little center area of the Sun ignoring the rest of the Sun projected dish area. In this way the measurement is useless because the detector is unaware of possible sunspots on the Sun dish that target the Earth anyway and that it doesn’t see in its FOV, this make the detector’s measurement lower than the effective average radiation. Vice versa if a sunspot was in the center of the Sun dish so that it occupies the whole FOV of the detector, the measurement would be much higher than the effective Sun average radiation.
I hope I’ve been clear, sorry for my English.
Have a great day.
Massimo
DA….”https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Greenhouse_Effect.svg”
Here’s the accompanying energy budget to the graphic:
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Greenhouse_Effect.svg
It’s a Mickey Mouse propaganda item in which radiation accounts for all energy budget processes in the atmosphere.
According to Lindzen, convection from the surface high into the atmosphere and pole-ward accounts for much of the heat transport in the atmosphere. There is no reference whatsoever to convective forces or evapouration.
That’s why the GHE theory is bs. It’s nothing more than a bad thought experiment put together by theoretical physicists with a penchant for mathematical solutions.
No one has explained how GHGs, accounting for 0.3% of the entire atmosphere could capture that much surface IR. Nor has anyone explained how heat can be transferred from GHGs (to the surface), that are cooler or in thermal equilibrium with the surface.
As Massimo points out the view angle of the measuring satellite is restricted therefore much of the radiation measured is likely pieced together and fabricated in a model.
Gordon Robertson
Your graph is only one showing how the GHE works. It is not a global energy budget graph. Actual Global energy budget graphs do include evaporation and convection.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth%27s_energy_budget#/media/File:The-NASA-Earth%27s-Energy-Budget-Poster-Radiant-Energy-System-satellite-infrared-radiation-fluxes.jpg
Massimo PORZIO
Glad to hear from you.
I did post this graph.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/e/e0/AIRS_OLR.png/1200px-AIRS_OLR.png
I think the satellite measurements will cover the globe as they move over it. I do not think the energy at a tangent will be much different than the energy at Nadir. The energy emitted is basically isotropic from the source so if you measure the energy directly above an area it will be similar from any angle. At least that is what I think it will do at this time. I will think more on it if you choose to inform me differently than what I have assumed to be correct.
Gordon Robertson says:
No one has explained how GHGs, accounting for 0.3% of the entire atmosphere could capture that much surface IR.
Of course they have.
What you really mean is that you don’t understand that science, and wish to make no effort to, so you just deny it and pretend it doesn’t exist.
And the number is 0.04%, not “0.3%.” You can’t even be bothered to get that right.
Massimo, I really don’t understand what you’re writing about. I’m not interested here in the details of satellite measurements.
David Appell
Your point on Gordon Robertson’s post is very correct.
YOU: “Of course they have.
What you really mean is that you dont understand that science, and wish to make no effort to, so you just deny it and pretend it doesnt exist.”
Yup.
But he was correct with the 0.3% GHG. He was including Water Vapor, all GHG not just CO2.
I doubt anyone will ever be able to explain it to Gordon in a way he will grasp it.
Thanks Norman — you’re right about the 0.3% — sorry Gordon.
I wonder if Gordon denies even that even water vapor is a greenhouse gas. I suspect so.
DA…”And the number is 0.04%, not “0.3%.” You can’t even be bothered to get that right”.
Get a grip DA, all GHGs, including WV, account for 0.3% of the entire atmosphere.
Closer to the surface, the WV content averages 1% and can reach 3% in the Tropics. On average, however, the total GHG content in the atmosphere. is 0.3%.
Your 0.04% is for all CO2, of which anthropogenic CO2 is a small fraction, according to the IPCC.
Yes, Gordon, and based only on the fact that a certain number is small, you conclude the GHE has to be small, an error in elementary logic.
The concentration of ozone in the ozone layer is about 5 ppm. Yet without that 0.0005% we’d all be dead.
Explain THAT.
GR says:
As Massimo points out the view angle of the measuring satellite is restricted therefore much of the radiation measured is likely pieced together and fabricated in a model.
Gordon, you just can’t help yourself.
The mass of the Earth isn’t measured, it’s calculated from a model.
Does that mean the mass number is “fabricated?”
UAH’s monthly anomalies are calculated from a model. Are you calling Roy a “fabricator?” Seems so.
David, please stop trolling.
JD…”First, the 390 is a bogus number. You cannot average fluxes, because they are the result of the nonlinear fourth-power in the S/B equation”.
Somebody better tell Trenberth, a favourite interviewee of David Appell. He pretty well admitted it is bogus but I’m sure he keeps David in the dark so as not to blow his god-like image in the eyes of DA.
Years ago I suggested that Kevin Trenbert and the Hockey Team stay away from live interviews on TV because they came across as both defensive and arrogant (a hard stunt to pull off).
I don’t recall seeing any of them lately……probably I am not watching the right channels.
Gordon Robertson says:
JD…”First, the 390 is a bogus number. You cannot average fluxes, because they are the result of the nonlinear fourth-power in the S/B equation”.
Somebody better tell Trenberth, a favourite interviewee of David Appell. He pretty well admitted it is bogus
Really? What did he say? Where did he do that?
Gordon Robertson says:
Somebody better tell Trenberth, a favourite interviewee of David Appell.
Wrong. I’ve spoken to him once on the phone, and he sat down across from me when I was having lunch one day at NCAR and we chatted.
David, please stop trolling.
Let me assist the slow learners here.
As all climate scientists learn early on, a fundamental number is the solar constant.
Your task, if you wish to accept it, is to look up the definition and tell me what it is and what the units are.
Otherwise, go back to colouring in with your crayons.
GR, you are excused from this task because of your age.
Massimo, please go and look up the definition of “solid angle” before you try and understand radiative fluxes.
JDHuffman, to help you, try and use “google”. I think you can manage that.
Is that it, anonymous Myki? Is that all you know? The solar constant?
No wonder you’re an anonymous clown.
As I expected. Another F for fail.
Myki, please stop trolling.
Hi Miky,
sorry, but I missed you post wher you wrote:
“Massimo, please go and look up the definition of solid angle before you try and understand radiative fluxes.”
I well know what a solid angle it is and its units, maybe you don’t know that when one express a FOV it is usual to give the two angles of the horizontal and vertical axis instead.
Go to any NASA satellite instruments specification and see.
You are the second who highlight this in this blog, why does people look at the finger tip when one other points him the moon?
At least, writing insignificant tips, just look around and see if you are writing something useful before.
For your information, I’m just an electronic engineer, but in my professional career I also designed an optical spectrum analyzer, so I believe that I know something about radiative fluxes indeed.
Have a great day
Massimo
Ge*ran
YOU: “Grinvalds, that’s a pretty graphic. It’s too bad there’s no meaningful data attached. But, you don’t want in “meaningful data”.
And, you keep playing with light bulbs. The discussion is about fluxes of different wavelengths. Try to keep up.”
Radiative Flux is in Watts/m^2. It does not matter that fluxes are at different wavelengths. You really need to study physics Ge*ran. You know so little.
But first, support you declaration that fluxes do not add, other than you strong opinionated declarations, what is your supporting evidence? You have none.
Okay. The lack of logic in your posts. Do you think if you have 100 Watts/m^2 of UV light or visible light you would have more energy than 100 watts/m^2 of IR? If you have a source emitting 100 watts of UV, another 100 watts of visible and still another 100 watts in the IR you would have a total radiant flux of 300 watts.
(note radiant flux is in watts, radiative flux is in watts/m^2).
You seem confused by your own made up version of physics. It can’t logically connect.
A source that emits 300 W/m^2 (radiative flux) of UV at a surface will be the same amount of energy as a source that emits 300 W/m^2 of IR at a surface. If you want to know how much this energy will warm a surface that it strikes, you would need to know its ability to absorb the bands. If you have a relatively black surface that absorb both visible and IR energy.
Here is an example material.
https://phys.org/news/2011-11-super-black-material-absorbs-multiple-wavelength.html
If you direct 100 W/m^2 visible at this material and 100 w/m^2 IR it will absorb 200 W/m^2 energy and warm accordingly. The two fluxes are adding. You are just wrong and will continue to be so as long as you declare things that are just not true (except in your own mind).
Grinvalds, I’m going to have to restrict your blathering nonsense. No one wants to read all that crap, certainly not me.
If you can’t ask your question, coherently and succinctly, then you obviously don’t have a meaningful question.
And, if you want me to respond, use my correct name, not that of your fantasy hero.
(I have to teach manners, as well as physics!)
Ge*ran
Same old same old. Can’t read anything that contradicts with a biased view. Not blathering nonsense. Real science, real physics that you don’t want to learn.
Here, answer this one: “Do you think if you have 100 Watts/m^2 of UV light or visible light you would have more energy than 100 watts/m^2 of IR?”
N,
If ice is emitting 300 W/m2, how much will it warm a black body?
What would be the equilibrium temperature?
If the 300 W/m2 comes from sunlight, what will the final temperature be?
Do you think ice emits cold Watts, but sunlight is comprised of hot Watts?
How would you add the hot Watts and the cold Watts?
Do you have the faintest idea of real physics?
Cheers.
Mike Flynn
The temperature of the black body would be same. It is based upon the amount of energy it can absorb and emit not the wavelength of the source. Maybe you understand that, I am not sure Ge*ran does. He posts as if he believes the higher energy photons will warm something more than lower energy photons even if they both have the same energy.
“…not the wavelength of the source.”
Norman, if the source is a surface, it does not have a wavelength.
test:
https://imgbb.com/upload
Ge*ran
David Appell is the correct one with the outgoing longwave flux.
CERES uses actual measuring devices on satellites to collect data.
Here:
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2009JD012758
I was trying to upload a graph I made from the CERES web page on TOA longwave Flux for all-sky conditions. I have not been able to do so.
If you want to be an actual scientific minded person use this web page.
https://ceres-tool.larc.nasa.gov/ord-tool/jsp/EBAFSelection.jsp
Instructions to make an all-sky TOA global longwave flux graph.
1) go to web page
2) Parameters click on TOA fluxes check Longwave Flux
3) Click Global for Spacial resolution
4) Put in your email address
5) Click “Visualize Data” button
It will generate a global graph of Longwave Flux at the TOA. It averages 240 W/m^2 or so. You are wrong and David Appell correct.
You are the one who needs to learn physics not David Appell.
Roy Spencer kindly informed you “You need to study physics”. You have still not done so but you do like to declare things as factual when they are NOT. Why do you need to do this?
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2018/07/summer-causes-climate-change-hysteria/#comment-313337
So after numerous comments, here’s where we ended up:
1) The 390 Watts/m^2 is bogus.
2) The 240 Watts/m^2 is bogus.
3) Even if the two values were realistic, the difference (150 Watts/m^2) is meaningless, since the two fluxes correspond to different temperatures, i.e., different spectra.
4) And trying to imply that the difference should be zero is pseudoscience, as fluxes are not conserved.
And predictably, the pseudoscience-loving clowns stick to their beliefs.
JDHuffman
1) Evidence? Support your declaration
2) Evidence? Support your declaration
3) Evidence? Support your declaration
4) Evidence? Support your declaration
As predicted Ge*ran (who maybe really is JDHuffman or that is just another pseudo identity but it is the same person that posted as Ge*ran in the past).
So either we have two identical people that don’t know any physics but make declarations as if they do or we have one person who pretends they are not a poster who went as an asterisk version of Ge*ran.
My points were clearly made. Your inability to understand may be a reflection on your weak background in physics.
That’s not my problem, is it?
JDHuffman
You have poor reading comprehension. This would explain why you can’t understand physics.
I did not say I could not understand you points.
It is really specific. I did not say clarify your points. I said support your declarations.
You claim;
“1) The 390 Watts/m^2 is bogus.”
I asked for supporting evidence of this statement. What evidence do you have that this value is bogus?
You like to change the “goalposts” don’t you. I suppose such tactics are effective for some.
Norman, exponents mess up averaging.
For example, two BB surfaces at 238 K and 338 K. Average temperature is 288 K, but average flux is 461 Watts/m^2. Average the temperatures first, and the flux is 390 Watts/m^2.
JDHuffman
YOU: “Norman, exponents mess up averaging.
For example, two BB surfaces at 238 K and 338 K. Average temperature is 288 K, but average flux is 461 Watts/m^2. Average the temperatures first, and the flux is 390 Watts/m^2.”
The radiant fluxes are based upon measured values and they do add and subtract arithmetically.
I gave you a link to CERES, you should generate a graph. The flux is based upon satellite measured values.
Also you can look at the graphs of surface emissions and check different locations throughout the year and you will see the 390 W/m^2 looks like a valid number. In the summer the emission is much higher, in the winter much lower. If you average the fluxes over the year you get close to the 390.
You can go to CERES link and get surface emissions. Those would be modeled but they correlate well with actual measured values. Empirical science.
Norman, the “390” is a calculated, estimated, assumed value.
CERES is only a crude effort to somehow validate their calculated, estimated, assumed values. You have to completely ignore what Massimo was telling you. You have to completely ignore reality.
Just checking a few locations means nothing. You are only validating your beliefs. You would need several thousand ground stations, properly placed, recording surface emissions for years.
And, even if the “390” were close. You’re still missing the “240”, which is even harder to verify. Then, you still have nothing because different fluxes do NOT add/subtract.
Once you measure the albedo of the Earth
https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/images/84499/measuring-earths-albedo
the 240 W/m2 number is a straightforward and trivial calculation.
DA, you keep deluding yourself because you can use a calculator. You cannot just punch in numbers and assume it is reality.
The “240 Watts/m^2” is as bogus as “CO2 can heat the planet”.
Learn some physics.
JDHuffman says:
cannot just punch in numbers and assume it is reality.
I’m not just punching in numbers, I’m using the laws of physics.
I this case, given the measured albedo, the calculation is trivial:
(1-albedo)S/4 = 240 W/m2
JDHuffman
YOU: “Just checking a few locations means nothing. You are only validating your beliefs. You would need several thousand ground stations, properly placed, recording surface emissions for years.”
Why do you think you would need this. Science is not blind empirical measurements and collection of data. It is also based upon rational logical thought process. If you have a few stations that cover different terrains (desert, forest, mountain, plains) and you get temperature and IR emissions from these you can use logic to determine what the actual values of IR emission will be at locations that you only have temperature measurements.
You can use logic to determine from a few select locations what the overall pattern and values will be. Once you establish basic relations the rest follows. I am not sure what you are gabbing about. Make some actual sense sometimes.
You are wrong about most everything you post. Why is that? What drives you to form wrong conclusions and make up stupid points?
JDHuffman
You blah blah blah but you have still not come close to supporting your declaration that the 240 W/m^2 average emitted at the TOA is bogus. You make more unsupported declarations but still will not give any proof of anything.
YOU: “CERES is only a crude effort to somehow validate their calculated, estimated, assumed values. You have to completely ignore what Massimo was telling you. You have to completely ignore reality.”
You do not support your declaration but make a new unsupported declaration. Where is your evidence or proof that the CERES numbers are wrong? Do you have some math to show us their errors? Would you provide them with your gifted knowledge so they can improve their ability to give correct information.
Will you ever support any of your unfounded declarations? If you say CERES is a crude effort show us your fantastic effort at getting much better results. Oh you can’t, that is right. You declare things and pretend they are somehow facts because you posted them on Roy’s blog but for some reason you don’t have to prove any of them. No math, no links, no logic just your declarations against the world.
Norman, instead of just more of your rambling, pointless comments, study this:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2018/07/summer-causes-climate-change-hysteria/#comment-313374
JDHuffman
And you still won’t support your declarations like that the 240 W/m^2 average IR at the TOA is bogus. You make such a declaration but won’t support it with evidence, data, math or even logic. You just declare it and I guess that means it must be true?
Norman, please stop trolling.
Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:
Why do you consider my post trolling? Are you also into making unsupported declarations?
MY POST: “JDHuffman
And you still wont support your declarations like that the 240 W/m^2 average IR at the TOA is bogus. You make such a declaration but wont support it with evidence, data, math or even logic. You just declare it and I guess that means it must be true?”
Explain what you consider to be trolling are you so one dimensional and devoid of thought that you can only post simplistic meaningless comments for no apparent reason.
No Norman, please STOP trolling.
Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:
YOU: “Norman, please stop trolling.”
I have a better suggestion:
Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says please stop posting.
The gag is old and not really clever. I scroll up to see if there is some meaningful posts and I find your stupid posts.
Get over it, you posts are not funny.
Its not a joke, Norman. Its really quite simple. I am trying to request that you please stop trolling. However, at the moment, each time I request this of you, you are only trolling harder. Again, please STOP trolling.
Wikipedia explains radiative flux:
“Radiative flux, also known as radiative flux density or radiation flux, is the amount of power radiated through a given area, in the form of photons or other elementary particles, typically measured in W/m2.”
The village idiot takes credit, and plays make believe, “As with all my students……”
********
Is Huffy able to understand the material he pretended to teach? Sadly, no:
“Massimo, you are WAY off track. The photons from lasers are NOT radiative fluxes.”
Ms Snape, I see you have nothing to add. You’re just being “stupid and ignorant”, again.
(Credit to Mike Flynn for identifying such nonsense as “stupid and ignorant”.)
Snape
You are a person trying to learn truth and valid physics. Pay no attention to the dork who used go post as Ge*ran and now goes by JDHuffman. This poster is clueless of physics and makes stupid declarations with zero support and I guess that means they must be right.
snape…”the amount of power radiated through a given area, in the form of photons or other elementary particles….”
A photon is not an elementary particle, it is an imaginary entity created to represent an imaginary particle of EM. No one knows if or can prove that photons exist.
Elementary particles are electrons, protons and neutrons, along with sub-atomic particles like neutrinos, quarks, leptons, muons, etc.
Also, a particle suggests mass and photons are ‘defined’ as having no mass. That’s because EM has no mass and the photon was invented to particalize EM.
Gordon Robertson
Sorry you are just flat out wrong in your post. No body invented photons to particalize EM! Science does not work the way you think.
There was evidence that light acted both like particles and waves and many experiments were performed to try and determine the nature of EMR. Photoelectric effect demonstrated particle like behavior, interference patterns demonstrated wave properties.
You are so far outside the world of science you have no clue how it works. You think scientists sit around (without evidence or proof of any kind) and make up stuff.
Gordon you are the one who makes up unsupported science claims based upon nothing, no test, no experiment. Just stuff you make up or “seems” correct to you. Real science does not work that way and I am sad you think it does and take the time to post such a stupid and invalid position about how science works.
I think you never studied any science at any time. If you had you would not post such nonsense as you do.
Norman, Gordon was NOT “flat out wrong”. You’re just looking for ways to attack people. For some reason, you believe you can make yourself appear smarter by attacking, insulting, and making false accusations.
Maybe see counseling, and THEN learn some physics?
JDHuffman
No Gordon is flat out wrong and that is not an attack. He is declaring false reality. You do this all the time. You declare things with zero supporting evidence and call this physics. You need the counseling, not me. And you should really learn physics. It is not a system where people make up declarations about things they think are true because it makes sense to them.
You think the Moon does not rotate on its axis and use a model train to support your fantasy. They are not the same system. You declare things and think they are true and real with zero support. That is a likely candidate for an adult with mental issues. Children like to live in a fantasy reality of their own making. Adults outgrow this need. You and Gordon have not done so.
Norman’s right — Gordon is wrong about photons, and badly so.
Gordon Robertson says:
A photon is not an elementary particle, it is an imaginary entity created to represent an imaginary particle of EM. No one knows if or can prove that photons exist.
Einstein proved that photons exist.
These days physicists manipulate them one-by-one:
“Single-Photon Source Could Help Secure Quantum Data,” Photonics.com-Jul 24, 2018.
https://www.photonics.com/Articles/Single-Photon_Source_Could_Help_Secure_Quantum/a63675
Gordon Robertson says:
Also, a particle suggests mass and photons are defined as having no mass.
Nope.
And photons are measured to have no mass, not defined.
Gordon Robertson says:
A photon is not an elementary particle….
The photon is the gauge boson of the electromagnetic force. It is as real as particles get…. Ask your pal Feynman, who came up with rules for calculating their interactions.
I realize that climate clowns have no interest/ability in understanding physics. But for anyone else, here are some necessary clarifications to their confusion:
They want to add fluxes, even though that can only be done in specialized situations. They want fluxes to add, because that ability is part of their pseudoscience. If they have enough infrared “trapped”, they believe it will heat Earth’s surface. Their beliefs are very important to them.
But, beliefs aren’t science.
As Mike Flynn mentioned above, ice emits about 300 Watts/m^2. The GHE believers hate ice, because it falsifies their false religion. It would be possible to place enough ice in a room to add up to 3000 Watts. (Remember, they believe fluxes add.) All that infrared is “trapped” in the room. So then, that 3000 Watts should keep the room really toasty-warm, in even a harsh winter.
But, then there is reality. GHE believers also hate reality.
Another indication that the climate clowns do not understand physics is their confusion between “power” and “energy”. They believe, since power and energy are related by time, that power must be conserved. They just have no clue. Energy is conserved, but not power.
A 1000 Watts motor can lift a weight, a certain height, in a time (t). The energy to lift the weight is 1000t. If t is seconds, then the energy is “Joules”.
So, to lift the weight to the height, it takes 1000 Watts and 1000t Joules.
But, to lift the weight to twice the height, it takes 1000 Watts, but 2000t Joules.
To lift the weight to 10 times the height, it takes 1000 Watts, but 10,000t Joules.
The higher the weight is lifted, the more energy it takes, but the power remains the same.
Energy “adds”, but power doesn’t. Energy is conserved, but power isn’t.
That’s just one more thing the clowns don’t understand.
JDHuffman
Are you serious? Or is this post a joke?
Power is most definitely conserved! If you want 1000 watts to flow through your motor you have to supply 1000 watts. If you supply 800 watts you will not be able to use 1000 watts.
Since you brought up an example of outside radiant energy I will finally end your attack on science with all your unsupported declarations.
You claim power does not add. Fluxes do not add?
Take a 6 piston car engine. Each piston can generate a maximum power output. But each piston can add power to the overall engine. 6 pistons generating maximum power will each add to the overall power of the engine. Sorry you need to study physics. I don’t think you even know what you are trying to say about power and energy or fluxes adding.
Have you tried to take two lights, one mostly visible the other IR and shine them on a surface that can absorb both bands? Let me know if you ever do some real scientific work. I will be amazed.
Norman, I’m guessing you do not understand what “is conserved” means.
In my example, the motor lifts the weight to 10 times the original height. The energy “conserved” is 10,000t Joules. If there were no losses, the energy is “conserved” in the potential energy of the weight at its new height. The energy is retrievable. That’s what “is conserved” means.
But, you’re really good at denying reality, so go for it.
JDHuffman
I think you are the one who does not understand the 1st Law of thermodynamics.
If you use water as an analogy for energy. Gallons would be joules. power would be gallons/sec like watts are joules/sec.
You can move a quantity of water around and have a flow but you have the same amount.
If you have a power, a flow of energy, some source must provide those joules. In a motor a source has to lose energy to the motor to lift the weight. The amount of energy does not change only its form or position change. Power does not violate the 1st Law of thermodynamics. If you have a flow of energy you must have a source that is losing the amount of energy you are using. Not sure what screwy physics you are trying to peddle. Less sure of what your motive is. One thing is certain. As Ge*ran you never supported even one of your screwy ideas and as JDHuffman you still will not support even one of your screwy ideas.
You declare but do not support.
Norman, that’s just another mindless, rambling comment. You don’t even know what to say, so you just start rambling.
Energy is conserved, power is NOT conserved.
You and DA need to learn some physics.
JDHuffman
It is not DA or me that need to learn physics. You should learn what the 1st Law of thermodynamics is about. Energy is neither created nor destroyed, there is a fixed amount. It can change form but it will have the same quantity.
Do you think power is magic? It is a flow of energy. It is not making more energy because it is power. Energy is conserved. If you have a flow of energy it has to have a source. So as you use this energy the source is depleted. Not sure why you make this difficult.
Norman, please stop trolling.
Norman, you’re right — JDHuffman is G*. (Full spelling banned.) They have the same obsessions, like the 240 & 390 W/m2 numbers are one of them, and they resort to insults in the same way and with the same words.
Ask him whether the Sun can heat the Earth to 800,000 K in a billion years if the Earth has no way to shed heat….
DA, anything to cover up your failures in physics, huh?
Did your hero ever tell you to “learn some physics”?
Well, if he didn’t, he should have.
But I never mentioned Pierrehumbert’s name in my comment above….
And “hero” is a word G* often used to refer to RP when I brought him up.
Caught red-handed!
JDHuffman = Ger*an
You can twist my words as well as you can twist physics.
“Your hero” was in reference to your “G*”.
Learn some physics.
Also like Ger*an, you always have to have the last word.
Okay DA, if you grant me the last say, I say:
“Learn some physics”.
Now that I know you’re G*, you will go back to being dismissed ignored.
David, please stop trolling.
JD…”A 1000 Watts motor can lift a weight, a certain height, in a time (t)”.
Motors are usually rated in horsepower based on their full load current (FLA). 1 HP = 746 watts, so you have about a 1.5 HP motor there.
Interesting derivation here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horsepower
As usual, the HP has gone metric (735 watts). I am getting tired of the European Union and it’s silliness.
JDHuffman
You really really need to learn what a view factor is. At this time you are very clueless and your posts make you look like a dork. Do you want to look like a clueless dork? I hope not.
If you have enough space to add ice that will emit 3000 watts you also have a large enough area that will emit much more energy. Ge*ran your big problem is you can only see one part of radiant energy transfer at a time. You either see only emission or the amount absorbed. You are not capable of seeing two processes going on at the same time.
I guess you could not understand what is going on with your backyard swimming pool. You keep adding water but the level does not go up. You have a leak but your brain cannot put the relationship together, yes you are adding but there is a leak removing at the same time.
You were a dork when you posted as Ge*ran and you are still a dork as JDHuffman. You tell everyone to learn physics, well dork I did, why don’t you go learn some instead of making your dork declarations.
Norman, now your commenting has deteriorated from mindless rambling to mindless rambling, AND juvenile insults.
Learn some physics and grow up.
(Is this just a Grinvalds flaw, or is everyone in Yutan like this?)
Hi Norman,
even if I’ve been away for a long because of some personal issues, I’m still read this nice blog almost on daily base.
I hope you are fine.
you wrote “I think the satellite measurements will cover the globe as they move over it. I do not think the energy at a tangent will be much different than the energy at Nadir. ”
You think and many other here think so, but it seems to me that many don’t realize that the satellites do power measurement by the single fluxes at nadir, the returned power flux could be not homogeneous (which it is indeed, the radiation at the tangent of the atmosphere has a spectrum complementary to the one at the nadir, see file:///C:/Users/user/Desktop/11-5-2-PB.pdf on page 6 at the top-left of the page, it’s the second graph from top, in that case you can’t rely on that simple measurement at nadir.
Just to say an IR thermometer measurement is valid for short distance or in case of vacuum between the target and the thermometer. For longer distance and in presence of IR active media between the target and the thermometer the flux measurement is useless. In that case you must know before how the IR active media behave on the IR radiation. The target equilibrium temperature could be the same with and without the IR active media, but the thermometer measurement (the flux) is different despite the very same energy exits the target indeed.
I hope I’ve been clear, please forgive me, but I’ve really great problems trying to express my thoughts in English, that’s also the real reason I write less in so trafficked threads.
Have a great day.
Massimo
Thanks Massimo for this very informative post.
Hi Bibindon,
Please take anything I write considering that I’m just an electronic engineer, not an expert in the field.
Have a great day.
Massimo
Hi Massimo
Please consider in turn that all you write sounds much more experienced than the garbage outed by some boasters visiting this site.
Hi Bibindon.
Even if I wished you were wrong, I must agree. Sigh!
I’m here from a long time and unluckily I must admit that I experienced a sensitive degradation of the discussion in this blog.
Anyway I comprehend Dr. Spencer that must leave anyone tell their point of view because he surely would be appealed as a censor in case he limited the free of speech of some extremists on both the sides.
I hope that things will return to the same level of few years ago.
Have a great day.
Massimo
Massimo PORZIO
I think your link is for your own computer, it has a C drive.
Can you get a link to the internet for that page. I would like to read up on it. Thanks.
Sorry Norman,
I feel like an idiot, I didn’t see that the link copied the pdf into my PC main HD and the browser opened it from that place!
Here is the link:
http://assfts14.ifac.cnr.it/index.php/assfts14/assfts14/paper/view/11/2
Have a great day.
Massimo
Norman,
I tried more and more to post about a nice sim-ula-tor (it’s more than an year that sometimes I try but everytime the post fails).
Just let me how to give you it and I’ll send it to you.
Massimo….good to hear from you again.
At your link the IR measuring device is claimed to be a Fourier transform spectrometer. The moment I see Fourier transform wrt measurement, I think synthetic. Fourier transforms are generally used to synthesize waveforms by adding the mathematical series representing the waveform.
For example, a square wave can be constructed from sine and cosine waves using the harmonics in the series that comprise the whole.
In the wiki article on the Fourier transform spectrometer they have this to say:
***
“This process is repeated many times. Afterwards, a computer takes all this data and works backwards to infer how much light there is at each wavelength.
To be more specific, between the light source and the detector, there is a certain configuration of mirrors that allows some wavelengths to pass through but blocks others (due to wave interference). The beam is modified for each new data point by moving one of the mirrors; this changes the set of wavelengths that can pass through.
As mentioned, computer processing is required to turn the raw data (light intensity for each mirror position) into the desired result (light intensity for each wavelength)”.
***
Note the first paragraph, ‘… to INFER how much light is at each wavelength’. In the last paragraph they reveal that computer processing is required for the raw data. That means an equation like S-B is being applied to INFER the intensity of light at each frequency.
None of this data is acquired in real time by an instrument actually measuring the IR. That’s because they cannot measure it in real time since the various frequency bands overlie each other.
We are talking guesstimates.
Also, not the vertical axis in the graph at you link. they are in W/m^2 but each measurement is well under a watt. Normally they just rate them in MILLIwatts.
All in all, there is insignificant power involved. Even integrated over the IR notch, it does not amount to a hill of beans.
What else would one expect from a gas making up 0.04% of the atmosphere?
Hi Gordon,
yes I very well know how FFT works (In 1997 I designed a real time FFT DOS SW for the digital oscilloscope of a big US company, they still have it on their web site here https://www.tek.com/oscilloscope/tds210-software/dos-program-display-fft)
In that context I experienced the disgrace of fight against the phantom images using different signal windowing.
About the specific case of the UV/Vis/IR FFT spectrometers: yes, as you wrote they apply the FFT to the so called Michelson’s interferogram. In the Michelson’s interferometer the moving of the mirror is sampled and acquired simultaneously to the target detector power signal and this kind of operation produces aliasing, and consequent signal ghosting too. If a good windowing DSP algorithm is not applied during the post-processing (before the FFT algorithm) that could be an issue.
About the tiny power of that graph, I noticed of course.
But I just highlight you that that is just one view at the tangent of the atmosphere, the whole half spherical outgoing path of energy for each TOA point should be accumulated and integrated to get the effective outgoing radiation. Not so little indeed.
Have a great day in the Canadian new tropical climate.
(sarcasm intended of course, you should hear what the news say these days about your country climate).
Massimo
@ M Porzio …I would say that you do a very good job at expressing your thoughts, especially as English is not your primary language.
Thank you,
but you are too good with me.
: – )
Have a great day.
Massimo
Meanwhile, while the slow learners dribble and drool in their ignorance:
Climate change. It’s here. It’s catastrophic.
This month alone:
— ’50 dead’ in Greece wildfires
— Arctic Circle ablaze
— Japan heatwave, flooding and landslides kill hundreds
— Record temperatures in Algeria, Morocco, Oman
— Drought squeezes US lemons
https://twitter.com/BBCJamesCook/status/1021652233543331841
Myki, very good. Keep us posted. You can’t be too careful.
I’ve even heard Northern Hemisphere temperatures might plummet in the next few months.
Will it never end?
M,
You seem to be confused. Climate is the average of weather – that is, the average of historically recorded numbers. No more, no less.
The notion that an average can magically influence the numbers from which it is derived, is shared by people who are stupid, ignorant, deluded, or all three. Believers in a GHE which cannot even be defined, are unlikely to be convinced they are suffering from a mental deficit.
The Pastafarian belief in the Flying Spaghetti Monster is just as valid – but the Pastafarians understand their belief is religious, unlike GHE true believers.
Be as religious as you like. If your beliefs neither break my leg nor pick my pocket (in the words of Thomas Jefferson), where’s the harm? If you expect the taxpayers to support your religion, you will eventually be disappointed.
Pray away.
Cheers.
Mike,
You seem confused. The notion that the numbers that go into an average can influence that average is shared by mathematically literate people everywhere. You have reversed cause and effect in Myki’s post — a most basic sort of misunderstanding!
Tim is the one that has it reversed.
@ Flynn …+10
Those are all weather events. I think that there are signs of an ongoing shift in the climate, but it does not show up as individual localized events.
These endless threads have a simple explanation. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
I will leave the endless discussion of who are the examples of the D-K effect to others. 🙂
Tim, please stop trolling.
Tim…from your link…”In the field of psychology, the DunningKruger effect is a cognitive bias in which people of low ability have illusory superiority and mistakenly assess their cognitive ability as greater than it is”.
I wonder what Dunning-Kruger would say about observers who see their own faults in others through a delusion?
I mean, you are adamant that heat does not exist and you are likely thinking how stupid are the 99.9% of us who KNOW it exists.
In your world, heat is a transfer of energy but you don’t specify that the energy being transferred is heat. Therefore, heat to you, by definition, is a transfer of heat.
Talk about illusory superiority.
“Cloud formation and distribution follows simple thermodynamic, statistical laws”
“Clouds are exceptionally complex creatures, and that complexity makes it difficult to predict how and where they’ll formwhich is unfortunate, since those predictions are essential to understanding precipitation patterns and how our climate will change in the future.”
“They’re part of a vertical conveyor belt, lifting hot buoyant air up to an altitude where the heat can be easily radiated into the cold blackness of space.”
“That uncertainty can be seen in the range of values of climate sensitivity, or the temperature response to a doubling of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Current projections say the increase could be between 1.5 and 4.5 degrees Celsius. It’s difficult to pin it down much more than that because of the problem of understanding the role of clouds and precipitation in a changing climate.”
“‘This is quite speculative,’ Garrett says, ‘but the suggestion of our study is that cloud-climate feedbacks may be small, because tropical clouds will rearrange themselves in a warmer climate so as to continue their currently low impact on surface temperatures.’ In other words, while the total amount of cloud cover may go up, the proportions of cloud sizes at different altitudes likely won’t change much. If this model is proven out, climate scientists may be able to breathe a little easier knowing that clouds likely won’t be amplifying global warming.
‘If these cloud feedbacks are smaller than previously expected,’ Garrett says, ‘the Earth may not warm as fast as our worst fears.'”
https://phys.org/news/2018-07-cloud-formation-simple-thermodynamic-statistical.html
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1029/2018JD028803
This is quite speculative, Garrett says….
Mars average surface temperature is around -60 C and Mars tropics has average temperature of about 10 K warmer than global temperature.
One could ask, how could increase the Mars surface temperature.
Another similar question is, if Mars has ocean [and Mars may have liquid ocean water billions of years ago] how warm can the average temperature of the ocean be?
It seems as general starting point to both questions is that for Mars to have a higher average temperature, the Mars surface has to absorb more of the energy of sunlight.
One might ask, how much is Mars absorbing, currently?
I am not sure, but seems like it not absorbing much sunlight.
And our Moon also absorbs far less sunlight than Earth does.
Earth seems to absorb 240 watts and emits 240 watts on average. Of course it is not absorbing sunlight on night side of the planet- so average it’s absorbing on sunlit side of planet, is twice 240 watts, 480 watts.
And on sunlit side a portion of sunlit side absorbs more energy, so is absorbing more than 480 watt while other portions are absorbing less than 480 watts.
With harvesting solar energy whether it’s PV panels or solar thermal energy, there is a general concept called peak solar hours, and on average this time period is 3 hours before noon and 3 hours after noon. So during peak solar hours the surface could/would absorb the most amount of solar energy.
So average daylight hours is 12 hours, 6 are peak hours and 6 are non peak hours. But you on a sphere and in terms of area they are not equal, or you have far more surface area which is in non peak hours on sunlight side of the planet.
Rather simple 6 hours peak hour rule, one say peak hours are longest time periods in which the sun is closest to Zenith.
The tropics are only place in which at some time period, the sun can reach zenith [and it’s at noon] or the sun is at 90 degree. And it will be a 12 hour day of day and night and each 15 degrees the sun travels will be 1 hour. 9 am sun at 45 degree, noon 90 degrees and 3 pm at 45 degrees. And outside tropics you longer daylight hours during summer and could have more time in which sun is above 45 degree [or only 45 degrees or less from zenith].
Or if in polar region during summer the sun remains in sky but it remains lower on horizon and you can not collect much energy despite having much longer days. And one is assuming you pointing a solar collector at the Sun and with a level surface absorbing far less energy.
And part of this is because the sunlight has to go thru more atmosphere when lower in horizon- far from zenith.
Or with Mars and it’s lack of atmosphere, you would not have this 6 hours of peak solar power- if sun is in the sky and pointing a collector at it, you get the same amount as would when sun is at zenith. Of course in terms of planetary surface, the surface doesn’t do this pointing at sun- it’s fixed and mostly or roughly, level.
Anyhow if have level ground, the ground will absorb most amount of sunlight near equator or in tropics [whether Earth or Mars]. And the tropical ocean on Earth [less 40% of entire earth surface] absorbs more than 50% of the sunlight reaching Earth’s surface.
And because Earth has tropical ocean [and also ocean elsewhere] the Earth surface absorbs a lot of sunlight.
The tropical ocean is heat engine of the world and due to the fact that it is heat engine, it is a warming effect, or it increases the average global temperature.
Or a tropics without a ocean, would be much less of what one could call a heat engine of the world- a hot tropics without having a ocean is not causing region outside the tropics to be much warmer.
gbaikie says, July 24, 2018 at 7:31 AM:
Nope. Mars average surface temperature is around -70 C. That’s according to consistent multiyear global satellite measurements.
Which means that T_s on Mars is about 8K lower than its T_e. A negative “GHE” as defined, that is. Even with ~26 times (!) as many CO2 molecules to ‘capture’ outgoing IR as on Earth in each cubic metre of ‘air’ above the surface.
If Mars average global temperature is -70 C.
[And I assume that temperature of the ground rather a meter or two above the ground- the temperature 1 foot above ground is quite different than 3 feet or as we do on Earth 5 feet in white box.]
Then, what average temperature of region between 25 degree north and south latitude [Mars “tropics”]?
Which I believe you said before was about -50 C
“Which means that T_s on Mars is about 8K lower than its T_e. A negative GHE as defined, that is. Even with ~26 times (!) as many CO2 molecules to capture outgoing IR as on Earth in each cubic metre of air above the surface.”
Mars has very thin atmosphere, and since need a spacesuit or pressure suit to breath, one could simply call it a poor vacuum- unlike the Moon which has a pretty good vacuum [or better than the vacuum the ISS flies thru in Low Earth orbit].
Anyhow I think if Mars had 10 times the amount of atmosphere it has now [add 10 times 25 trillion tonnes of gas], it would have “more” of greenhouse effect. Though one still would need a spacesuit to breathe and it still could be a poor vacuum- or less air the airliner fly thru everyday on Earth.
And what mean by greenhouse effect is having less difference of temperature- warmer nights and warmer winters.
So count a warmer polar region as a greenhouse effect, and since it snows lots of CO2 and water vapor at pole, this causes a warming effect.
But like clouds, the snow also has cooling effect- polar region will be cooler in summer. And I would guess this less warm polar region during summer could related to this measured “8K lower temperature”.
gbaikie says, July 26, 2018 at 11:16 AM:
Of course it would! The point is, though, that you could add 10 times 25 trillion tonnes of pure NITROGEN gas, and it would still have “more” of greenhouse effect.
IOW, it is the TOTAL amount of gas molecules in each given volume of ‘air’ that determines the air’s insulative effect, not the amount of IR-active gas molecules. Denser air simply insulates better because it is better at retaining energy transferred to it as heat, and NON-radiative gases are the best.
Yep, but nitrogen might be expensive. [difficult to get trillion of tonnes of it at Mars- and probably want the nitrogen to make plant fertilizer].
40 % of mass Earth, Moon, or Mars crust is Oxygen, so oxygen due to it’s abundance might be cheaper than Nitrogen.
And it seems to me if added CO2, one just get more CO2 freezing out at poles and elsewhere.
But if wanted a white Mars, just add Co2.
N2, oxygen, argon or other gases, seems like it might inhibit or be buffer against CO2 freezing out.
JDHuffman
You declare: “No, because radiative fluxes dont add.”
So what is your proof that they do not add? What is the source of this declaration? Do you have some math, some document, some experiment to prove this declaration?
I have given you a simple experiment that proves you don’t know what you are talking about. You won’t do it though.
Take a highly absorbing material to visible and IR energy. Aim a visible light LED (mostly visible) at the surface of the material and then turn on an IR heat lamp also aimed at this surface and let me know what you come up with. Until then you are just the very clown that you think posters that know real science are.
Norman, there is NO evidence that you want to see reality. You try to find special materials to make it appear fluxes add. You try to find exceptions to make the rule.
You avoid reality.
If you really wanted to learn, the example of ice should convince you. You can not warm a room with walls of ice. But, you will try to pervert that simple example by saying if the room were “in deep space, at 3 K”, then the ice would be heating. Yes, but that’s not the point. You can’t heat a room, in your house, in winter, with walls of ice (20 square meters) emitting 300 Watts/m^2, or 6000 Watts total. Because radiative fluxes do NOT add.
But, you will find a way to wiggle around that. That’s what you do.
You avoid reality.
Igloos seem to work, -45 C outside, +15 C inside.
Anonymous Ms Svante provides a perfect example of the “avoiding reality” I was talking about.
Ms Svante, please give us the “energy budget” for your igloo. With temps -45 C outside, where did you get the energy to raise the inside to +15 C? Please account for all energy flows and temperatures in your fantasy scenario.
It will get warmer than -45 C by itself, it will assume the temperature that prevails under the snow.
“The coldest temperatures in winter occur right at the snow’s surface, especially on a clear winter night. The farther you move above or below the snow surface, the warmer it gets.”
Ms Svante believes she has solved her dilemma. She’s found some heat!
She doesn’t realize she just verified that 6000 Watts from 20 square meters of ice could NOT warm the igloo. She had to rely on geothermal!
Radiative fluxes do NOT add, boys and girls.
Dear Mrs Huffman,
The surface is coldest because of its radiation deficit with space.
A snow roof will warm your igloo, or use ice if you prefer.
Are you going to address the “energy budget”, or run from it?
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2018/07/summer-causes-climate-change-hysteria/#comment-313540
Mrs Huffman,
You say there is no GHE, so the surface is losing energy straight to space, which is near 0 K.
Emissivity of snow is about 0.85. The surface is -45 C / 228 K.
Surface flux to space єσT^4 is
0.85 * 5.67 * 10^-8 W/m^2/K^4 * 228 K^4 = 130 W/m^2
For equilibrium, the surface obtains the same amount from below.
Now build your igloo.
The roof will equilibrate with the surface at 255K.
The ceiling will initially be of the same temperature.
Now the room has 130 W/m^2 from below and 130 W/m^2 from the ceiling.
The room will warm up unless the ceiling temperature drops to 2.7 K.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2018/07/summer-causes-climate-change-hysteria/#comment-314149
Days later, Svante sneaks with in her response, possibly hoping no one will notice. This is a trick common among trolls.
But, she can’t decide what the surface temperature is.
“The surface is -45 C / 228 K.”
“The roof will equilibrate with the surface at 255K.”
But, it doesn’t matter. She isn’t addressing the fact that 6000 Watts (more if you add her floor) can NOT raise the temperature of the igloo.
Radiative fluxes do NOT add.
Lucky I didn’t use “255K” in the calculation then.
Which is better then in your world of no GHE?
An igloo ceiling at -45C, or space at 2.7K?
Svante, please stop trolling.
JDHuffman
Wrong again. You can certainly warm a room with walls of ice it if the ice is warmer than the surroundings it is blocking.
Fluxes add and you have no supporting evidence that they do not. You have stupid points about things you can’t grasp like Field of View. The really sad thing is I have linked you to good reading material on the subject so you can understand this concept. You would rather make absurd declarations based upon nothing rather than learn real physics. The one denying reality is you. You avoid it at all cost.
If the ice is emitting 6000 watts total what are the walls emitting? You have to do better than just state the total emission of ice. If the walls can absorb all 6000 watts how much are they themselves emitting? You really should do better with examples. It shows a lazy attitude on your part when you only give partial data to a problem.
Prove that radiative fluxes don’t add, you ice example is not a proof, it is a stupid point that deals only in partial data.
Yes Grinvalds, you’re wrong again. And, you will continue to be wrong, as long as you avoid reality. You can’t deal with the simple example of ice, so you run to excuses. Anything to avoid reality, huh?
I’m still laughing at your inability to admit you were wrong saying CO2 emits more to the surface than to space. Caught red-handed, all you could admit to was something like you “were not clear”.
No, Mr. “Avoid Reality”, you were “clear”, clearly WRONG!
JDHuffman
I do stand by my original statement. I was unclear and went on to make it clear.
Here is the facts. The CO2, near the Earth’s surface (is warmer than CO2 at the Top of the Troposphere) emits more IR towards the surface than the colder CO2, found at the TOA, emits to space. I did not make that point clear. I do not think I am wrong at all but actually quite correct.
If you think I am wrong explain, using real physics, how CO2 at a higher temperature, will not emit more IR?
I can easily deal with your ice examples. They are just very incomplete descriptions to the point of being meaningless.
If you understand View Factor. the highest number is 1. That means an object will absorb all the energy it can from the surrounding object. If you have a 1 meter square surface, it can only absorb the energy equivalent of a one square meter surface. If you have a 100 m^2 ice surface facing a 1 m^2 surface all but 1 m^2 of the ice surface emission will reach the object. If you learn view factors you would understand this.
You can do another experiment that will help you understand fluxes add. Take a 10 m^2 surface and have it face a 1 m^2 heated surface. Get a steady state temperature reading. Now add another 1 m^2 surface to the first and you will see the fluxes add, each time you add another m^2 surface you will increase the temperature of your 10 m^2 surface up until you are limited by view factor. The 10 m^2 surface will not absorb more than 10 m^2 worth of energy regardless of how many square meters you add. This will sound like nonsense to you until you read up on view factor. Then you will understand your errors. Until then I am not hoping for much from you.
Norman, you have run out of tricks. You can’t hide behind “view factors” or bringing in a heat source.
You have 6000 Watts (“adding” flux from 20 sq. m of ice) and no additional heat source. Outside temperatures are -10C. Now, show how you 6000 Watts is going to warm your house to 25 C.
You can’t!
All you can do is deny reality.
JDHuffman says:
“I’m still laughing at your inability to admit you were wrong saying….”
Said just like Ge*ran, who very often wrote that he was “laughing” at people.
JDHuffman = Ge*ran
And it wasn’t even that difficult to figure out. Good job, Norman.
DA, you would be amazed at how many people are laughing at you.
Learn some physics.
JDHuffman
Why would I try to show that ice will warm your house to 25 C?
Give me a number for the emitting surface of the house and I will let you know how it works. You can have 6000 Watts, now how much is being emitted by the house to the colder outside air?
Are you adding any form of heat to your house?
You also realize that ice will cool the same as any other object. If you do not continually add 6000 watts of energy to the ice it will cool and add less and less energy until it reaches the outdoor temperature of -10 C.
Again, I will try and explain view factors (I really don’t know why you won’t read up on this topic).
If you have 30,000 square meters of ice and a 1 m^2 plate near it, the 1 m^2 plate will only absorb an equivalent of 1 m^2 surface from the 30,000 square meter wall of ice. You are not talking about fluxes adding here. You are talking about fluxes concentrating from a large area onto a small one.
How is that lens that focuses the diffuse light from a fog coming along for you? Have you been able to concentrate the light from a fog with your camera?
Norman, Ms Svante has run off, so let’s borrow her scenario.
The structure is a dome-shaped ice igloo, with 20 m^2 interior, not including floor. The floor is perfectly insulated so that there is no heat transfer through the floor. The outside air temperature is -2 C. There are no heat sources. The igloo has no doors or windows.
Ice at -2 C (271 K) emits about 300 Watts/m^2, or 6000 Watts total, inside the igloo, for those that believe radiative fluxes add.
A thermometer is in the middle of the igloo. With 6000 Watts of “heating”, how long before the thermometer indicates 0 C (increases 2 degrees C)?
(Let’s see how many diversions, distractions, denials, obfuscations and mis-directions you can come up with. I’ll be counting.)
JDHuffman
Now that you have given more details. The ice emits 6000 watts of total energy and at the same time the surface of the ice also absorbs 6000 watts of energy. What you have is an constant exchange of energy within the igloo. The same amount of energy that is being emitted is being absorbed. The net effect is zero heat exchange.
I can’t see any correlation with your igloo and proof that fluxes do not add.
Here will be a way for you to understand view factor and how it works.
http://web.mit.edu/16.unified/www/FALL/thermodynamics/notes/fig11ViewFactorsAlignedParallelRectangles_web.jpg
With two plates as the ratio of the length of one side increases relative to the distance separating them, the view factor approaches one.
So you have two identical square plates with the length of a side at one meter. The plates are separated by a millimeter. The ration is 1000 so the view factor is very close to one. Only small losses at the edges.
Call the plates A and B. Now add plate C (made of the same material and same size). Move C in place, on top of B, so that B and C have double the area facing A. What do you see about where the radiant energy of C will go. You can understand all but a tiny fraction will not reach the surface of plate A. If you would understand view factor it will explain easily why increasing the area of one surface will have little change on the other surface radiant energy reception.
Fluxes add. You have not come close to proving that they do not.
Grinvalds, you were able to get diversions, distractions, denials, obfuscations and mis-directions all into one comment! Amazing.
But, you finally did manage to stumble onto the correct answer. The 6000 Watts does NOT “heat” the system. Because, in REALITY, there is no “6000 Watts”. Fluxes don’t add. There is NO new energy added to the system, so temperatures do NOT increase.
JDHuffman
YOU: “Grinvalds, you were able to get diversions, distractions, denials, obfuscations and mis-directions all into one comment! Amazing.”
I would like you to explain in more detail on what in my post fits any of your false and made up accusations.
What is a distraction? Denial? Obfuscations?
I described view factor to you. It is necessary for you to grasp this concept in dealing with you examples.
Anyway, it is easy to write some words out. What meaning do your words have?
Again, making declarations is not proving something!!
YOU: “But, you finally did manage to stumble onto the correct answer. The 6000 Watts does NOT “heat” the system. Because, in REALITY, there is no “6000 Watts”. Fluxes don’t add. There is NO new energy added to the system, so temperatures do NOT increase.”
You keep stating fluxes don’t add. Actual reality shows you are wrong. Nate has demonstrated it to you. You turn on more lights and you can see more. Each light adds energy to the room. It is reality. Your declarations that fluxes do not add is ridiculous and unfounded. Just a fantasy of yours. You will never prove it or support it, but it is likely, if you keep posting, that you will repeat it, false as it is. Make up more stuff, it is what you do.
JDHuffman
Your point lacks logical thought process.
YOU: ” Because, in REALITY, there is no 6000 Watts. Fluxes dont add. There is NO new energy added to the system, so temperatures do NOT increase.”
Yes there is 6000 watts emitted by the ice. That is a reality. I have zero clue what type of nonsense you are peddling. It certainly lack rational or logical thought process and is totally unscientific. It is so bad I would not label it as pseudoscience (since it even lacks that). More like made up fantasy.
Fluxes add, turn on a couple lights in your house and notice if you can see better. Your arguments are very poor quality. I would say your declarations are from a provocative troll who wants some type of reaction. I am hoping you are not dumb enough to think your room will not get brighter if you turn on more lights. I am not sure even Gordon Robertson would agree with you on this one.
Grinvalds, your long dis-jointed comments are nothing more than diversions, distractions, denials, obfuscations and mis-directions.
If you can pose a responsible, coherent question, one at a time, I will try to answer.
Otherwise, you’re just practicing your typing skills.
Simplified igloo scenario here:
https://tinyurl.com/ycehdp2w
Huffy
“A thermometer is in the middle of the igloo. With 6000 Watts of heating, how long before the thermometer indicates 0 C (increases 2 degrees C)?”
That might be the dumbest question I’ve ever seen on this blog. Why would you think those 6000 watts would be focused on the thermometer?? Unbelievable.
Take Norman’s advice and read about view factors. Preferably, “view factors for nitwits”.
But Ms Snape, all that “heat” is “trapped” in the igloo. Where does all that 6000 Watts go?
Who said anything about focusing? The sky doesn’t “focus”.
Are you admitting your GHE is nonsense?
Huffy
Ok. I’m glad I misunderstood your intent.
In any case, you are trying to prove that “fluxes don’t add” by thinking up situations where fluxes don’t add. Doesn’t work like that.
If I claimed, “there is no such thing as a spotted dog, I could point to a million dogs that don’t have spots, and it wouldn’t prove anything. I would still be wrong.
No Ms Snape, it DOES work like that. The usual clowns are trying to say that radiative fluxes add. All I have to do to prove them wrong is present one example.
I have presented numerous examples. But you, and the other clowns refuse to accept reality.
To put it in terms you might be able to understand, I have produced several “spotted dogs” to contradict your claim that there are no spotted dogs.
Anymore stupid comments?
Snape,
You are dealing with the same troll who previously posted as Ge*ran. The same one that thinks the Moon does not rotate on its axis because of a toy train example.
He probably does have some intelligence (which you will not see in any of his posts) but is so obsessed being a provocative troll he really does not care about anything except trying to get reactions from people. He comes up with Snarky nicknames to call people.
He assumes identity about them with zero facts. It is best to ignore them if you can. I remember ignoring stupid Ge*ran but he jumped in many of my posts anyway. Ge*ran as JDHuffman will do the same.
Norman, you are trolling again. Please try to stop.
Grinvalds, thanks for the accolades, but I don’t really consider myself intelligent. I just prefer reality. To a lot of people, that just looks intelligent.
It’s kind of like your hero, G*. Using a toy train to explain the Moon’s motion was brilliant. But, he may have just lucked out. Just as Ms Svante lucked out with her brilliant scenario of the igloo. What a perfect way to illustrate radiative fluxes don’t add.
Often it’s hard to distinguish luck from brilliance. But, reality is always just reality.
Simplified igloo scenario here:
https://tinyurl.com/ycehdp2w
Huffy
“Ice at -2 C (271 K) emits about 300 Watts/m^2, or 6000 Watts total, inside the igloo, for those that believe radiative fluxes add.”
Let’s imagine the ice is only a few inches thick, and relativity clear, like an icicle.
Suddenly the sun comes out from behind a large cloud, and shines upon the ice. A lot of the energy gets reflected or absorbed, but perhaps 100 w/m^2 makes it into the igloo’s interior.
If you are sitting inside, facing the sun, are you receiving:
a) 300 w/m^2
b) 100 w/m^2
c) 400 w/m^2
Why Ms Snape, your fellow clowns will be very disappointed. You left out the answer they would choose: 6100 Watts/m^2
(Also, you have reached the maximum allowed for stupid comments.)
norman….”Gordon Robertson
Sorry you are just flat out wrong in your post. No body invented photons to particalize EM! Science does not work the way you think.
There was evidence that light acted both like particles and waves and many experiments were performed to try and determine the nature of EMR. Photoelectric effect demonstrated particle like behavior, interference patterns demonstrated wave properties.”
********
Your reference to the photoelectric effect and particles reveals your lack of understanding in that area. The particles in question are electrons, which are set free from their orbitals when they absorb EM of a certain frequency.
The photon is defined as a particle of EM that has momentum and no mass. A particle by definition is a tiny mass. There goes the reality of photons.
Get it straight, Norman, photons are an invention. No one has ever seen one or measured its mass because it has no mass. Therefore it is not a particle.
Calling it a quantum of energy is equally vague. What exactly is a quantum? It can have different frequencies and different intensities, hardly a precise scientific definition.
How can a particle have a frequency?
Hi Norman
As has been pointed out many times, and by many different posters, Huffy and Gordon suffer from the DunningKruger syndrome. Their cases are particularly severe…..to the point of being comical. Like Inspector Clouseau or Don Quixote.
And yes, I’m guilty of “feeding the trolls”. It’s a bad habit, seems to make their condition worse!
Snape, please stop trolling.
Many points were made here:
1) The 390 Watts/m^2 is bogus.
2) The 240 Watts/m^2 is bogus.
3) Even if the two values were realistic, the difference (150 Watts/m^2) is meaningless, since the two fluxes correspond to different temperatures, i.e., different spectra.
4) And trying to imply that the difference should be zero is pseudoscience, as fluxes are not conserved.
And 3) and 4) combine to:
5) Radiative fluxes do not add, arithmetically.
The funniest example explaining 5) was presented by Ms Svante. An igloo, with 20 square meters of ice walls, emits 6000 Watts, if added arithmetically. But, the 6000 Watts can not warm the igloo.
The funniest counter-example was three 1000 Watts lightbulbs lighting a surface. They believe the surface would then have 3000 Watts! They had no clue about how flux is emitted, or the inverse square law.
Clowns can be so funny.
JDHuffman
Does “so funny” = hilarious?
You are getting closer to using your favorite word. Maybe to disguise yourself you will stick to “so funny” instead of hilarious.
Isn’t that a hilarious thing to do?
JDHuffman
YOU: “1) The 390 Watts/m^2 is bogus.”
You still have not supported your declaration. As it stands your declarations are uninformed opinions based upon nothing.
YOU: “2) The 240 Watts/m^2 is bogus.”
You still have not supported your declaration. As it stands your declarations are uninformed opinions based upon nothing.
YOU: “5) Radiative fluxes do not add, arithmetically.”
Okay so you admit now they do add in some fashion. How do they add? If you turn on one light that emits 100 watts of radiant flux and then turn on another one that emits the same value, what is your total radiant flux (not radiative flux). If you have 100 watts from one source and add another do you have more flux (more watts)? Or does it stay at 100 watts. Please explain your view.
JDHuffman
Let us finally put an end to your nonsense that radiant or radiative fluxes do not add.
Radiant flux is in Watts emitted by a source
Radiative flux is in Watts/m^2 emitted by a source.
For the nature of this experiment (which you can do) it would not matter which flux you used, the results would be the same.
Get a box and paint the interior with a paint that absorbs EMR very well at most bands. Put a lot of light bulbs inside that have switches outside that you control. Have some IR bulbs others visible.
Now close off the box and put a thermometer on the outside. Turn on one light and get a reading. Now turn on other lights inside the box and see if the temperature goes up. If it does, radiant fluxes add. If the temperature does not change, then you are correct. Please do the experiment and show you have a little scientific ability.
I look forward to your results.
Grinvalds, you’ve made 3 comments–7:41, 7:57, and 8:13.
None of them obeyed the rule:
“If you can pose a responsible, coherent question, one at a time, I will try to answer.
Otherwise, you’re just practicing your typing skills.”
(Hint: Refer to the radiative flux at a surface. Youre just confusing yourself with radiant flux. It just further verifies you dont understand radiative heat transfer.)
JDHuffman
The experiment will cover for the radiative flux at the inside surface of the experimental box you should set up and test.
With an enclosed box, all the radiative flux (watts/m^2) emitted by the bulbs will be available by the surface inside the box. It will even take care of convection and conduction so you don’t have to run the test in a vacuum.
No one is so confused about physics than you (unless you are not Ge*ran… he was probably more confused than you but you are really close to his level of ignorance).
Grinvalds, you are still avoiding reality. The igloo clearly indicates that radiative fluxes do not add. You run from reality. You propose an “experiment” that has NOTHING to do with the issue. The issue is NOT about adding more energy to a box. That’s just another of your diversions, distractions, denials, obfuscations and mis-directions.
JDHuffman
No you are wrong. The igloo does not clearly indicate radiative fluxes do not add. Nothing of the sort. It only demonstrates what most people know. Diffuse radiative fluxes don’t concentrate.
I will use your igloo device to demonstrate your lack on logical thought and inability to understand radiative physics.
First you need a much colder outside temperature to show that fluxes add and will warm a thermometer.
Outside is -40 C. You have ice blocks that are warmed to just below freezing that you will make your igloo out of.
This example uses View Factor, you may want to brush up on this concept, you are really lacking in this area.
You have a stand with a thermometer in this environment. It will read -40 C initially. Now add one block of ice at a perimeter (that when completed will make an igloo 20 m^2 in size). Not much change. The ice is emitting around 300 Watts/m^2 of its surface. A small amount of this energy reaches the thermometer but not much so you may not even be able to read a change.
Now just keep stacking ice to build you igloo. As you add ice blocks the thermometer will gradually warm. So you can see adding ice blocks, with its higher flux than the surroundings, is increasing the temperature of the thermometer. You may not be able to detect the change with each block but overall the temperature rise will have been around 40 C. Each block contributed to this warming, each flux from the ice added to the thermometer temperature.
You need to get another hobby besides posting your declarations on climate blogs. You just don’t know what you are talking about but pretend to be an expert.
The only bogus information here is your declarations. They are invalid and wrong and easily proven wrong by any method one chooses. So far you are zero right, all wrong!
Norman, that’s another long, irrelevant comment, filled with your usual insults.
And, you’re still avoiding reality. To show that radiative fluxes add, you have to raise the temperature above the temperature of the ice. You’ve go to show where that 6,000 Watts goes, if you really believe it’s there.
Now, you can do some more typing practice.
JDHuffman
I guess when I put in the term “view factor” your brain shut down and you were unable to comprehend the easy to read and understand post of mine.
Why would you have to raise the temperature above that of ice to prove fluxes add? Again you are confused by the term “fluxes add” and “fluxes concentrate”.
Totally different ideas. All your posts are using the concept of fluxes concentrating not adding.
My igloo example (which you could not understand) clearly shows the watts from each ice block adding and increasing the temperature of the thermometer. Reread my post and don’t act like it is hard to understand. It is not.
Read the post. You are just totally wrong and can’t admit your error. Fluxes add, they do not concentrate.
I notice you’re still clinging to “view factors”, as if that will help you.
Nope.
“Your” igloo does not show fluxes adding. It shows “insulation”. There is a difference, should you want to learn.
JDHuffman
To make the igloo example easy for you.
Outside temperature -40 C
Thermometer reads -40 C
Add 1 m^2 blocks of ice at 0 C.
Thermometer temperature rises with each block addition until it goes from -40 C to 0 C.
The fluxes of each block add energy to the thermometer until it reaches a 0 C reading from -40 C.
Simple enough. Fluxes add. You are wrong.
Nope. Fluxes don’t add. You are wrong.
Why can’t your added fluxes, 6000 Watts, raise the temperature of the completed igloo?
Tough question, huh?
It’s reality.
JDHuffman
I have answered your question. 6000 Watts emitted by 20 m^2 gives you a radiative flux of 300 W/m^2
If you have 2000 square meters of ice with a flux of 600,000 watts total. You still only have a flux of 300 Watts/m^2.
The surface that absorbs the 6000 watts is 20 m^2 so it is only receiving 300 watts/m^2.
If you put it into the Stefan-Boltzmann Law and put a 20 m^2 surface area with a flux of 6000 watts you will get an absolute temperature near 273 K.
If you increase the emitting surface and surface that absorbs you are not changing anything than if you had two ice plates really close to each other. Study view factor, your lack of knowledge on this subject is painful.
Grinvalds, in all your floundering around, I think you just denied the GHE.
Perfect!
Now you can get back to work, practicing your typing.
Speaking of work, do you know anyone that works at M/A Energy?
JDHuffman
You seem more than a little interested in me. Are you stalker?
No I did not at all deny GHE. Not sure where you got that from. There is no floundering. I can’t help it if your reading abilities are low. Not sure how to simplify posts so you can understand them.
Have you tried to learn view factors yet?
JDHuffman
You are the primary reason people stay anonymous on blogs. Obsessed people like you take too much interest in their personal lives. I wanted to see where it would go. Too bad I took up your offer. You are one weird person to be so occupied with someone you need to look at as much information about them as you can and put feelers out on the blog. Are you looking for a date or something and want to meet up? Not sure why you are so interested in me.
Norman, I know it’s hard to face reality.
But, there really is no other choice, is there?
Stay clear of Mrs Huffman, it will not be a happy marriage.
Svante, please stop trolling.
Norman
It is pointless to argue with someone with Dunning – Kruger. If you show evidence that proves them wrong, they will ignore it, or claim the evidence is fudged. If you come up with an argument that proves them wrong, they will ignore that as well. That’s what they do. That’s the behavior that DEFINES their condition.
How do people convince themselves the earth is flat? They happily ignore all evidence and arguments to the contrary.
That’s what little Huffy does with his “fluxes don’t add” mantra. He doesn’t WANT to know anything about view factors. Remaining ignorant is part of his m.o.
*******
What happens to the 6000 watts? I’ve never studied view factors, so this has been a fun little brain teaser.
Each square meter of the igloo’s surface emits 300 watts. Divide each of those 20 square meters into 300 “mini” units…..each emitting 1 watt.
In which direction will that single watt radiate? Every direction!
Therefore, each “mini” unit is continuously sharing its single watt with the other 5,999 identical units.
At the same time, it absorbs 1/6000 of a watt from each of the other 5,999 other units. It’s a wash.
Conclusion: Norman is correct. None of the 6000 watts are gained or lost. Just a continuous exchange of radiant energy within the igloo.
*Norman, please let me know if my reasoning is flawed.
Snape
Yes indeed you have it correct.
If you want to simulate a GHE with an igloo, have a space heater outside in the -40 C air and then move it into the ice igloo. It will warm the interior much more than when it is outside. It is emitting the same amount of power in both cases. Inside the igloo less energy is lost so the effect is warmer air.
Ge*ran never could grasp this simple reality. Now as stalker JDHuffman he still can’t grasp it. The Dunning – Kruger effect is a weird thing and it is amazing when you see people with it.
Snape, please stop trolling.
Ms Snape, in the igloo view factors are not even a “factor”. Norman just tries to use that excuse. No matter which direction a photon is emitted, it can not escape the igloo. Norman doesn’t understand view factors, so he assumes no one else does either. (That’s your D-K example.)
But, you have stumbled onto the correct path. The 6000 Watts can not raise the temperature of the igloo, just as back-radiation can not raise the temperature of Earth.
Keep stumbling.
JDHuffman
YOU: “But, you have stumbled onto the correct path. The 6000 Watts can not raise the temperature of the igloo, just as back-radiation can not raise the temperature of Earth.”
Yes these are both correct and true statements. But the 6000 watts and an additional energy source (Sun for Earth’s surface) and both the 6000 watts in the igloo and the backradiation will result in a higher steady state temperature that would occur if no igloo were in place or no DWIR was transferring IR into the surface.
The GHE is not magic heating. It is only an increase in the Earth’s steady state temperature (Solar powered) because of the added DWIR that would not be there without GHG in the atmosphere.
Wrong. DWIR can NOT cause an increase in surface temperature. People that believe in the GHE are either incompetent or corrupt.
JDHuffman
DWIR by itself cannot increase surface temperature but the combination of the energy from the DWIR and the Solar input the steady state goes up to a new temperature until the output energy is equal to the input energy.
You are wrong about this and will continue to be wrong and mislead by some delusional people on blogs. Not real science, made up versions of reality.
You see my textbook version of physics as unreal. Your are so deluded that you will not accept reality.
By the way E. Swanson already performed a blue/green plate test that confirmed Eli Rabbet’s claims and proved all others wrong.
Norman, you dont seem to be able to resist trolling. Very disappointing.
“People that believe in the GHE are either incompetent or corrupt.”
Do you mean people like e.g. Roy Spencer, Willis Eschenbach, Ferdinand Engelbeen?
Or people like Prof. Dr. J.-P. Blaser, retired emeritus who teached experimental physics from 1961 till 1990 at the ETH in Zurich, Switzerland?
Who are you, anonymous JD Huffman?
And, I especially mean hidden clowns that jump in with their weak, cowardly “gotchas”, anonymous “Binindon”.
“Bindidon”, if you prefer without typos.
Norman, teach us about “view factors” again. You have used that repeatedly, when discussing the igloo. But view factors are not relevant in that case. You don’t even understand the terms you toss around.
You had never heard of “waveguide” before I mentioned it. Then, you included a link, from wiki, on waveguides, as if you were “teaching”. You’re a “1-minute wiki wonder”! That’s your “science” background.
Clowns are fun.
JDHuffman
More of your unsupported declarations. I know exactly what view factors are and how to use them. You don’t know what the term means or how to use it. Neither you nor Flynn know what it means. That is why you think, if GHE was real (which it is) you could bake a turkey with enough ice. If you understood view factors you would not even suggest such a moronic thing. That you do proves you are clueless.
Sorry dude, view factors are involved in All radiant heat transfers. They apply in every case. Since you don’t know what the term means or how to use it you think it has some weird unfounded use.
Review the material and we can maybe move past this ignorance of yours.
Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:
The only disappoint here is your compulsion to post. Why don’t you do something useful. You are an annoying poster.
And you dont stop trolling.
The coward, that’s you, JD Huffman.
Because as anyone sees, you have carefully avoided answering my question.
For me that means you think that for example Roy Spencer is either incompetent or corrupt, but like Robertson or Flynn, you are too cowardly to write that in plain English.
Besides, I’m not anonymous here because Roy Spencer knows my real name since longer time.
Bindidon, please stop trolling.
Well Bindidon, you’re free to believe as you wish. And to record your beliefs here.
Everyone loves a clown.
Bindidon, Norman
I’m still looking for 3000 W that JD/Ger*an lost and he refuses to explain where they went.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2018/07/summer-causes-climate-change-hysteria/#comment-313558
He is indeed a coward who refuses to answer our simple questions when he realizes doing so will reveal a glaring flaw in his logic.
Perhaps a boycott is in order.
Or perhaps you could just stop trolling.
What happens to the thermometer if the sky clears and a little sunlight shines through the ice?
Yep, it’s hard for Huffy to “face reality”.
Snape, please stop trolling.
Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team seems to be doing an excellent job.
JDHuffman
I will give you the math to show how the igloo works.
Follow it if you can.
Conditions. You have ice emitting 6000 Watts. It has an area of 20 m^2. Ice has an IR emissivity of 0.97.
6000 watts = Area(20 m^2)Emissivity(0.97)Stefan-Boltzmann Constant(5.67 x 10^-8)(T^4)
The unknown is the Temperature (T).
6000/(20)(0.97)(5.67×10-8) = T^4 =271.7 K
Now if you just have one meter emitting 300 watts
300/(1)(0.97)(5.67×10^-8) = T^4 = 271.7 K
Because you increase the size you get more total watts but you have the same radiative flux in either case. Get over you mental block.
Follow the math. It is not that hard to understand.
Yes Norman, you proved my point. You stumbled onto the correct answer. Radiative fluxes do NOT add.
Keep stumbling.
JDHuffman
I will try another approach.
Your claim is that radiative (not radiant) fluxes do not add. The meaning of your word choice may be the problem. I have asked you to explain what you mean.
If you mean that no matter how large an ice wall you build, it will not emit more than 300 watts/m^2 and the radiative flux will not get more than 300 Watts/m^2. For radiant flux it is additive since radiant flux is just watts from a source. A 100 m^2 ice wall will have much greater radiant flux than the same temperature ice block with a 1 m^2 surface.
But your claim is that radiative fluxes do not add. I say they do.
Here is the proof. Take the large wall of ice emitting 300 watt/m^2 put a plate with 1 m^2 surface area (on one side) facing this wall.
This plate will absorb 300 watts of energy but it has two sides so it will only reach a temperature of 228.5 K. Both sides will be at steady state with the ice when they emit 150 watts for a total of 300 watts (the amount of energy the one side absorbed).
If you put another ice wall behind the plate you will raise the temperature of the plate to 271.7 K now both sides receive 300 watts and both sides emit 300 watts. The fluxes can and do add at a surface.
E. Swanson already proved this in his experiment.
Review his findings.
https://app.box.com/s/5wxidf87li5bo588q2xhcfxhtfy52oba
When the green plate is brought in view of the blue plate, the energy emitted by the blue plate warms the green plate and its temperature rises. As its temperature goes up it emits more IR to the blue plate and causes the blue plate temperature to rise above what it did without the green plate IR adding energy to the plate.
That is the reality you need to deny to maintain your religious belief.
Norman, when you get to a more advanced typing class, they will teach you things like “coherency”, “brevity”, and “accuracy”. Then, what you type out may not be such nonsense.
I’ll give you the same friendly advice I give other clowns: “Learn some physics”.
JDHuffman
You are hilarious. I reread my post and it is easy to fall, logical and clear. I think your brain shuts off when you see anything that opposes your strongly programmed cult mentality.
I know quite a bit of physics and I will continue to learn more. You can’t learn physics because it violates your primary program. Your brain shuts off when you read things opposed to your program.
My first point was simple to understand. There is a difference between radiative and radiant fluxes. You generically state fluxes don’t add.
Nothing in my post was hard to follow. Yup your brain shuts off and you can’t comprehend simple ideas. Sorry for you problem. It is not my writing that is a problem. It is your inability to comprehend.
Grinvalds has to resort to irrelevant, inaccurate, and redundant, insults to make up for his failings:
“You are hilarious.”
“I think your brain shuts off when you see anything that opposes your strongly programmed cult mentality.”
“You cant learn physics because it violates your primary program.”
“Your brain shuts off when you read things opposed to your program.”
“Yup your brain shuts off and you cant comprehend simple ideas.”
“It is your inability to comprehend.”
Nothing new….
JDHuffman
Sorry they are not insults, but observations. My posts are not incoherent. It is your lacking skills that is the problem. You always want to blame someone else for your shortfalls.
You can’t read a simple post, that is clear and easy to understand. Then when I tell you that it is your problem you think it is me insulting you, hilarious!
What a joker you are. A hilarious poster. You fail at logic and rational thought and your brain shuts off and you complain when I inform you that you are the one with the problem. Hilarious!
You are just too funny. Keep up the funny posts. It is what you are good at. You will never understand a lick of physics. So play your role as a joker and amuse the audience.
Nothing new….
JDHuffman
Hilarious!
Yes you are.
Nothing new….
Norman, the sustained trolling is becoming somewhat tedious. Thats an observation, not an insult.
Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:
Does that, hopefully, mean you will stop responding to any of my posts? If so let me continue to be tedious.
When you stop trolling, I will not need to request that you stop trolling.
JDHuffman
https://tinyurl.com/y98cx65b
E. Swanson’s real world experiment proves your made up physics is not good. It does not work. You believe both Blue and Green plates will reach the same temperature based upon your incorrect understanding of radiant energy.
The plates do not reach the same temperature. You are wrong.
Norman, here is a chance to prove you are not trolling. Please correct Svantes errors in this comment:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2018/07/summer-causes-climate-change-hysteria/#comment-314135
Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:
I will take up your challenge. Svante’s post does seem to violate the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics.
The error is thinking the ground is a heat source. The supply of the 130 Watts from below the surface to the surface is a net loss. The ground is losing stored energy to maintain the 130 watt flux. With the Earth system you can have energy move into the region via wind from warmer regions.
Ice does not make the best radiant barrier but ice is a medium insulator so it will slow the transfer of heat if the ice is thick.
If you had the inside of the igloo lined with highly polished metal so that nearly all the IR is reflected back to the surface, the net result would be little to no cooling. The reflected IR would add energy to the surface equivalent to what it is emitting and the surface would not need to remove energy from the below the surface.
Not sure it that is what you were looking for. Svante would be correct if you had an external energy source within the igloo. The GHE works because the Sun is an external source of energy constantly adding energy to the surface.
Your first sentence (about 2LoT violation) is correct. The rest is your usual nonsense. However, Im impressed that you contradicted Svante in any way at all, however much you desperately tried to cover up for it afterwards. Conclusion: you may not be completely trolling. The jury is still out.
Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:
I am not sure about what you are stating.
YOU: “however much you desperately tried to cover up for it afterwards.”
Would you think the area inside a heated igloo would be warmer than the same area with not igloo but the same heat source.
Maybe you need to review E. Swanson’s real world experiment.
The experiment is a similar process (though different details) to the GHE.
https://app.box.com/s/5wxidf87li5bo588q2xhcfxhtfy52oba
In E. Swanson test. The blue plate is heated by an external energy source. It reaches a steady state temperature in vacuum conditons.
The green plate is moved next to the blue plate. The green plate absorbs IR from the blue plate and warms up. As it warms it starts emitting more IR than the surroundings did causing the blue plate to reach a higher steady state temperature than without the green plate present. It sums it up. Not sure what you are having problems understanding or consider trolling. Look at the data. Understand what you are seeing.
Norman, please stop trolling. There is absolutely no mystery about how igloos are warmer inside than out, in real life. The eskimos are the heat source for the air inside. Convection is blocked by the roof, hence the roof insulates. It has absolutely nothing to do with radiative heat transfer.
Norman keeps trying to use the blue/green plate nonsense as “proof”. The blue/green plate nonsense is only proof that Norman does not understand radiative physics.
He uses “plates”, “view factors”, and other distractions to cover his bad science.
Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:
That is why I suggest you review E. Swanson’s experiment. He performed it in a vacuum. No convection, no conduction. All radiative heat transfer. Look at the results and then get back to me. The green plate is NOT preventing conduction or convection from the blue plate. It is radiating toward the blue plate, which absorbs this energy and reaches a higher steady state temperature as a result.
The radiative fluxes are adding (despite what Ge*ran says). The powered light on one side adds a certain amount of energy to the blue plate, the warmed green plate adds a certain amount of energy to the blue plate. The blue plate temperature rises to a new steady state above what it had reached with just cooler surroundings adding less energy to the blue plate.
Review the test before you conclude trolling.
Ge*ran
Sorry you are still wrong. First the Blue/Green plate is not nonsense. It is established testing. You don’t like it because it demonstrates you are wrong and your understanding of heat transfer physics is wrong. Easier to deny the test than try to understand what is going on. It is real, you should review it.
No conduction???
Please stop trolling.
Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:
You seem caught up in the phrase “no conduction”. It would be no conduction between the plates takes place. There would still be conduction within each plate but that is no relevant to the rise in steady state temperatures of the Blue plate.
I think you are more interested in playing word games than actual physics. I may not have implicitly stated no conduction between the two plates but it is implied by virtue of vacuum conditions and should not have to be elaborated upon.
If you have physics knowledge you should be able to understand what I was stating since I emphasized vacuum conditions.
The conduction through the plate thickness is not at all important for heat transfer or why the blue plate increased temperature when the green plate was moved into view.
Look I have to shorten my posts for Ge*ran because he hates posts longer than 10 words. If I go into highly specific language on each point the posts would be even longer than this one explaining the point.
The conductivity of the green plate creates a resistance to heat flow. This affects the heat dissipation from the blue plate (I believe Gordon Robertson has been through that second part at length already). Because of the green plate conductivity the green can insulate the blue. With higher conductivity this effect would reduce considerably.
Come on now! At least TRY to stop trolling.
Norman takes off on any side issue available. He claims I am wrong because the blue/green plate nonsense is in a vacuum.
I never indicated otherwise.
Norman just has to make up things to cover his incompetence.
If he had any understanding of physics, he would not have to resort to such tricks.
Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:
Since you are using the false and fabricated physics of Gordon Robertson, then try to explain exactly how is the green plate reducing the flow of energy from the blue plate.
YOU: “The conductivity of the green plate creates a resistance to heat flow. This affects the heat dissipation from the blue plate (I believe Gordon Robertson has been through that second part at length already). Because of the green plate conductivity the green can insulate the blue. With higher conductivity this effect would reduce considerably.
Come on now! At least TRY to stop trolling.”
Okay now you are just getting stupid on me. Why? I thought we might be able to discuss the science intelligently. When you post that nonsense it is hard to take you seriously.
Explain this complete nonsense. How does the green plate conductivity alter the emission of the blue plate? What physics is this?
Real physics: The Blue plate emission is determined only by its temperature and emissivity. That is the factual physics. How does the green plate change the emission of IR from the blue plate surface. Saying “dissipation” is lame. How is this process supposed to work? You will never be able to find even one bit of supporting science for this fantasy.
The properties of the green plate’s conductivity do not alter the emission from the blue plate. Even the temperature of the green plate does not directly alter the emission from the blue plate. The radiant energy from the green plate warming the blue plate to a higher temperature is what alters the blue plate emission.
You are a person who really needs to experiment with things so you can learn real physics. Your pretend physics is not going to get you far.
Norman, please stop trolling.
JDHuffman
My claim that you are wrong was NOT that the experiment took place in a vacuum. I said you were wrong because your prediction was that the Blue and Green plate would reach the same steady state temperature. This does not take place. Your understanding of physics of heat transfer is wrong and needs correction.
JDHuffman
Study this video and work out the equations. This is the correct physics of heat transfer. This is what E. Swanson’s test shows.
Your made up physics is not supported by actual tests. It only works on Postma’s blog, not in reality.
http://rabett.blogspot.com/2017/11/green-plate-challenge.html
Norman, if you had a cogent question you should be able to present it coherently.
I’ll be waiting….
JDHuffman
I was not asking a question. I was asking you to look at E. Swanson’s experiment and look at the link to learn the real physics and not Postma’s made up versions. If you broke away from that clown and learned some real physics you would not waste so much posters time having to correct your flawed and phony physics.
Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:
You are a funny poster. You post this extremely bad physics (made up by Gordon Robertson) and then when I tell you to explain this awful physics you refuse to even attempt it and resort to your meaningless posts:
YOU: “Norman, please stop trolling.”
I guess your definition of “trolling” is when someone presents real and actual physics to prevent the destruction of science and the scientific method in favor of people making up their own ideas about reality and thinking all should accept it with zero supporting evidence.
You made stupid claims and I challenged you to prove them. You could not and turned resorted to childish retorts. Sad.
Already explained. Please stop trolling.
Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:
If you think you gave a good explanation that the conduction across the green plate slows the heat dissipation from the blue plate, you are wacko and have lost any connection to rational science.
If you want to call my posts trolling, then support this ridiculous notion with valid physics. Find a valid source of physics that suggests this crazy idea. As of now your only source is the from a person who makes up their own physics and will reject empirically proven science in many areas, primarily because he does not understand it or it does not make sense to him.
As it stands now you seem to know the least about physics of any of the fake skeptics that troll this blog (like you).
Notmsn (!?), your endless rhetoric about who has the correct physics, whose physics is bad or crazy or fabricated or incorrect etc, all your dismissing of arguments based on who posted them, all your insults etc – thats trolling. Please stop.
You shouldnt require support to understand insulation. Anything presenting a resistance to heat flow can insulate. Conducting the experiment in a vacuum removes convective effects. Using materials with high conductivity would have removed conductive effects. The experiment as conducted provides some supporting evidence (when correctly interpreted) already. Repeat the experiment using plates of differing materials (different conductivities) and you will have further evidence. Up to you. I dont have the equipment, the time or the inclination to find further evidence for the obvious.
Even with all his typing practice, “Notmsn” still can’t type.
But, at least his typing is better than his physics.
Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:
For stating something that goes totally against established physics, YES you need to find supporting evidence if you wish to follow that path. Either do experiments to prove your opinions or don’t make them.
If you are going to pose bad physics and act like you know what you are talking about, it is up to you to prove your points, the burden is on you not others.
You can read established physics textbooks (your choice they all say the same thing). The radiant heat transfer from a surface is the amount of energy it emits minus the energy it absorbs from its surroundings. That is all. Your phony insulation crap is your own invention that goes against established physics. You post crap you need to prove it. No one else.
YOU: “Notmsn (!?), your endless rhetoric about who has the correct physics, whose physics is bad or crazy or fabricated or incorrect etc, all your dismissing of arguments based on who posted them, all your insults etc thats trolling. Please stop.”
NO that is not trolling. It is maintaining the integrity of science. You political minded people who have little knowledge of physics and come here to post stupid and incorrect physics and pretend it is valid need to be opposed strongly. You DO NOT HAVE ANY GOOD PHYSICS!!! When you post your crap science you are worse than a troll!
Well, Norman. That entire post was just trolling.
Norman believes in the incorrect plate solution because: 1) He wants to; and 2) He believes in the bogus radiative heat transfer equation.
Consequently, he will not be convinced by the actual physics.
The easiest way to disprove the incorrect solution is to put the two plates together. Now, they are emitting 200 Watts in both directions, and both are at 244 K.
By separating them just a few microns, nothing changes, in the correct solution.
In the incorrect solution, the blue plate increases in temperature to 262 K! For such an increase, the blue plate MUST receive more energy. It does not receive any more energy from the source. It does not “hold” any energy, because it is still emitting in both directions. So, the only way it can get more energy is if the green plate is “back-radiating” to it. But, the green plate is at a lower temperature. So for it to be supplying energy to the blue plate, it would have to be receiving new energy, which it does not.
So, the incorrect solution violates several laws of physics.
(Get ready for the long, wordy, distracting, insulting, comments.)
JDHuffman
Why do you like being wrong?
Your physics is fantasy of your own making. You don’t want to learn the real deal but post on blogs like you know what you are talking about. Too bad you don’t.
YOU: “By separating them just a few microns, nothing changes, in the correct solution.
In the incorrect solution, the blue plate increases in temperature to 262 K! For such an increase, the blue plate MUST receive more energy. It does not receive any more energy from the source. It does not hold any energy, because it is still emitting in both directions. So, the only way it can get more energy is if the green plate is back-radiating to it. But, the green plate is at a lower temperature. So for it to be supplying energy to the blue plate, it would have to be receiving new energy, which it does not.
So, the incorrect solution violates several laws of physics.
(Get ready for the long, wordy, distracting, insulting, comments.)”
ME: You just make up stuff. E. Swanson’s experiment shows exactly that separation of the plates will cause the part not exposed to the direct energy source to cool and the other to warm from backradiation.
The Blue plate does receive more energy. It receives energy from the light source and energy from the green plate. The green plate receives energy continuously from the blue plate. You can see in the experiment the green plate temperature goes up when first put in the view of the blue plate.
Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:
Your last post (when I asked for supporting evidence for you fake physics) demonstrates you will distract from an issue rather than demonstrate you don’t know physics at all.
It is easy to post “Stop trolling” which is meaningless waste of effort. Much more difficult to prove your goofball physics. You won’t do it, just as JDHuffman (Ge*ran) would not do it, just as most of the fake skeptics, who haunt this blog with their made-up miserable physics, will also not do. I do not think any of you phony skeptics has yet supported your phony claims.
E. Swanson took the time and effort to verify Eli Rabbet’s claim. You have done nothing but post your stupid “stop trolling” nonsense. What a waste, is that all you are able to do? Can you juggle while you post that?
Norman, the only thing Swanson proved was that he does not understand physics, or valid experimentation. As I indicated, raising the temperature of the blue plate would require MORE energy. You’re basically trying to use the same energy twice. It doesn’t work that way.
But you avoid reality.
No…you are still just trolling, Norman.
I realise I made a mistake getting involved in the discussion. Trying to keep you from trolling is going to be a full time job as it is. Im sorry that you dont understand insulation and you feel that this is my fault.
JDHuffman
Sorry you are just wrong. E. Swanson understands the physics correctly. You are the one requiring education not him.
YOUR POINT: “As I indicated, raising the temperature of the blue plate would require MORE energy. You’re basically trying to use the same energy twice. It doesn’t work that way.”
This is the bad Postma version of physics. It is a toxic brew of mistaken ideas that he can only support by attacking people with real physics. He creates these cult minded people that will not investigate real physics.
You have energy added all the time by the external heat lamp he is using. And if you return energy that would be lost it will raise the temperature of the blue plate. It is easy and real physics. Postma has fed you a load of crap and you think he knows what he is talking about.
If you had a mirror instead of the green plate the blue plate would get even hotter. The green plate only returns a portion of the blue plate’s energy it receives. A mirror would return almost all the energy the blue plate emits from one side reducing its emission surface by half.
You can even see in the experiment that the blue plate temperature rose with no additional energy, just by creating a vacuum. He reduced conduction and convection and the temperature had to go up to lose the incoming energy with radiant energy alone.
Conclusion: Snape is correct about you. You can’t think of more than one process going on at the same time. You just don’t know what you are talking about at all but you post and pretend you do.
Well Grinvalds, you certainly created enough confusing distractions to hide behind.
You’re trying to confuse the bogus “experiment” with the thought experiment. You’re confusing black body plates with mirrors, confusing insulation with emission, and adding heat lamps.
If you were able to face reality, you wouldn’t have to use so many tricks.
JDHuffman
That was one really sorry post.
First stupid point: YOU: “Youre trying to confuse the bogus experiment with the thought experiment.”
1) What is “bogus” about E. Swanson’s experiment?
BOGUS: “not genuine or true; fake:” What is fake about the experiment? No one is confusing the thought experiment. E. Swanson’s actual experiment confirms the prediction of Eli Rabbet.
Your sorry opinion that the plates would be at the same temperature is wrong, incorrect and based upon horrible physics of the Postma blog variety. A blog where the Master chases away real science and has nonscientists create an echo chamber.
JDHuffman
Your twisted word processing: “Youre confusing black body plates with mirrors, confusing insulation with emission, and adding heat lamps.”
What are you stating. Just some gibberish flooding out of your head. What are you trying to say?
Norman, it is not my job to make sense out of your confused distractions.
One responsible, coherent question at a time. That’s the rule.
Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:
“However, Im impressed that you contradicted Svante in any way at all”.
Norman is brilliant, if he contradicts me I’m probably wrong.
Svante, please stop trolling.
‘the blue plate MUST receive more energy. It does not receive any more energy from the source. ‘
Just exactly as Ger*an did many moons ago, JD, you are confusing power and energy.
It is receiving a continuous flow of energy from the source (power). If its power output is slowed by the GREEN plate (It is!), THEN IT MUST GAIN ENERGY.
1LOT strikes again!
The clowns try to change a black body into a mirror!
They’re so desperate to protect there pseudoscience.
“all your dismissing of arguments based on who posted them, all your insults etc – thats trolling.”
Yes, who does that?
Oh wait, DREMT, that is 95% of your posts.
Your posts are directed only at posters you disagree with, without regard for the content of their posts.
You are a hypocrite.
Nate, hows that tuning me out, going? Not so good? Oh, shame.
PST.
How’s not being a hypocrite going, DREMT?
This has been a convenient way for you to change the subject, at a difficult time, hasnt it Nate?
Please try to stop trolling (and keep on trying to ignore me, you will get there).
‘tuning me out’
DREMT, my point about you being tuned-out was accurate. When your posts were highly repetitive and boring you were ignored.
Now that you try to post about science, you are getting responses.
Keep it up.
All the responses have been 95% trolling, as expected.
‘95% trolling’
Yes, DREMT, but the way you have redefined trolling, these posts are called out for it:
Nate: “When dealing with time scales much longer than a day, I don’t see a problem with averaging it.”
David:“The surface, at an average temperature of 288 K, radiates an average of 390 W/m2.
But only 240 W/m2 leaves out the top of the atmosphere.
Where is the missing 150 W/m2?”
Svante: “Lucky I didn’t use “255K” in the calculation then.
Which is better then in your world of no GHE?
An igloo ceiling at -45C, or space at 2.7K?”
But the following posts are somehow NOT trolling:
JD: “Ms Snape, if a nuclear device were implanted in your ear. And same nuclear device was set off, would you then have any better knowledge of physics?”
Mike Flynn: “Sounds like you are suffering from delusional psychosis! Do you think your obsession with mythical GHGs has overheated your brain? Only joking, GHGs have no miraculous heating properties, do they? Carry on flogging that dead horse – maybe a miracle will occur, and you can raise it from the dead!”
Why is it these trolls never get called out for trolling, DREMT?
You see the inconsistency here DREMT?
There are already enough people regularly accusing Huffman, Flynn and Robertson of trolling. I mean you people never stop going on about it. So I leave that to you.
Feel you are being unfairly treated? Tough. Thats life. You lot know what you are doing, dont pretend otherwise.
So please stop trolling. Get back to your exchange with Huffman you were having before you changed the subject onto me as a way of distracting from it.
‘Feel you are being unfairly treated? Tough. Thats life.’
Yep.
If your moralistic posts are not intended to be fair, then don’t expect them to be taken seriously.
That’s life.
Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:
YOU: “I realise I made a mistake getting involved in the discussion. Trying to keep you from trolling is going to be a full time job as it is. Im sorry that you dont understand insulation and you feel that this is my fault.”
ME: The only mistake you make is you post but don’t have the drive, desire or possibly intelligence to understand the physics of radiant heat transfer so you feel you need to make up stupid and unsupported ideas (or in this case, borrow them from the Chief of making up physics, Gordon Robertson)
I am really sorry you don’t understand physics and need to pretend you do. It is your fault that you don’t even try to learn some real science. We live in the digital age, there is lots of valid material out there. Postma’s blog is NOT one of them!
(youre still trolling)
Team Moron:
It’s interesting to see how people’s sense of logic gets derailed. You bring up convection, and in your mind, radiative heat transfer goes out the window….as if the two are not able to coexist. As if the the ice’s 300 w/m^2 no longer matters to the igloo’s temperature/thermodynamics.
“Binary, black-or-white thinking doesn’t allow for the many different variables, conditions, and contexts in which there would exist more than just the two possibilities put forth. It frames the argument misleadingly and obscures rational, honest debate.”
Conductive heat transfer, convective heat transfer, and RADIATIVE heat transfer are all at play in a real world igloo.
Ms Snape pretends to teach her troll science, again!
It’s great entertainment.
Attacking a straw man is a typical troll tactic. As are juvenile insults such as Team Moron. Snape, please stop trolling.
Snape
It does seem as if Ge*ran cannot understand multiple processes taking place. He an understand emission, be can deal with how much is absorbed. The failure comes when you have both processes going on at the same time. The confusion sets in and no further discussion is possible.
Gordon Grinvalds, at his best: “He an understand emission, be can deal with how much is absorbed.”
Poor clown. I almost hate to laugh.
A thin plastic igloo would prevent convection. Would it be as warm as an igloo made of thick blocks of ice?
Nope. A second mode of heat transfer (conduction) needs to be considered.
Three modes? More than huffy can handle.
Ms Snape, if a nuclear device were implanted in your ear. And same nuclear device was set off, would you then have any better knowledge of physics?
Probably…..
Norman
“It does seem as if Ge*ran cannot understand multiple processes taking place. He an understand emission, be can deal with how much is absorbed. The failure comes when you have both processes going on at the same time. The confusion sets in and no further discussion is possible.”
IOW, he’s not terribly bright.
Looking forward to anonymous DREMT/Ger*/JD, whining about our
anonymity. He’s a mensch!
Nate, not everyone you dislike is the same person. Now, please stop trolling.
After I mentioned people had tuned him out, DREMT starts trying to be less bot-like, more JDG-like.
Interesting, but not very.
.
Nate, its not all about you. And of course you dont speak for anyone else…do you?
Now please stop trolling.
DREMT you just happen to have identical fake physics, same low-level of maturity, and the same enemies list as JD/Ger*an.
You seek attention with immature pointless posts, just like him. You appear at the all the right moments to tag team with him.
Yeah, maybe you’re not him.
Nate
Well stated comment. It was kind of like J Halpless when Ge*ran was trying to convince posters the Moon cannot rotate on its own axis by bringing up a toy train on a circular track.
He believed tidal locking held the Moon from rotating in some fashion.
I explained to this goofball that Space Station had to forced to rotate to keep its same face to the Earth.
The goofball does not understand radiant physics or tidal locking. Also this goofball is incapable of learning, using logic, or rational thought process.
I am not the “alarmist” in the climate debate as those on Sktpical Science. I just think science helped lift the human race to a higher level of existence. Before science reality was determined by those in power. They made the claim the Earth is the center of the Universe and any opposed would be punished. Heavier objects fell faster than light ones since it made “sense” to them. They never tested their ideas until science came along.
Nate and Norman, the best way to demonstrate that you are tuning someone out, is not to respond to them.
You are both still trolling. Thats just a fact. And I have every right to point that out, and I will continue to do so, as long as you both keep trolling.
Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:
Not true. When JDHuffman went as Ge*ran I did ignore him. It did not matter to him. He invaded posts I made to other posters. So ignoring a provocative troll does not work.
Also why are you selective in your application of the term trolling? You only consider people who know physics as trolls. Troll like JDHuffman you give a pass to. This poster clearly troll and provokes yet you are so biased that you will not tell them to stop trolling. Your selection is to go against science. Why you do this only you know. But you troll more than anyone. Your posts are nothing but provocative. You should post to yourself to stop trolling, but you won’t. Troll never stop.
If someone states valid physics I will respect them. If someone does not know physics but shows signs of wanting to learn I will respect them. People who make up physics, and have been corrected on their errors in a decent fashion, but keep doing it, I will not respect such dishonest people.
Your friend JDHuffman called E. Swanson’s test bogus, he stated the 240 W/m^2 average IR leaving the Earth system was bogus. He deserves no respect and he is trolling but you don’t call him out on it. Why?
He provides zero evidence to support his claims. I ask him for evidence but he will not provide.
I ask you for supporting evidence and you are the same.
Two trolls that come to torment scientists with actual bogus physics. Why can’t you be an honest human and admit you don’t know anything about the subject of heat transfer?
Norman, you can never ignore someone who speaks the truth. You lack that ability, as do all climate trolls.
Please stop trolling.
‘You are both still trolling. Thats just a fact. And I have every right to point that out, and I will continue to do so, as long as you both keep trolling.’
Ha!
G/JD/DREMT doesn’t understand science. AND he doesn’t understand words.
He thinks a TROLL is anyone who disagrees with him, or points out his errors, even if they have facts on their side.
He has redefined the word because he takes great offence when others disagree with him. They must be very bad people.
When Norman knows his pseudoscience has failed, he resorts to attacks, insults, and false accusations.
Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:
This is a valid statement: “Norman, you can never ignore someone who speaks the truth.”
Yes. But I can easily ignore people who make up physics or as the other troll just posted, call real and valid physics pseudoscience. (Ge*ran, you are slipping with your hidden identity. Using pseudoscience might alert Roy Spencer that you came back, uninvited).
Why do you so called skeptics have to make up your own version of science? Why can’t you ever support your stupid ideas with evidence. You came up with the silly notion that it is the green plate conductivity that warms the blue plate. You still have not supported this absurd point. I doubt you ever will.
Nate may be correct. You could all be the same person posting as many.
Nate and Norman, you are whingeing on about nothing. Absolutely nothing. Nothing with any relevance to anything whatsoever. Pure, unadulterated, trolling,
Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:
Again you are wrong (which is no surprise). What I am saying is very relevant and not at all trolling.
You and your fake skeptics make up phony science and come on blogs and pretend to be experts. When people, like me, and others point out the many flaws in your make believe, you do what you did in the last post of yours. JDHuffman and well as Ge*ran do exactly the same thing.
It is almost like a programmed response of a cult minded individual.
I ask why do you skeptics have to make up your own physics with zero support or evidence. A legitimate and very valid question.
YOUR RESPONSE: “Nate and Norman, you are whingeing on about nothing. Absolutely nothing. Nothing with any relevance to anything whatsoever. Pure, unadulterated, trolling,”
You can’t address my question of why you need to make up physics and pretend to be an expert in a field that you know nothing about (and you know you know nothing) so you launch a stupid post about nothing. Your goofball partner (JD Ge*ran) resorts to a similar meaningless tactic.
YOUR PARTNER: “Grinvalds, your long dis-jointed comments are nothing more than diversions, distractions, denials, obfuscations and mis-directions.
If you can pose a responsible, coherent question, one at a time, I will try to answer.
Otherwise, youre just practicing your typing skills.”
Not addressing anything about the content of a post but because you both know you are wrong, resort to this babble.
Norman, there is no content to your comments. They are just lengthy diatribes against particular individuals you dislike, written in a child-like, petulant tone.
Please stop trolling.
Norman Grinvalds believes the more he types, the more convincing he will be. He learned the strategy from Dxxg Cxttxn.
Every time, Grinvalds leaves behind a trail of his failed pseudoscience:
* He still believes the 150 Watts/m^2 is missing.
* He’s still confused about “view factors”, believing they are relevant to the igloo scenario.
* He can’t understand that radiative fluxes don’t add.
* And now, he can’t explain how the black body green plate instantly turns into a mirror/insulator.
But, at least he gets plenty of typing practice.
Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:
Not sure what content you don’t see. To make it easy.
Content: “I ask why do you skeptics have to make up your own physics with zero support or evidence. A legitimate and very valid question.”
Norman, when did you stop beating your wife? A legitimate and very valid question.
(PST)
JDHuffman
Wrong. Radiative fluxes add. I have given you great easy to understand examples.
If you have a 1 m^2 plate of ice emitting 300 W/m^2 at a 10 m^2 object, the object will absorb around 300 watts of energy (give or take a few). Before I move on do you understand this situation. Can you visualize it?
Next add another 1 m^2 plate of ice emitting 300 W/m^2 to the first one to make a 2 m^2 surface that is directing its energy to the 10 m^2 object. Now the object will absorb 600 watts of energy and reach a higher steady state temperature than with just one plate present. Keep adding ice plates until you get 10 m^2 ice emitting 300 watts/m^2. Your object will receive 3000 watts of energy from the ice and emit 3000 watts of energy. It will reach a steady state temperature much warmer than if only one ice plate was there. Each ice plate you add will increase the temperature of the 10 m^2 object. It is really simple and quite correct physics.
Conclusion. Ge*ran is wrong. He needs to study physics. Radiative fluxes will add at a surface. Each one will contribute energy.
Norman, I was surprised you did not mention “view factors”. I was curious why you omitted that little detail. Upthread, you were mentioning view factors almost in every comment.
It only took a few seconds to figure it out.
You’re emitting from a smaller area to a bigger area. View factors would mess up your trick.
You got caught again.
But, again as usual, you out-tricked yourself. The emitting plates of ice are never emitting more than 300 Watts/m^2. Even as you add more plates, still 300 Watts/m^2. All 10 plates, still 300 Watts/m^2.
Because, as I’ve mentioned a few times, radiative fluxes do NOT add.
Now for you next trick….
Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:
You are just like the other trolls. You think your question to me is at the same level as mine.
Lame and weak. My question is valid for this blog. Yours is idiotic.
You make claims about how radiative energy works. You have not yet supported it at all with valid physics. Support you physics that the green plate in view of the blue plate, slows its heat loss because of the conduction through the green plate.
You are a troll and act like one.
You need to control your own behavior. Your last post was a pure troll.
Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:
Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says: Please stop trolling.
Whoosh! The point goes straight over Normans head. He has apparently never heard of a loaded question (despite asking them all the time).
How embarrassing.
JDHuffman
It is just semantic debates with you. I feel as if I am debating President Clinton It depends on what the meaning of the word is is.
What you call adding would be concentration in my dictionary of terms. It does not mean I am right, it just means we are using words differently.
If you have two meters of ice the total emission is 600 watts, but you would not get 600 watts/m^2. If you did this would mean you are concentrating the energy of the blocks together in a smaller area to achieve a higher radiative flux. That is not how I would think of adding.
When most of us talk about radiative fluxes adding we are not talking about concentrating the energy. We are talking about the fluxes adding at some target. As Nate explained to you above, you have three lights, each has a radiative flux of some value. Each flux reaches a target. The fluxes all add togeher at the target and your target receives the equivalent of the three fluxes combined. If it is 3000 total watts and your target has a 1 m^2 surface, the target receives and equivalent of 3000 watts/m^2 even though no individual light had that much flux by itself.
Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:
I kind of wonder who you are, if you are one of the regular posters using this new posting name. I don’t think you are Ge*ran. You don’t seem to quite have his style. You could be J Halp-less.
No “Whoosh” from me! You are just trying to avoid giving valid physics for your made up version of heat transfer.
All your posts seem to be designed to delay the reality that you don’t know what you are talking about and made up some bad physics, got called out on it and now are messing around.
JDHuffman
Based upon the definition from the source you linked to.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiative_flux
“Radiative flux, also known as radiative flux density or radiation flux, is the amount of power radiated through a given area, in the form of photons or other elementary particles, typically measured in W/m2”
Read that definition again a few times.
If you have a one square meter plate and you shine a light on it so that on the square it is receiving 100 watts of energy that means the radiative flux at that surface (the given area) is 100 watts/m^2. If you add another light that also adds 100 watts to the same surface, you have 200 watts/m^2 at the surface (given area). The radiative flux is added. There is twice the power going through this given area than with just one light on. Your own definition betrays your word games and demonstrates you are easily proven wrong.
When you were Ge*ran you were the Master of Pseudoscience. Nearly every one of your posts was pseudoscience. Now you are working back to be the Master as JDHuffman.
Norman, I wonder who you are. You and Nate both posted at similar times earlier, after a big pause of nobody commenting. Perhaps you and Nate are the same commenter. Snape and Svante were teaming up with you, too. And at one point, so was David Appell, and even Bindidon. So the only logical conclusion is that you, Norman/Nate/Snape/Svante/David Appell/Bindidon, are all the same person.
(PST)
This is when it really gets comical. Grinvalds is arguing with himself:
First, he seems to now understand that radiative fluxes do NOT add:
“If you have two meters of ice the total emission is 600 watts, but you would not get 600 watts/m^2.”
But just a few lines down, he gets tangled up with three 1000 Watt lightbulbs:
“If it is 3000 total watts and your target has a 1 m^2 surface, the target receives an equivalent of 3000 watts/m^2 even though no individual light had that much flux by itself.”
So to the poor clown, fluxes don’t add, but they add!
Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:
Basically you are indicating that not only do you not have any reasonable knowledge of physics but you also have very poor logical and analytical abilities to go with it.
JDHuffman and Ge*ran post in very much the same annoying style. They both use similar phrases. If you had even a little rational thought process you could see that Nate and Norman and the rest post very different ways. If you were trying to be funny don’t join a comedy club. Not much in the way of clever humor, you lack logical thought process, you would make and extremely poor detective.
Whereas Ge*ran is older, you sound like a High School student. Not sure what your point of posting is. You are not very intelligent, you lack reasoning ability. Time to get ready to study, school is starting soon.
JDHuffman
When you posted as Ge*ran you displayed the same limited reading ability you do as Huffman.
YOU: “So to the poor clown, fluxes dont add, but they add!”
Not at all what I said, dork! Learn to read before you make a fool of yourself.
HERE IS WHAT I ACTUALLY SAID: “When most of us talk about radiative fluxes adding we are not talking about concentrating the energy. We are talking about the fluxes adding at some target.”
If you actually could read the correct condensing of my post would be “Fluxes don’t concentrate but they do add”
Dork, read the definition of radiative fluxes again so you don’t make a total fool of yourself.
Here again for you: “Radiative flux, also known as radiative flux density or radiation flux, is the amount of power radiated through a given area, in the form of photons or other elementary particles, typically measured in W/m2
Dork, fluxes add by the definition. Are you just trying to be dumb on purpose or showing you have no reading comprehension?
What is the point of trying to reason with Ge*ran. You were stupid as him and just as dumb as JDHuffman.
“So to the poor clown, fluxes don’t add, but they do add!”
Norman doesnt get parody, either. But he still keeps on trolling.
JDHuffman
Those are your own false and misleading conclusion of what I stated.
You should correctly post.
Fluxes don’t concentrate but they can add. I have explained it to you. Why do you act so silly with your provocative trolling?
You are making up stuff just to annoy me. It has no other functional value since it is wrong and distorted.
What you are doing is exactly trolling so why doesn’t your partner call you out on it?
Norman/Nate/Snape/Svante/David Appell/Bindidon, you have clearly been consistently arguing the exact reverse, throughout: that fluxes dont add, but they can be concentrated.
By the way, Norman/Nate/Snape/Svante/David Appell/Bindidon, it was odd how earlier you referred to yourself in the third person, when you said:
If you had even a little rational thought process you could see that Nate and Norman and the rest post very different ways.
Norman avoids reality. He even avoids his own words:
“If you have two meters of ice the total emission is 600 watts, but you would not get 600 watts/m^2.”
Clowns don’t like reality.
DREMT:
“Norman/Nate/Snape/Svante/David Appell/Bindidon, you have clearly been consistently arguing the exact reverse, throughout: that fluxes dont add”
Weird. And False.
Only two (three) people seem have the oddball idea that fluxes don’t add. DREMT and JD (Ger*an).
Coincidence?
Nate, please quote the exact words where you believe I have stated that fluxes either do, or dont add.
Then stop trolling.
DREMT ‘Nate, please quote the exact words where you believe I have stated that fluxes either do, or dont add.’
Maybe Im wrong. You seemed to be defending the one saying fluxes don’t add.
What is your position on fluxes adding?
Thats right. As you have found, I have not stated a position either way. Nor will I.
Your next task, is to repeat the quote of mine you just made, but WITHOUT truncating it, this time. Then, you can read back through all the comments again, and note the number of times people are making counter-arguments where fluxes are being concentrated (directed, focused) on one spot. Your 3 lamps being one such example.
Huffy
Here’s an example of fluxes adding:
Let’s say a batter’s strike zone is one square meter. If three pitchers simultaneously pitched to that same batter, and threw strikes, you would get a flux of 3 baseballs/m^2 as the balls converged over the plate.
*******
OTOH, if just one of the three pitcher’s was able to throw a strike, then the fluxes DON’T add, because only one baseball passed through the designated area (in this case a strike zone).
Do you see the difference? You don’t add up how many baseballs are being thrown, you add up how many are moving through a given area.
Same idea for radiation, or any kind of flux.
(There is also a directional component to fluxes, but that’s a different discussion. )
Snape, let’s stay with your sports analogy:
!) You’re not in the right ballpark.
2) You’re not in the right game.
3) You’re not on the right planet.
But, thanks for playing.
JD,
Snape’s logic is pretty clear.
Now, rather than distracting and piling on more ad-homs, why dont you explain how you think its wrong?
Where are the missing baseballs?
And while you’re at it find my missing 3000 W.
Anonymous Nate has lost his baseballs and his 3000 Watts.
Just another loser, competing for clown status.
The competition is stiff.
Snape
I think you did a very good job of trying to explain radiative flux to one who can’t understand basic definitions.
You are able to understand the term used: “Radiative flux, also known as radiative flux density or radiation flux, is the amount of power radiated through a given area, in the form of photons or other elementary particles, typically measured in W/m2”
JDHuffman (Ge*ran) is not able to understand his own linked concept.
Another example that could be used on this joker troll.
You have an array of 10,000 white lights (100 x 100). In his warped view of reality he claims that if you turn on just one of these lights the flux (going through your pupil to the…or a light intensity monitor) is the same as if you turn them all on. His view is totally stupid and should be called that. You understand the physics. This troll can’t even grasp his own linked concept. Goofy as they come. If this idiot insults you consider it a badge of honor. It means you are close to the real physics. His is way the off somewhere in goofy land filled with dorks.
Poor Norman continues in denial. He denies the reality of the AM station example. He denies the reality of the igloo example. He even denies his own words!
For some reason, he is afraid of reality. That’s why he must play tricks. And when his tricks no longer work, he gets belligerent. He starts attacking, insulting, and making up false accusations.
Nothing seems to work for the poor clown.
But he’s entertaining.
JDHuffman
Sorry you are the only clown and the only one denying reality and I am not denying my own words. Sorry you are wrong on all your points.
I do not make up false accusations. When you intentionally lie about what I say you do make me upset. When I call you stupid it is factual. You are stupid. If you take it as an insult you are the only one to blame. If I get called stupid about some point, it might make me mad but it will also motivate me to learn the material. I start stupid but I will not be like you and remain stupid. You like being stupid but don’t want people to point it out to you.
I explained your AM radio BS already.
Grinvalds, spinning, distorting, and mis-representating is DENYING REALITY!
Here are your own words, for you to deny:
“If you have two meters of ice the total emission is 600 watts, but you would not get 600 watts/m^2.”
And no, you were unable to deny your way out of the AM radio station example. You only fooled yourself. AM radio stations do not interfere with each other due to channel separation, as in “fluxes don’t add”.
There are many other such examples, but if you can understand basic AM radio, the others would also be too advanced.
Grinvalds has not responded. (His supervisor must be watching.)
I was hoping for his denial of his denial denying what he denied.
I’ll check back later….
Why is it we can see footprints on the moon but don’t have the technology for something as simple as temps from last year available?
Why is it we can see footprints on the moon but don’t have the technology for something as simple as temps from last year available?
A two-component mixture composed of isocyanate and polyol resin comes together at the tip of a gun.
https://www.foamprosboise.com
pg slot คืนยอดเสีย เดี๋ยวนี้การเล่นเกมอย่างสล็อตนั้นได้ปรับปรุงเข้ามาสู่สมัยออนไลน์อย่างเต็มรูปแบบ ทำให้สามารถเข้าถึงกรุ๊ปนักเสี่ยงโชคมือใหม่ได้มากขึ้น พีจีสล็อต คืนยอดเสีย ถึงได้ง่าย https://pg-slot.game/