It didn’t last long, but I was interviewed in one segment on Tucker Carlson’s show of Fox News Channel last evening:
The subject was Hurricane Florence and whether it could be blamed on President Trump (specifically) or humanity (more generally).
You really can’t say much in only a couple of minutes, and it’s difficult when you don’t know what the questions will be. I got a plug in for Anthony Watts’ revealing the deception Bill Nye’s (The Science Guy) faked global-warming-in-a-jar experiment.
How did I get on Tucker’s show? It started when the folks at the Texas Public Policy Foundation asked me to write an op-ed to counter the global warming hype around Hurricane Florence. That was published in USA Today yesterday morning. They also set up several radio talk show interviews during the day, and scored the Tucker Carlson spot several hours before showtime.
I have to drive 2 hours to Nashville for national TV interviews, since our local TV affiliates have stopped honoring requests to handle the studio work here in Huntsville. If it’s a major show, the network pays for a makeup artist to come in and take a few years off my face.
I never get to see TV interview while we are doing them remotely. I have an earpiece and stare into a TV camera. It takes a few times to get used to having a conversation with a camera lens.
The more I think about Bill Nye’s experiment, the more irritated I get with the consensus scientific establishment for not telling Bill Nye that such an experiment cannot work; you cannot demonstrate the greenhouse effect on temperature with CO2 in a glass jar. Scientists who understand atmospheric radiative transfer know that.
The fact that the “Climate 101” video is still out there means the scientific establishment (plus Al Gore, who used it in his “Climate Reality Project”), are complicit in scientific fraud in order to advance the alarmist global warming narrative.
If their evidence for human-caused climate change is so good, they shouldn’t have to fake evidence to support their claims. I realize Bill Nye isn’t part of the climate research establishment, but he has a huge influence on public perception and scientific understanding. James Hansen also has had a huge influence on the public debate, and yet broke NASA rules by speaking to the press and Congress without management approval (and also likely violated the Hatch Act by campaigning politically..yes, he did, ThinkProgress, because he was a member of the Senior Executive Service, which has special Hatch Act rules.. I know because I was one of them, and I resigned NASA rather than have my hands tied).
This is the state of climate science today: if you support the alarmist narrative, you can exaggerate threats and connections with human activities, fake experiments, break government rules, intimidate scientific journal editors (and make them resign),and even violate the law.
As long as you can say you are doing it for the children.
Great job Doc! I wish they would have given you much more time.
đ
Let’s call the alarmists what they are:
The Alarmist Cult
Anti-human climate alarmists.
Warning people about the future, based on discovered science, is the height of human achievement, not (hardly) anti-human.
Someone is trying too hard at the propaganda.
Based on suppositional non-validated conjecture.
NOTHING but crystal ball gazing.
Tantamount to Grimm Bros fairy-tales.
and you know it.
You should take some time and read & understand the science.
Come back afterward and let us know that you have done so.
@David Appell: Please defined “discovered science” for us; I can’t find this term/concept anywhere. An hypothesis cannot be “settled science” until it’s reproducible (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reproducibility), but there’s no reproducibility in the alarmists’ position because either “experiments” are faked or assertions are based upon woefully simplistic models on which the IPCC has continually backtracked.
Rather than simply nay-say this thread’s premise, I encourage you to offer repeatable (or at least reproducible) experiments that fully encompass terrestrial climate mechanisms. Theories are nice, but they remain unproven until the scientific method details an explanation that is reproducible, repeatable, and corroborated.
Tilting at windmills has never been helpful, David.
So David…
Are you saying Bill Nye’s experiment is real?
Discovered pseudo-science? Is that a thing? No, pseudo-science is always made up, never discovered. Warning people about the future based on pseudo-science is a bad copy of Christianity. A kind of apocalyptic logical positivism. Which does not ring right in my ears. “Apocalyptic pseudo-science of climate” sounds better. APSC. No, too many words. Hosreshit? Nah, too few words.
I read more of The Science than you David. Your climate alarmism is based on bad models, bent statistics, and cherry-picked data. Not on science.
Just like Chicken Little. Tell us again how the sky is falling.
Can I be a pro-human climate alarmist please?
I like truths, not cults.
There’s talk of ‘leftist warmists’ below, can I be a rightist warmist then, or is that not allowed?
How far are you willing to lie to promote climate alarmism then?
Not at all thank you.
False.
It was a great piece, Dr. Roy Spencer. Tucker Carlson is interested in challenging the concept of CO2 driven climate groupthink. He’s also had Judith Curry on. Please do more of it.
That speaks poorly for Carlson’s ability to think, to understand research and understand science. His college major was history.
Naturally Fox News viewers eat his kind of stuff straight up.
He’s just there to spew propaganda anyway, as is everyone else on Fox News. They are easily the most biased news organization in the mainstream media.
DA, you are ill-informed on this. He regularly has Progressives on like Tulsi Gabbard and Glenn Greenwald, truth tellers who are not welcome on CNN and MSNBC anymore. He also calls out globalists and Trump when he disagrees with him. He routinely debates leftist every night 1:1, unlike the kangaroo courts on CNN and MSNBC. Your view of propaganda is my truth. Unfortunately severe hate for Trump has superceded rational thinking by liberals.
Mark E: Tucker lied to Avenatti — he just couldn’t help himself and HAD to use the insult that it was agreed would not be used.
What does this say about Tucker? About his honor?
I will agree he made a mistake with that and was a cheap shot at the end. Having said that, it was a heated battle and a one off says nothing about his honor. Oh I forgot, that wasn’t his only mistake, Creepy Porn lawyer’s suit cost allot more than $1000.
It only takes one egregious example to ruin someone’s reputation and honor. And Tucker went there.
“It only takes one egregious example to ruin someones reputation and honor.”
Wow.
Do you deny that Tucker broke his promise?
“one egregious example to ruin someones reputation and honor”
And you have had MANY !
You have an disreputable reputation, and zero honour.
spike: Do you deny that Tucker broke his promise?
Avenatti used the term “creepy porn lawyer” twice before Tucker did. When he used the term himself, Avenatti opened the door for it to be used. Tucker also never promised not to use the phrase.
“It only takes one egregious example to ruin someones reputation and honor.”
So, you’ve come around on the “Hockey Stick” and Climategate emails, then?
David,
Do you deny that Bill Nye faked the experiment?
David,
I would be very, very careful using the phrase, “It only takes one egregious example to ruin someoneâs reputation and honor. And Tucker went there.”
You seem to be incredibly-enraged & to the point where you’re like a boxer swinging for the fences 35 times in the first minute of a fight.
Careful w/ that double-edged sword, it cuts deep! đ
Bill Nye has no reputation to ruin. The pro-nuke, climate alarmist, people I know repute Nye to be a fool. He might be a well-meaning, nice guy, but they still think he’s a fool. Is it a good idea to have fools in the public discourse mis-educating children on science?
So now your Trump Derangement Syndrome has led you to supporting creepy porn lawyers? There is no depth too low for the cultists.
The proponents of anthropogenic-caused global warming invariably, and ironically, DENY that the Medieval Warming Period (MWP, 1,000 years ago) was global and likely warmer than it is now. These folks acknowledge only that Europe experienced the MWP. They likely take this unjustifiable position because their computer models cannot explain a global, warmer MWP. Why? Because their models require an increasing co2 level, plus depend even more on the built-in ASSUMPTION that water vapor feedback, the actual culprit, causes 2 to 3 times the temperature increase as brought on by the increase in co2. However, co2 did not begin increasing until about the mid 1800s, long after the MWP, so neither was there any water vapor feedback during the MWP !.
The MWP global temperature increase must have therefore been nothing apart from natural climate variation. It becomes plausible that our current warming (such as it is) may also be mostly due to NATURAL climate variation. But that, of course, conflicts with the UNâs IPCC (and other alarmistsâ) claim that our current warming is mostly due to the human-caused increase in co2 level, and Mann and his hockey-stick must DENY that the MWP was global and likely warmer than now.
However, itâs easy to show that the MWP was indeed both global and at least as warm as now. While that says nothing about the cause of our current warming (such as it is) it speaks loudly about the credibility of the folks who DENY that the MWP was global and at least as warm as now. A significant subset of this group also insists that the âscience is settledâ.
A brief meta-analysis, using numerous peer-reviewed studies as well as other easily accessible data follows to demonstrate that the MWP was global and at least as warm as it is now.
First, the MWP trend is conclusively shown to be global by borehole temperature data. The 6,000 boreholes scattered around the globe are not constrained to just those locations where ice core data has been used. A good discussion of the borehole data can be found at Joanne Novaâs website.
http://joannenova.com.au/2012/11/the-message-from-boreholes/
Next, the receding Alaskan Mendenhall glacier recently exposed a 1,000-year-old shattered forest, still in its original position. No trees (let alone a forest) have grown at that latitude anywhere near that site since the MWP. It was obviously significantly warmer in that part of Alaska than it is now, and Alaska is quite distant from Europe.
Finally, there have been hundreds of peer-reviewed MWP studies, and the earlier investigation results (showing each site to have been warmer during the MWP than at the time of the study) were reflected in earlier IPCC reports. These studies were carried out around the globe by investigators and organizations representing numerous countries. Itâs curious that Mann and his cohort did not give more consideration to those study results before presenting their conflicting âhockey stickâ claim, particularly given the dubious process used. One of the well known alarmists, Phil Jones, admitted publicly that if the MWP was global and as warm as now then it is a âdifferent ballgameâ. More important, peer-reviewed studies continue to regularly show up, almost always confirming that the MWP was warmer than now.
The Greenland Temperature (gisp2) study, for example, shows, among other things, that Greenland was warmer during the MWP than it was at the time of the study. Greenland is distant from both Europe and Alaska. Thereâs also this: https://junkscience.com/2018/06/study-ancient-greenland-was-much-warmer-than-previously-thought/
The numerous MWP studies have been cataloged at the co2science.org website. Dr. Idso, the proprietor of that website, is a known skeptic. However, the peer-reviewed studies were independently performed by numerous researchers using various temperature proxy techniques and representing many different countries. Idso is merely operating as the librarian. These studies now span several decades and new confirming investigations continue to show up regularly.
Interested readers should satisfy themselves by going to co2science.org and choosing (say) a half-dozen regions (all should be remote from Alaska, Greenland, and Europe). Focus on the subset of the MWP studies which directly address temperature. Choose at least one temperature study from each selected region. (Idso provides brief summaries but feel free to review the study in its original format.) You will find that each of the selected study sites were warmer during the MWP than at the time of the study. These study results are consistent with the temperature trend exhibited by borehole data. Conversely the aggregate such studies confirm the borehole data trend.
There are also other confirming observations which include such things as antique vineyards found at latitudes where grapes cannot be grown today, old burial sites found below the perma-frost, and Viking maps of most of Greenlandâs coastline.
The MWP studies as well as various other data are all consistent with the borehole data results. This meta-study is an aggregate of straightforward peer-reviewed studies which can be replicated and the research results do NOT require the use of controversial âmodelsâ, or dubious statistical machinations.
One of the âtalking pointsâ posed by alarmists attempting to ârebutâ the claim of a global, warmer MWP is that warming in all regions during the MWP must be synchronous. Obviously the MWP studies were generally performed independently, so start and end dates of each study during the MWP will vary.
However, anyone foolish enough to accept that âsynchronousâ constraint must also admit that our current warming would also not qualify as a global event. For example, many alarmists go back into the 1800s when making their claims about the total global warming temperature increase. However, that ignores a three decade GLOBAL cooling period from about 1945 to 1975. That globally non-synchronous period is much more significant than just a region or two being âout of synchâ.
There are also other reasons to exclude consideration of temperature increases during the 1800s. There was a significant NATURAL warming beginning around 1630 (the first low temperature experienced during the LIA) and that period of increasing temperatures ran until at least 1830 (perhaps until 1850) before co2 began increasing. However, it would have taken many subsequent decades, possibly more than a century, for co2 increase after 1830, at an average 2 ppmv per year, to accrue before having ANY impact on thermometer measurements. Neither is there any reason to expect that the 200 years of natural and significant warming beginning in 1630 ended abruptly, after 2 centuries, merely because co2 level began increasing in 1830 at a miniscule 2ppmv per year. How much, and for how long was the temperature increase after 1830 due mostly to the continuing natural climate warming beginning in 1630?
Also, related to the âsynchronousâ claim, any current considerations about global warming must be constrained to a starting point after the cooling which ended in 1975, so no earlier than 1975. The global temperature began steadily increasing in 1975 and that increase basically terminated during the 1997/98 el Nino. Even the IPCC (a bureaucracy which cannot justify its mission if current warming is NATURAL) has reluctantly acknowledged yet another GLOBAL âhiatusâ in temperature increase after 2000. Thatâs in spite of the fact that co2 level has steadily continued increasing since around 1830-1850. NASA, in comparing recent candidate years for âhottestâ devoted significant time to wringing its hands about differences of a few hundredths of one degree. Such miniscule differences are not significant because the uncertainty error is at least one tenth of a degree. Some argue that the uncertainty error is as large as one degree.
So, all this current âglobal warmingâ controversy involves just over two decades, (1975 to 1998) and that warming has been followed by almost another two decades of no further statistically significant increase in temperature. But wait ⌠! It turns out that even the period from 1975 to 1998 apparently does not qualify as a global warming period because there were numerous âout of synchâ regions and/or countries which have experienced no additional warming over durations which include the 1975-1998 span.
http://notrickszone.com/2018/02/18/greenland-antarctica-and-dozens-of-areas-worldwide-have-not-seen-any-warming-in-60-years-and-more/#sthash.5Hq7Xqdh.JsV4juVL.dpbs
https://wattsupwiththat.com/category/hiatus-in-global-warming/
Another alarmist rebuttal attempt is that the MWP studies cataloged by co2science.org have been cherry-picked. (Dozens of peer-reviewed studies spanning several decades, all cherry-picked? And what about the borehole data? Readers should satisfy themselves by searching for conflicting credible peer-reviewed MWP temperature studies which have not been cataloged by co2science.org. But, keep in mind that a few stray conflicting studies will not likely have much impact, because, as the previous link demonstrates, there is no shortage of regions showing no increasing warming during the supposedly 1975-1998 global warming period.
Nicely done.
That was quite a well focused gish gallop, but you need to start using the Holocene maximum instead of the MWP, things are changing fast.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2013/09/paleoclimate-the-end-of-the-holocene/
Long post there Denis. To cut to the meat. Climate models failed, for 40 years, to properly predict actual climate change. Modelers claim climate is ‘just physics’ but 30 years of messing with physics and they still can’t get it right. Because climate is really a “coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible” (quote: IPCC – in a rare moment of lucidity).
Studies which claim to erase the MWP ignore previous solid evidence (hundreds of studies). Such MWP-erasing studies rely on bad proxies for temperature, bent statistics and being good friends with journal editors and peer reviewers.
Did temperatures not go up?
EXCELLENTLY DONE Denis!
From my several years of observation, it appears that when the speed of the solar wind increases (geomagnetic activity) over a period of about a month, the speed of the jet stream over the North Atlantic and Pacific increases, which is conducive to the formation of hurricanes in the tropics. Circulation on the ocean then takes the shape of an ellipse.
https://images.tinypic.pl/i/00971/89dap38wvnjw.jpg
A HOLE IN THE SUN’S ATMOSPHERE: A jagged hole in the sun’s atmosphere is facing Earth and spewing a stream of solar wind toward our planet. Estimated time of arrival: Sept. 17th. Because the gaseous material will reach Earth only a few days before the onset of northern autumn, it may be extra-effective at sparking auroras–a result of “equinox cracks” in the geomagnetic field.
Indeed, a 75-year study shows that September is one of the most geomagnetically active months of the yeara direct result of “equinox cracks.”
http://www.spaceweather.com/
Great job.
What you said about how knowledgeable guys like Gore, Nye, and Tyson are needed saying.
And, although I’ve been pretty disappointed lately at the way Anthony Watts pushes Christopher Monckton’s latest hokum and suppresses responsible responses, it was good to see his good work on the Bill Nye “experiment” get national attention. It can be found at https://wattsupwiththat.com/gore-and-bill-nye-fail-at-doing-a-simple-co2-experiment/.
What happens inside a closed chamber is hardly relevant to the open atmosphere. However, heat does not escape that closed chamber. Satellites detect heat escaping to space.
Applying the greenhouse gas theory to the open atmosphere brings with it a caveat: there MUST be a warmer region about 10k above the tropics. Despite decades of radiosonde, that supposed “hot spot” has never been found. It’s not a matter of missing data. The weather balloon data is available, both there and elsewhere. No hot spot.
The claims that the hot spot has been found are tantamount to asking skeptics whether they’re willing to believe the alarmist claims rather than their own lying eyes. The alarmists have to DENY the existing data, never a good sign.
The models basically attribute all of the temperature increase to co2 increase and water vapor feedback, the latter creating 2 to 3 times the temperature increase as brought on by co2 increase. But, lo, the Medieval Warming Period, both global and warmer than now, experienced NO co2 increase. Not during the MWP or for hundreds of thousands of years before the MWP. So, alarmists DENY that the MWP was global and at least as warm as now.
I think you misspoke when you said the warming trend began in the ’50s.
The Guardian, November 20, 1974:
“…the threat of a new ice age must now stand alongside nuclear war as a likely source of wholesale death and misery for mankind.”
The Guardian, January 29, 1974:
“Space satellites show new Ice Age coming fast”
Science News, March 1, 1975:
“The Ice Age Cometh?”
Chicago Tribune, March 2, 1975:
“B-r-r-r-r New Ice Age On Way Soon?”
“In the last decade, the Arctic ice and snow cap has expanded 12 per cent, and for the first time in this century, ships making for Iceland ports have been impeded by drifting ice.”
“MANY CLIMATOLOGISTS see these signs as evidence that a significant shift in climate is taking place – a shift that could be the forerunner of an Ice Age like that which gripped much of the Northern Hemisphere before retreating 10,000 years ago.”
The New York Times, January 5, 1978:
“An international team of specialists has concluded from eight indexes of climate that there is no end in sight to the cooling trend of the last 30 years, at least in the Northern Hemisphere.”
Newsweek, April 28, 1975:
“THE COOLING WORLD”
“There are ominous signs that the earth’s weather patterns have begun to change dramatically and that these changes may portend a drastic decline in food production – with serious political considerations for just about every nation on earth.”
“The evidence in support of these predictions has now begun to accumulate so massively that meteorologists are hard pressed to keep up with it.”
“Climatologists are pessimistic that political leaders will take any positive action to compensate for the climatic change, or even to allay its effects. They concede that some of the more spectacular solutions proposed, such as melting the arctic ice cap by covering it with black soot, or diverting arctic rivers, might create problems far greater than those they solve.”
https://realclimatescience.com/2018/09/climate-scientists-knew/
World temperatures went up from 1900 to 1940. Then down from 1940 to 1980 (that was the ice-age scare). And then up again from 1980 to now (although there has not been much temperature change this century). The net rise since 1950 has been up. Also, Dr. Spencer may have to pay due homage to the official NASA temperature record which has been fraudulently adjusted to remove the ice-age scare data from the record.
Scott says:
“(although there has not been much temperature change this century)”
Not true. The linear trend of UAH LT v6.0 since Jan 2001 is +0.12 C/decade, just a hair under their total trend of +0.13 C/dec.
There’s often 15 degrees between the daily low and high temps where I live.
Good luck convincing a normal person that an increase of one one-hundredth of a degree per year is significant.
There is no “linear trend”
There have been one step changes due to the 1998 El Nino and one transient , now gone, at the 2015, 2017 El Nino
Between those El ninos. NOTHING, NADA.
But the alarmists HAVE to use the mathematical idiocy of pretending those El Ninos are actually part of a trend.
I think 0.012K/a is about ‘nada’. 0.03K/a would be no more nada. You should not measure rise between el ninos.
For spike:
https://tinyurl.com/ya65jlqc
“Thereâs often 15 degrees between the daily low and high temps where I live.”
Yeah, who cares about an insignificant 0.1 C/ day increase compared to 15 degree C daily swing?
Oh wait, that turns winter into summer after 6 months.
Scott, you’re cherry picking.
There was no consensus on global cooling in the ’60s and ’70s. Unlike today, it was a time before satellites were routinely providing loads of observational data, and scientists were not sure what was going on. A literature survey of that time period found there was no cooling consensus:
“The Myth of the 1970s Global Cooling Scientific Consensus,” W. Peterson et al, Bull. Amer. Meteor. Soc., 89, 13251337, 2008
http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/2008BAMS2370.1
In fact, by 1965 plenty of scientists had already been warning about global warming from the buildup of greenhouse gases, and by the late ’60s climate models were calculating the warming expected from CO2. List of some papers and reports here:
http://www.davidappell.com/EarlyClimateScience.html
This guy thinks the paper you link to is garbage.
http://notrickszone.com/2016/09/13/massive-cover-up-exposed-285-papers-from-1960s-80s-reveal-robust-global-cooling-scientific-consensus/
Pierre Gosselin??? Ha.
Who gives a crap — he’s not a scientist, is usually obviously wrong, and has no credibility whatsoever.
Stick to the scientific realm.
David Appell??? Ha.
Who gives a crap — he’s not a scientist, is usually obviously wrong, and has no credibility whatsoever.
Stick to the scientific realm.
Remember when Pierre Gosselin posted fake photos to his blog?
I do:
https://davidappell.blogspot.com/2015/06/faking-before-and-after-pictures-of.html
Remember all links to your phony pseudoscience?
DENIAL of data, facts, papers ..
Its all you have, isn’t it
You poor little AGW apologist.
or are you more an AGW collaborator ??
spike: do you agree that Pierre Gosselin posted fake photos to his blog?
“…do you agree that Pierre Gosselin posted fake photos to his blog?”
No. He showed how it looks today, and how it would have looked without the turbines. It is a valid depiction of the visual blight imposed. There’s nothing wrong with that.
So you’re in denial that those are real peer reviewed papers? That’s what true denial is, when looking at something obvious such as 285 science publications, and then claiming that they don’t exist. Are you the last cultist left to defend the sophistry and pseudoscience? How disappointing.
Thank you, Roy. Well done, especially the stats.
Cheers,
Bob
Good job.
I am surprised that Anthony Watts had trouble with this experiment.
We did a similar classroom experiment for years and it behaved as advertised.
I included a description of my apparatus, but the site refused to display it.
Then there’s this simple demonstration:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kGaV3PiobYk
experimental defects:
Compressed gas in the cylinder is injected into the tube – because it is gas it is expanding and cooling ruining temp stability.
Same results with No2 or O2 or..
He should have several different tubes – one with normal air, one would be pure CO2 both at room temp and let some one else who does not know which is which run the flame camera deal.
entropic…”I am surprised that Anthony Watts had trouble with this experiment.
We did a similar classroom experiment for years and it behaved as advertised.”
**********
Yours was obviously wrong or you reached the wrong conclusion.
Watts pointed out the obvious, that IR won’t penetrate glass but the glass will absorb the IR and heat up. The warmer glass then heats the gas mix by conduction and convection.
He pointed out something else important but he missed the message. He showed that air and CO2 warm and cool at different rates. Watt, circa 1909, pointed out the same thing and he was an expert on CO2. Unlike Watts, however, Watt claimed a greenhouse is not warmed by trapped IR but by a lack of convection.
Think about it, how can trapped IR warm the majority N2/O2 gases in a greenhouse when CO2 is only 0.04% of the mix? I’ll bet anything that a greenhouse filled with N2/O2 with all CO2 removed will heat just the same.
Watt (1909) claimed the atmosphere warms by conduction and convection as do the glass jars in the experiments. However, once warmed, the N2/O2 majority gases in the atmosphere are slow to cool, just as in the experiment.
That’s what causes the so-called greenhouse effect, the slow cooling of N2/O2 after they absorb heat directly from the surface.
The Gore/Nye experiments are actually dishonest in other ways. The atmosphere has a tiny fraction of the CO2 available in their experiments. It was proved by Tyndall that CO2 absorbs infrared but I think he used halite lenses, which will pass IR. If he did not, then his experiment is questionable as well.
And yet STILL Gordon the soderer can’t understand or acknowledge radiative transfer. Which has been known for well over 100 years.
Gordon can’t even get caught up to 1900, let alone 2000. But then, what do you expect from a mere soder monkey?
Clown, it’s “solder”.
Try to get something right.
Right. Gordon is a “solder monkey.”
Okay, so you’re on record believing that IR radiation penetrates thick glass, gotchya. Your credibility is a solid as vapor.
This experiment measures the transient impact of heat capacity, not radiative transmission.
Nothing to do with Roy, but Tucker Carlson is a man without honor, who the other night blatantly broke a deal with Michael Avenatti:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/reliable-source/wp/2018/09/14/creepy-porn-lawyer-michael-avenatti-lashes-out-at-tucker-carlson-fox-over-name-calling/
it happened but you could have used a source other than the one that is claiming the president is complicit for a hurricane and it’s effects and is hyping a category 6 designation. But dishonorable sources for the dishonorable I guess.
Thanks for accepting that it happened. Carlson is a snake. It’s probably a requirement for the 8 o’clock job.
Tucker is more honest than at least 90% of the so called “anchors” on cable, which claim to be journalists but which spend more time on opinion than “reporting” the news and who are ignoring the real news. And his shows numbers reflect that.
Tucker, who at age 49 still looks like the boy that he is, lied to Avenatti. And in a very childish fashion.
And somehow you think this doesn’t matter. Because whataboutism!
Tells me a lot about you.
DAppell cannot abide people being honest and stating facts and truth.
A straightforward description of a person is NOT a nickname.
The guy is definitely “creepy”, and also definitely a “porn lawyer”
If he takes those facts as insults, maybe he should do something about them.
spike55 says:
A straightforward description of a person is NOT a nickname.
Tucker agreed not to use that term.
Right?
Did he then use it?
You want to get into a childish argument on appearances? I don’t think you’d fair too well in that one unless it were a Wayne Knight look alike contest.
DA…”Nothing to do with Roy, but Tucker Carlson is a man without honor, who the other night blatantly broke a deal with Michael Avenatti:”
Sour grapes!!! I like Tucker.
Then you like a scumbag who broke his word.
Bee in the bonnet, hey DApple..
nothing else on today in the basement???
Is the TRUTH an insult ?
You would rather Tucker LIED ?
He’s not a lawyer, y’know, that’s their game.
Tucker DID lie.
Right?
If he lied, it is legally actionable, and the CPL can sue. Is CPL suing?
David likes a source that pumps out blatant lies on nearly a daily basis. Really here is what your not getting David. Something that is different in national politics now than I can ever remember it being before. Something the left seems to have missed altogether that has removed a key arrow from their quiver and the reason why Trump is POTUS despite the evidence of his womanizing or any other mud the left threw up against the wall.
A majority of constituency on the right doesn’t care about charges made by the left concerning immorality or inconsistency or hypocrisy of us or our candidates anymore. The stakes have become too high and people have finally woken up to the fact that the left uses peoples faith against the faithful as a social/political weapon. Selective moral indignation by the immoral and hypocritic left against those that are generally moral but who, like all human beings, sometimes fail to hold true to their own higher standards is not working now. And your charge against Tucker is not working here either. It won’t swing a single person’s opinion on Tucker or the subject at hand.
Roy, good interview, but when you mentioned “severe weather” you conspicuously left out extreme rainfall events (of which Florence is an example).
“Florence Sets Preliminary North Carolina State Rain Record; Third State to Do So in 12 Months,” The Weather Channel, 9/15/18.
https://weather.com/storms/hurricane/news/2018-09-15-florence-north-carolina-tropical-rain-record
There *is* evidence that AGW is causing more extreme rainfall events:
“Varied increases in extreme rainfall with global warming:
Intensification of extreme rainfall varies from region to region, study shows,” MIT press release, 2017.
http://news.mit.edu/2017/varied-increases-extreme-rainfall-global-warming-0515
More science for you, Roy:
“Global warming already driving increases in rainfall extremes: Precipitation extremes are affecting even arid parts of the world, study shows,” Nature 3/7/16
http://www.nature.com/news/global-warming-already-driving-increases-in-rainfall-extremes-1.19508
“Increased record-breaking precipitation events under global warming,” J Lehmann et al, Clim. Change 132, 501â515 (2015).
http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs10584-015-1434-y
“Here we show that, worldwide, the number of local record-breaking monthly temperature extremes is now on average five times larger than expected in a climate with no long-term warming.”
– Coumou, D., A. Robinson and S. Rahmstorf, 2013: Global increase in record-breaking monthly-mean temperatures. Climatic Change, doi:10.1007/s10584-012-0668-1
DA, that’s not science, that’s your infamous pseudoscience.
Like here where you erroneously claimed ice can warm a surface to 47 $deg;C (116 $deg;F)
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2018/07/summer-causes-climate-change-hysteria/#comment-312568
Learn some physics.
Ger*an (=JDHuffman),
As usual, you didn’t understand my comment.
I don’t see any need to try to correct you. No one here takes you seriously anyway.
No clown, you were very clear.
Now you have to spin your way out of your own deceitful web.
(May some more clowns can help you?)
Yes, I was. Collinear fluxes j1/A and j2/A add to (j1+j2)/A.
Like here where you erroneously claimed ice can warm a surface to 47 °C (116 °F).
You got that wrong, too.
So it goes.
Link speaks for itself, clown.
You got caught again.
Yes it does. Collinear fluxes j1/A and j2/A add to (j1+j2)/A.
DA, keep trying to spin your way out of your own web of words.
Great comedy!
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2018/07/summer-causes-climate-change-hysteria/#comment-312568
As JD/Ger*an is shamelessly twisting DAs words to try to make him say something he did not say.
Doing the very same thing to Roy is what got him banned the last time.
Nate, please stop trolling.
I’m only 34 years old, but every tropical storm that has occurred in my lifetime has been an “extreme rainfall event.” Next you’re going to argue that he left out saying that tornadoes are extreme wind events.
So you rightly point out that Bill Nye’s statements are sometimes misinforming people.
But you repeated the statement on Tucker Carlson that “the frequency of hits of the US by major hurricanes has gone down by 50% since the 1930s and 1940s”.
This sounds like an impressive and supportive statistic, but what you didnt say is that this 50% reduction has NO statistical significance. AND that you have left Puerto Rico and hurricanes like Maria out of the United States.
You say that there is no research showing increased intensity of rainfall events. There IS some research showing just that. http://www.climatecentral.org/gallery/maps/extreme-precipitation-events-are-on-the-rise
Arent you misinforming people?
nate…”So you rightly point out that Bill Nyes statements are sometimes misinforming people”.
Nye is the clown prince of pseudo-science.
This interview with Nye and Lindzen reveals what an incompetent, misinformed pseudo-scientist is Bill Nye.
He cannot rebut Lindzen’s science, he has to turn to the IPCC then use the old saw about Lindzen’s ideas being in the minority. In other words, Nye has absolutely no idea what he is talking about.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Nh-tXGu-sM
Gordon thinks Lindzen has never been rebutted. Sad.
Skeptical Sheldon’s perplexing perspective on global warming.
==========
(You can read more of Sheldon’s nonsense at https://agree-to-disagree.com)
Alarmists have a very boring view of global warming. They are content to have a single warming rate, for the date range 1970 to 2018. Something like +1.80 degrees Celsius per century.
That is like driving everywhere in your car, at 10 km/h.
Sheldon’s first rule of global warming is,
Rule 1 – You can never have too many warming rates.
All right, this is a slight exaggeration. 343,207 warming rates is too many.
But 343,206 warming rates, is perfect.
==========
Rule 2 – The phrase “temperature anomalies” has too many letters. I am just going to call them temperatures. If you don’t like me doing this, then cut and paste my entire comment into a word processor, and replace all “temperatures” with “temperature anomalies”.
==========
There is an easy way to calculate how many warming rates that there are in a temperature series.
If you have X temperatures in a temperature series, then the number of warming rates is,
(X) * (X – 1) / 2
If you have Y temperatures in a temperature series, then the number of warming rates is,
(Y) * (Y – 1) / 2
If you have Z temperatures in a temperature series, then the number of warming rates is,
(Z) * (Z – 1) / 2
If the number of temperatures in a temperature series is NOT X, Y, or Z, then you are out of luck, there is no way to calculate the number of warming rates.
==========
So, if you have 10 temperatures in a temperature series, then the number of warming rates is (10) * (10 – 1) / 2 = 45
If you have 100 temperatures in a temperature series, then the number of warming rates is (100) * (100 – 1) / 2 = 4,950
If you have 1000 temperatures in a temperature series, then the number of warming rates is (1000) * (1000 – 1) / 2 = 499,500 [see Rule 1 – this is too many warming rates]
Once, I tried to calculate all of the warming rates for the date range from 1880 to 2018, using monthly data.
This is 138 years = 138 * 12 = 1656 months, plus 1 for good luck = 1657 temperatures.
Why plus 1 for good luck? Because I am going from January 1880 to January 2018
So, if you have 1657 temperatures in a temperature series, then the number of warming rates is (1657) * (1657 – 1) / 2 = 1,371,996
This is too many warming rates. My computer blew up, so I can’t tell you what the warming rate was. But I know that it starts with a 7
==========
I frequently calculate all of the warming rates for the date range 1970 to 2018, using monthly data. I have to calculate them frequently, because I keep forgetting what they are.
From 1970 to 2018 is 48 years = 48 * 12 = 576 months, plus 1 for good luck = 577 temperatures
So, if you have 577 temperatures in a temperature series, then the number of warming rates is (577) * (577 – 1) / 2 = 166,176
166,176 warming rates is an acceptable number of warming rates. More would be better, but it is important not to be greedy.
There are only a finite number of warming rates in the universe, and if people are greedy, then there won’t be enough for everybody to have some.
==========
Remember how there are too many warming rates from 1880 to 2018, using monthly data (please pay attention, there are 1,371,996 warming rates. I told you earlier).
I have worked out a way of “cheating”, so that I can get the warming rates for 1880 to 2018. On average, there are approximately 30.5 days in a month. While the computer is not looking, I edit the BIOS, and change the average number of days in a month to be 61.0
Then I run my program, and the computer doesn’t realise that there are too many warming rates for the date range 1880 to 2018.
Alright, I admit that I didn’t quite tell you the truth. What I do, is combine pairs of months, by averaging the 2 months together, to get 1 temperature for every 2 months. This gives me 6 temperatures per year, instead of 12 temperatures per year.
From 1880 to 2018 is 138 years = 138 * 6 = 828 pairs of months, plus 1 for good luck = 829 temperatures
So, if you have 829 temperatures in a temperature series, then the number of warming rates is (829) * (829 – 1) / 2 = 343,206
I told you near the start of this comment, that 343,206 warming rates is the perfect number of warming rates.
Now you know why.
==========
In my next comment, I will tell you how to associate a colour with each warming rate, so that you can make pretty pictures, which have nothing to do with global warming. Nudge nudge, wink, wink, say no more.
Sheldon: What’s your justification for extrapolating present rates (of whatever length) over a century?
When I drive my car, the speedometer tells me the speed in km/h, whether I go for a 2 minute trip, or a 1 hour trip, or a 10 day trip.
A constant unit is needed, to make comparing different warming rates easy.
Warming rates in degrees Celsius per century are nice small numbers (between -5.0 and +5.0 degrees Celsius per century).
Warming rates in degrees Celsius per decade are horrible fractions (between -0.5 and +0.5 degrees Celsius per decade).
I try to make things easy for people. If you can suggest a better way of doing it, then I am willing to listen.
So because you went 35 mph for 2 minutes, it’s therefore justified to assume that you will drive 35 mph for the next four hours?
Sheldon Walker says:
Warming rates in degrees Celsius per century are nice small numbers (between -5.0 and +5.0 degrees Celsius per century).
Look, dummy, if you calculate a trend over a few decades you AREN’T justified in extrapolating it over a century.
OMg, we need better skeptics.
David,
I think that YOU are misusing my warming rates.
I don’t wildly extrapolate anybody’s warming rates.
You seem to think that I am an alarmist. But I am not.
Alarmists extrapolate high warming rates, but claim that low warming rates are NEVER statistically significant.
All of my graphs have a warning, in very small letters. It says, “past performance is no guarantee of future performance”.
You should take notice of that warning!!!
David,
You said, “Look, dummy, if you calculate a trend over a few decades you ARENT justified in extrapolating it over a century.”
When a car speedometer reads 50 km/h, it is extrapolating your current speed, and saying that if you keep going the present speed, then you will travel 50 km in one hour.
I don’t hear any reasonable people complaining about their car’s speedometer.
Only YOU, David.
Why don’t you stick to a tricycle? It is more your speed.
Specifying a warming rate in degrees Celsius per century, does NOT imply that the warming rate will last for a century.
When your car’s speedometer reads 50 km/h, it does NOT mean that you have to drive for another hour. You could stop after 1 minute.
Is English your first language? Are you an Eskimo? Their word for “travel”, means “keep going for 100 years”.
So Eskimos would love degrees Celsius per century.
Also, Eskimos love global warming. Their word for “global warming”, means “here come the good times, no more frozen toes”.
Sheldon Walker says:
Specifying a warming rate in degrees Celsius per century, does NOT imply that the warming rate will last for a century.
So then what’s the use in citing a trend in degC/century?
Sheldon, do you know how to calculate the statistical significance of a trend??
Now would be a good time to learn. I learned a lot from this 2005 document by Tom Wigley, on trends and statistics:
http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.175.5656&rep=rep1&type=pdf
DA…”Now would be a good time to learn. I learned a lot from this 2005 document by Tom Wigley, on trends and statistics: ”
What you learned from Wigley, an uber-alarmist, is biased statistics and how to apply them. For example, Wigley et al regard ENSO natural variations as noise while proclaiming bs forcing agents like CO2 as legitimate signals.
From your link…
“The population is a theoretical concept, an idealized representation of the set of all possible values of some measured quantity. An example would be if we were able to measure temperatures continuously at a single site for all time the set of all values (which would be infinite in size in this case) would be the population of temperatures for that site. A sample is what we actually see and can measure: i.e., what we have available for statistical analysis, and a necessarily limited subset of the population. In the real world, all we ever have is limited samples, from which we try to estimate the properties of the population”.
This explanation is seriously confused. How can a population be a theoretical concept if it represents all possible values of a measurement. Wigley is wrong here, there are no ‘possible values of some measured value’, there can only be one measurement per statistic.
In his temperature measurement, each temperature measured is a statistic and the entire set of statistics is the population. If he selects 10 temperature values from the population that is a sample.
Or, if you put 1000 ball bearing in a container, the 1000 BBs would be the population. If the were all different colours, say red, green, and blue, and you wanted to estimate how many of each were in the population, you could withdraw samples of 10 at a time, count the number of R,G and B.
If you withdrew all 1000 at 10 per time, you could get an exact count. However, maybe you have a million, so you withdraw many sample of 10 then estimate the entire number based on what you counted in the samples.
Your confidence level is based on the sample size and the number of samples withdrawn. That’s why the Cls stated in opinion polls are worthless, the sample sizes are way too small.
I don’t think most alarmists are good at statistics and how to interpret them. They are biased coming in and they bend the statistical theory to suit their bias. Mann et al proved that in the way they botched the hockey stick stats.
Right, Gordon, we’re supposed to care what you say, when you don’t even know how to calculate a trend and think eyeballing the data is good enough.
How can you not see what a joke you are??
You presumably mean the slope estimate from a linear, least squares regression.
There is nothing magical about a least squares regression. It is simply the result that minimizes the sum of squares of deviations, i.e., the L2 norm. Other norms are possible. E.g., we can minimize the L1 norm (sum of absolute deviations), or the L-infinity norm (maximum deviation). Most often, we choose the L2 norm as a matter of convenience, as it is generally easiest to calculate.
Imbuing the least squares regression with statistical significance requires assumption of a model. But, if the model is unrepresentative, then the significance result is not valid.
When one doesn’t have a valid model, there is no basis upon which to declare one method superior to another. In such a case, eyeballing is as valid a means as any other.
I’d love to see any statistics text that you can find that says
“In such a case, eyeballing is as valid a means as any other.”
And why are you, Bart, comfortable assuming a linear model for Temps since 1900, when there is no basis upon which to declare “a linear model” superior to another?
So, you think an invalid model is superior to eyeballing? Ooo-kay.
I think there are vastly better methods than just eye-balling.
You are completely happy with a linear (plus sine) model for temperature data of the last century, cutoff precisely at 1900 because the model fails for earlier data.
Yet people successfully fitting temperature data to a linear model over a (yes-limited) range of 50 y, when the known decadal forcing has linearity, is somehow invalid?
I don’t understand how you can so comfortably contradict yourself?
“…when the known decadal forcing has linearity…”
It doesn’t, nor is it “known”.
Yes, yes it does.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiative_forcing#/media/File:Carbon_Dioxide_radiative_forcing.png
That is an hypothesis, not a fact. And, temperatures have not, in fact, risen as the log of CO2. CO2 has not risen exponentially, and temperatures have been on a steady trend with a superimposed ~60 year cycle.
You are engaging in circular reasoning.
A hypothesis, that takes rise in GHG, which have been linear for 40 + years, and turns it into a quantitative prediction for linear rise in temperature. One that can be tested. The fundamental mechanism behind the rise can be tested and has been.
Come up with an alternative theory that has these characteristics, has a physics-based mechanism, makes quantitative predictions and then we’ll talk.
Until then you just offer wishful thinking about recent history repeating.
“rise in GHG, which have been linear for 40 + years” correction: rise in Log(GHG) which have been linear for 40 + years
Gordon Robertson wrote:
Your confidence level is based on the sample size and the number of samples withdrawn.
Idiot. Everyone knows this. Including Tom Wigley. The sample size appears prominently in all his equations.
Gordon, your attempts to look smart always backfire and show just how dumb you really are.
David,
I do know how to calculate the statistical significance of a trend?
I have even plotted my global warming contour map, using the statistical significance to determine the colour of the plotted point.
However, I find that 95% to 99% of people do not understand what statistical significance means.
Alarmists think that a warming rate, which is statistically significant, means that global warming is happening.
Alarmists think that a low warming rate, which is NOT statistically significant, means that global warming is also happening.
In other words. Alarmists think that statistical tests can only prove that global warming is happening. They CANNOT prove the global warming is NOT happening.
Saying that a result is statistically significant, hides the real meaning of statistical significance.
It really means “statistically significantly different from zero”.
So a pause (a warming rate = zero), can never be statistically significant, even if it lasts for 10,000 years.
Because zero is NOT statistically significantly different from zero.
Alarmists have created a situation that they can never lose. Heads means that global warming is happening, tails means a pause or slowdown is NOT happening.
Sheldon Walker says:
I have even plotted my global warming contour map
What map?
David,
I developed a temperature “rate of change” graph, which I called a “global warming contour map”.
It takes a little effort to fully understand what it is showing. But even looking at the colour, gives some information about what warming rates are doing.
You can compare the contour maps to the corresponding line graphs, in many cases.
If you want to learn more about contour maps, check out the “Robot-Train contour maps” web page.
If you live in America, you might find this article interesting.
https://agree-to-disagree.com/usa-warming
Sheldon Walker says:
Alarmists think that a warming rate, which is statistically significant, means that global warming is happening.
Oh Jeez. Yes, they do.
You don’t?
David,
it is impossible to have an intelligent conversation with somebody who only reads half of what I have written.
I never said what you have claimed.
Grow up, or don’t bother talking to me.
There are plenty of people here who will have a reasonable conversation with me.
I have serious doubts about a person who thinks that a scientific unit (degrees Celsius per century), is the same as a prediction for the next 100 years.
How do you ever stop driving your car, when the speedometer is giving you a prediction for how far you will go in the next hour?
Roy wrote:
James Hansen also has had a huge influence on the public debate, and yet broke NASA rules by speaking to the press and Congress without management approval
Oh please. Hansen broke the rules because he felt his science wasn’t getting out. That was heroic. Because various bureaucratic flunkies, including a syncopathic 20-something yr old kid who knew nothing besides how to lick boots, was trying to censor his science.
Hansen deserves a medal for this, in the best tradition of whistleblowers everywhere. And he got away with it because he had the balls, the reputation and the science to back him up.
Hansen will be remembered forever. That bureaucratic Bush Jr flunkie has already been forgotten. Complaining about this now just shows how right Hansen was all along.
DA…”Hansen broke the rules because he felt his science wasnt getting out. That was heroic”.
It was idiotic, not heroic.
Hansen’s science is based on the view of Carl Sagan re Venus. Sagan thought the atmosphere of Venus with it’s high CO2 content had produced a runaway greenhouse effect. Hansen concluded the same thing was happening on Earth due to anthropogenic CO2, a totally asinine conclusion.
Hansen has a degree in physics but he plied his trade as an astronomer before getting the job at GISS as a climate modeler. Hansen has managed to set climate science back decades through his poorly thought-out fetish with Venus.
Sagan was right about Venus. Hansen was right about Earth.
And you think YOU, GORDON ROBERTSON, gets to judge either of them? You don’t, pal. You, Gordon, are a proudly uneducated denier who everyone here knows is a liar, and also an idiot in the best tradition of Dunning-Kruger.
You’re a joke, especially when you write comments like the one above.
DA…”Sagan was right about Venus. Hansen was right about Earth.
And you think YOU, GORDON ROBERTSON, gets to judge either of them?”
**********
I am not afraid to call a lie a lie. No one needs a Ph. D to see bullshit when it is presented.
Sagan was wrong. Astronomer Andrew Ingersoll stated that based on the unexpected 450C surface temps returned by the Pioneer probe, it would be a contradiction of the 2nd law to claim that level of surface heat was produced by a greenhouse effect from a cooler atmosphere.
He was stating the obvious. If the Venusian surface is 450C, a cooler atmosphere could not possibly transfer enough heat to warm it to that extent. The same principle applies to Earth.
I doubt Ingersoll said such a thing, because I know, Gordon, that you’re a common liar.
That you didn’t cite him makes me even more sure.
But you, Gordon, avoid the main point — you like to dismiss people based on their education, when you have one of the most irrelevant educations of all — you’re only a technician. Why would anyone believe a word you say? Why do you think you’re so qualified to dismiss men far more educated than you?
Remember, Gordon, how you dismiss Mann because he has a PhD in geophysics (while you have no PhD at all), and then quote time and again the Japanese geophysicist whose opinion you like.
Tell us how that’s not hypocritical, Gordon.
Gordon,
Astronomer Andrew Ingersoll contributed to the understanding of the Greenhouse effect on Venus, that Hansen went on to study and explain further. He has never said the GHE on Venus is impossible.
Neither Carl Sagan nor James Hansen, who understand physics and planetary atmospheres way way way better than you, have ever violated the 2LOT in their work.
I call big whopper of BS on that one.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2018/09/my-tucker-carlson-interview-last-night-and-calling-out-bill-nye-james-hansen/#comment-321048
“An atmosphere has nothing outside, just space, so the greenhouse gases trap heat by blocking the infrared radiation to space. Venus has clouds of sulfuric acid and a massive carbon dioxide atmosphere that together reflect 75% of the incident sunlight. Yet enough sunlight reaches the surface, and enough of the outgoing radiation is blocked, to make the surface of Venus hotter than any other surface in the solar system.”
Andrew Ingersol, in his book PLANETARY CLIMATES, 2013
That didnt sound like an apology.
An atmosphere has nothing outside, just space, so the greenhouse gases trap heat by blocking the infrared radiation to space. ”
Earth atmosphere is 1000 km high, and offical space is 100 km high, and few think greenhouse gases “trap heat by blocking the infrared radiation” above 20 km.
Beyond region of greenhouse gas effect, there is the Earth atmosphere and boundary of atmosphere and space is the region of exosphere, def:
1. The outermost region of a planet’s atmosphere. 2. The outermost region of the earth’s atmosphere, lying above the thermosphere and extending thousands of kilometers into space, from which molecules having sufficient velocity can escape the earth’s gravitation.
https://www.thefreedictionary.com/exosphere
“…Venus has clouds of sulfuric acid and a massive carbon dioxide atmosphere that together reflect 75% of the incident sunlight. Yet enough sunlight reaches the surface, and enough of the outgoing radiation is blocked, to make the surface of Venus hotter than any other surface in the solar system.
Andrew Ingersol, in his book PLANETARY CLIMATES, 2013 ”
Very little sunlight reaching the average surface of Venus. In terms using solar panels, Mars has far more sunlight at it’s it’s freezing surface.
Mars is actually better surface to harvest solar energy than most of Earth surface- though the global dust storms are factor- so if compared to a Mars at time when there isn’t a large global dust storm [like there is presently].
Of course Moon is much better place to get solar energy- no dust storms, no clouds, and no atmosphere blocking the sunlight.
DREMT/Halp
non-sequitur..
Nate/Norman, sequitur. You called a big whopper of BS on Gordon, when what he said was pretty much right. I would have thought you owed him an apology, despite what Ingersoll may have gone on to write later in his career.
No apology needed. Gordon, and you fail to understand how science works. You fail to put statements from an old paper in proper context.
The context is that when a discrepancy is found, it could be a problem with data, the theory, or some missing information. The paper notes all of these possibilities.
The other context is that the first results of an experiment or mission are rarely the end of the story. No Mike Drop after one paper. Later results may offer different interpretations.
In this case there are later papers that find problems with the data, such as,
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0019103582901130?via%3Dihub
“unexpected 450C surface temps returned by the Pioneer probe, it would be a contradiction of the 2nd law to claim that level of surface heat was produced by a greenhouse effect from a cooler atmosphere.”
FALSE. BS. The paper states that FLUXES measured are not sufficient, but MAY be in error.
“He was stating the obvious. If the Venusian surface is 450C, a cooler atmosphere could not possibly transfer enough heat to warm it to that extent. The same principle applies to Earth.”
“Sagan was wrong”
BS. Clearly, based on Ingersols book, he quite clearly does not agree with these statements
Wriggle, wriggle.
troll, troll.
Yes, that too.
OK lets go through it, if we really must.
First, you falsely accuse me and Gordon of not knowing how science works.
Then, you waffle about context within the paper. I linked to the paper. I therefore provided ALL the context of the paper. Clearly neither you, David, or later on Norman, had ever seen this paper before I linked to it. Youre welcome.
Next, you waffle about the context of the paper related to others. Neither Gordon or I ever claimed it was a mic drop paper. You are arguing against a point nobody even made. Gordon had already put his claim in the correct context by mentioning results from the Pioneer probe, thus putting the timing of all this back to the early 80s.
Nate, just admit it. You had never even heard of this paper. So you called a big whopper of BS on Gordon. Now, twist and spin all you want to, that was a false accusation. You, Norman and most definitely David (who literally accused him of lying) all owe Gordon an apology. But since none of you possess even a shred of integrity, that will never happen. Instead its just wriggle wriggle, spin spin, twist twist. And yes, troll troll.
Oh puleez DREMT. You’re full of shit and a troll.
Gordon is offering up an out-of-context quote from a 1980 paper as proof that the GHE does NOT explain Venus’s or Earth’s surface temperature TODAY, not just in 1980.
He wrote this:
“Hansens science is based on the view of Carl Sagan re Venus. Sagan thought the atmosphere of Venus with its high CO2 content had produced a runaway greenhouse effect. Hansen concluded the same thing was happening on Earth due to anthropogenic CO2, a totally asinine conclusion.”
“Sagan was wrong.”
FALSE, Bullshit. Venus temp IS due to a runaway GHE. Even Ingersoll who invented the concept in 1969 agrees.
Gordon said:
Astronomer Andrew Ingersoll stated that based on the unexpected 450C surface temps returned by the Pioneer probe, it would be a contradiction of the 2nd law to claim that level of surface heat was produced by a greenhouse effect from a cooler atmosphere.
Here is the paper:
https://authors.library.caltech.edu/37176/1/JA085iA13p08219.pdf
Everything else is in your imagination.
From the same Journal, Volume85, Issue A13 Pages 8223-8231
Recent measurements conducted from the Pioneer Venus probes and orbiter have provided a significantly improved definition of the solar net flux profile, the gaseous composition, temperature structure, and cloud properties of Venus’ lower atmosphere. Using these data, we have carried out a series of one‐dimensional radiative-convective equilibrium calculations to determine the viability of the greenhouse model of Venus’ high surface temperature and to assess the chief contributors to the greenhouse effect. New sources of infrared opacity include the permitted transitions of SO2, CO, and HCl as well as opacity due to several pressure‐induced transitions of CO2. We find that the observed surface temperature and lapse rate structure of the lower atmosphere can be reproduced quite closely with a greenhouse model that contains the water vapor abundance reported by the Venera spectrophotometer experiment. Thus the greenhouse effect can account for essentially all of Venus’ high surface temperature. The prime sources of infrared opacity are, in order of importance, CO2, H2O, cloud particles, and SO2, with CO and HCl playing very minor roles.
First published: 30 December 1980
Greenhouse models of Venus’ High surface temperature, as constrained by Pioneer Venus measurements
James B. Pollack Owen B. Toon Robert Boese
https://doi.org/10.1029/JA085iA13p08223
Thanks Ball4. So this other paper means Andrew Ingersoll didnt say what he did. Thats cleared that up.
You are welcome. And no DREMT, Ingersoll did say what he did. Please stop trolling.
What is cleared up is that what Andy Ingersoll wrote in conclusion was shown to be true – that he could not claim to understand the high surface temperatures of Venus while others could do so.
Thanks again. I do enjoy how you are always having a different conversation to anyone else.
“Everything else is in your imagination.”
Apparently you think Gordon’s quotes, about the GHE and Hansen and Sagan are all wrong about Venus, that you failed to mention, are in my imagination!
Illuminating.
Reminds me of so many Halp discussions, where the facts don’t really matter. What seems to matter to Halp and DREMT is what people say about what people say and the manner in which they say it.
In other words, bullshit.
No Nate/Norman, this:
Gordon is offering up an out-of-context quote from a 1980 paper as proof that the GHE does NOT explain Venuss or Earths surface temperature TODAY, not just in 1980.
Is in your imagination. First, Gordon did not quote the paper, secondly he did not say it was proof. Gordon obviously personally believes that the GHE cannot explain Venus or Earth temperatures, as we all know, but we also all know that those beliefs are not all down to this one paper!
What Gordon said about Ingersoll, relative to the results of the Pioneer probe, which you called a big whopper of BS on, was actually shown to be correct. That is ALL I am saying. As Ball4 kindly confirmed:
What is cleared up is that what Andy Ingersoll wrote in conclusion was shown to be true that he could not claim to understand the high surface temperatures of Venus while others could do so.
DREMT:
I am not going to follow you into the weeds of “He said…he said…I said…yada yada” because its all there in black and white
All very pointless, IMO.
The bottom line facts are that Carl Sagan and James Hansen were correct about the GHE explaining the very high temperature of Venus. Ingersolls results were briefly an issue in 1980, but have since been explained and DO NOT prove any of those guys wrong.
Gordon disagrees with these facts (as you admit). Not something I imagined. I called BS on him (not Igersolls paper!). You reflexively defend his BS, not because it is factual, but because he is on your team.
The bottom line facts are, Gordons claim about what Ingersoll said was correct in the context he provided (the Pioneer probe results), you called BS because you were not aware of the existence of the paper, and in being shown to be wrong you have failed to acknowledge that, or apologise to Gordon, or me (I am now owed an apology after you said I was full of shit – your words).
Gordon is correct that Andy Ingersoll claims to not understand the high surface temperatures of Venus as Ingersoll wrote in the conclusions of the paper linked.
Others more accomplished in physics than astronomer Ingersoll have correctly shown Venus surface temperature is essentially explained by the GHE opacity of its atm. absorbers from measured data. See paper linked above in the same issue as Ingersoll’s paper “Thus the greenhouse effect can account for essentially all of Venus’ high surface temperature.”
“you called BS because you were not aware….”
FALSE, as I already demonstrated quite adequately with quotes from Gordon and myself that you find inconvenient and choose to ignore.
When it comes to your team, you trust them to explain the meaning of their own posts. Not so for all others.
You will undoubtedly go on and on in this tiresome fashion, discussing my intent, etc, providing more evidence that you are indeed the long-lost Halp.
Ball4 leads by example, calmly and correctly stating that Gordon was right about Ingersoll, and then moving on to discuss other authors, and other papers. Since Ball4 never insulted Gordon and never claimed he was wrong about Ingersoll, Ball4 has nothing to acknowledge, or apologise for. If only others could follow his example, all they would have to do is go downthread (Gordon would never bother to read and reply this far back), say, hey you were right about Ingersoll, sorry about that, but there are other papers to consider, written by x, y and z, with a different conclusion, what do you have to say about that? Or, Ingersoll may have said that back then, but by 2013 he had written a book saying this, that and the other, so perhaps he changed his mind, maybe you should? Just simple, common courtesy really.
Yes, Ingersoll clearly wrote that he cannot claim to understand the high surface temperature of Venus so it is also true Gordon cannot claim to understand the high surface temperature of Venus.
Others, much more accomplished than Gordon and Andy Ingersoll, do understand the high surface temperature of Venus concluding: “Thus the greenhouse effect can account for essentially all of Venus’ high surface temperature” at the same time of Ingersoll’s linked paper.
Yes, that is great stuff Ball4, your assistance in all this has been much appreciated. Now, to really continue to lead by example, as you have been so far, you could go downthread and make that point where Gordon will see it.
I will get you guys having an honest discussion yet!
The surface temperature of Venus is fully explained by the mass of the atmosphere causing 93 atm. at its surface. Kinetic theory of gases and such, try to keep up.
” fully explained by the mass of the atmosphere causing 93 atm. at its surface. Kinetic theory of gases and such”
Right, compressing a gas heats it. But that’s a one-off, back when the atmosphere formed millions of years ago.
It doesn’t continually heat, like the sun plus GHE does.
Gordon Robertson says:
Hansen has a degree in physics but he plied his trade as an astronomer before getting the job at GISS as a climate modeler.
And what are you, Gordon? A mere technician — someone who soders components together. While inhaling the fumes.
Gordon, you’re near the bottom of the educational barrel and, of all people, have no standing to judge anyone’s education. You know this as well as I do.
DA, are you resorting to personal attacks because your pseudoscience has failed you?
It’s not too late to learn some physics.
Your choice, of course.
DA…”Gordon, youre near the bottom of the educational barrel and, of all people, have no standing to judge anyones education. You know this as well as I do”.
What I know is that you are a butt-kisser with a fetish for authority figures. You lack the guts to think for yourself which is apparent in the way you attack people who do think for themselves.
Not only that, you butt-kiss climate alarmist authorities while ignoring real climate scientists like Roy and John of UAH who have the data to prove the rest wrong.
I would rather think for myself than wantonly kiss butt like you do. I actually think you enjoy being that servile.
Gordon is getting mad — he doesn’t like seeing his deficiencies listed.
Gordon, no one cares about your opinion on anything. When you’re not lying you’re pretending you’re more qualified than you are.
You’re not qualified in the least, Gordon. Stick to soldering, OK? Perhaps you’re halfway decent at that (though I’m dubious).
David’s right. Gordo’s like Prez Plump in that neither can stand criticism. Gordo mentions that he took some engineering courses, but never says where or whether he made it to a degree in Engineering. I doubt that Gordo has ever published anything in a peer reviewed journal, thus doesn’t respect those who have. Arrogance is the last resort of the ignorant…
BTW, I’ve two published peer reviewed papers criticizing Roy and John’s work. Others have also shown errors in their work as well.
*Correction needed – he lacks the mind to think for himself.
Roy wrote, in USA Today
“Hurricane Florence is not climate change or global warming. It’s just the weather,” USA Today 9/14/18
https://amp.usatoday.com/amp/1289272002
It will be interesting to see Roy’s take on an attribution study
“Estimating the potential impact of climate change on Hurricane Florence” by [email protected] | Sep 12, 2018
https://you.stonybrook.edu/kareed/2018/09/12/estimating-the-potential-impact-of-climate-change-on-hurricane-florence/
and interesting to know if he knew about this before he wrote his op-ed piece, or after.
No, it’s not peer reviewed. But them, neither was Roy’s op-ed.
My expectation is that Roy will ignore it.
How can one ignore the fact that we never had hurricanes before the industrial era? I mean, the evidence is right there outside our windows. We have angered the weather gods, and there is going to be hell to pay.
How can you ignore the actual content of David’s post, and instead turn it into something he did not say?
Because David presented an argument very typical to him. While the paper is peer reviewed (oh not?) and all, if true, it means the hurricane impact were decreasing without the so called enhanced GHE.
So a larger part of a problem that has been always there, is caused by Chinese coal burning, but the problem is still about the same size as previously when excluding the effect of population growth and larger amount of vulnerable, expensive structures.
Color me shocked.
The GHE is always ‘unprecedented’, worse than expected, and always not what was predicted, unless all options were covered. Get thepredictions right, then the attribution becomes solid.
I sympathize with your experience. I was on the Tucker Carlson show last year about the North Korean EMP threat, and had the same eerie experience. I sat in a room staring at a camera. I could not see Tucker at the time.
It makes it hard to be natural in such a setting. You did a great job!
Great Post there Dr S. I keep sharing the false science that Bill N the (lying guy) is trying to promote and luckily the less ignorant ones are coming around. I find it sad how some try to keep spewing their emotional silliness even though the facts that you show refute them. So glad that there is some honesty out there and we now know what the A. Gores of the world are really about ….” Just tax it”.
So you think there isn’t a greenhouse effect?
!?!?!
!?!?!
Learn some physics, DA.
Then you might understand.
It seems you are one of the ignorant ones…. well ok then…lets start with your silly claim that I don’t think there is a greenhouse effect…. if you wish to regain any credibility you lost …please just post where I said that I think there is no greenhouse effect…. just laughable and desperate.
If 280 ppmv of CO2 causes the basic greenhouse effect of 33 C, why wouldn’t more CO2 cause a higher greenhouse effect?
If apples were oranges would you still be able to make lemonade? Still waiting four your proof that I believe what you stated that I do…… (actually I am not , since i know factually you can’t…but I enjoy watching you squirm). Do you know what gases make up greenhouse gases ? And can you tell us how brilliant you are by showing just how what percentage they were in the 30s vs now?
You avoided the question.
Is that because, as I suspect, you don’t have a scientific answer for it?
Once you show me where I stated that I believed that GHG have no effect then I will gladly fill you in…. no dodge going on son… just simple logic.
You wrote that Bill Nye [sic] “is trying to promote and luckily the less ignorant ones are coming around.”
And luckily where and how are that while ignorant ones?
You are great at reading.good job son. but, again, can you show somewhere that I stated where GHG have no effect? this is getting old lets cut to the truth I never stated such a thing. Its a common game those w/ little to off dothey make silly unfounded accusations.
But I did state that Bill N the lying guy is a joke. I did a similar experiment as Billy boy.. I put regular air in a jar and then just held it . with both hands and sure enough the temp in the jar went up. WOW. LMAO
So: do you think there is a greenhouse effect?
DA,
Maybe if you could describe this mythical “greenhouse effect”, it might help.
Nothing to do with greenhouses, I believe, and doesn’t seem to have been described in any scientific fashion to date.
How hard can it be? Do you think it might be connected to the non-existent and miraculous heating powers of CO2?
Then you could propose a testable hypothesis to explain this marvellous greenhouse effect, couldn’t you? Alas no, you start with nothing, and finish with the same!
No GHE, no CO2 heating, Gavin Schmidt remains an undistinguished mathematician, and Michael Mann has finally accepted he didn’t actually win a Nobel Prize.
Off you go now, David. Wave your “evidence” under peoples’ noses! Attempt some further witless gotchas. Demand and command until you are blue in the face. Good luck with converting fantasy into fact.
Cheers.
LOL A Jar full of CO2… seal it…. and shine light in it…. too damn funny. David Appell – you seems to knows a load (about GHS), can you entertain us with all the current GHSs known today and their approx percentage compositions? you can pick the Xsphere of your choice. It will help in our discussions.
The inaptly named Greenhouse Effect in climate is pseudoscience. It is a quantum effect, yet I can’t find a single paper written in QM that pertains to such pseudoscience.
And hereee we gooooo…..
“Enough toxic coal ash to fill 180 dump trucks had spilled from the site of a retired coal plant near Wilmington amid Florence flooding, @DukeEnergy says.”
https://twitter.com/johnupton/status/1041161701859766272
https://www.nbcwashington.com/news/national-international/Florence-Flood-Risk-Superfund-Toxic-Waste-Sites-493371401.html
What is it in Manhattans? How toxic is toxic? Does it kill the delta smelt for good, or do we still need a direct hit in Salton?
You are great at reading….good job son…. but, again, can you show somewhere that I stated where GHG have no effect? this is getting old… lets cut to the truth… I never stated such a thing. Its a common game those w/ little to off do…they make silly unfounded accusations.
But I did state that Bill N the lying guy is a joke…. I did a similar experiment as Billy boy.. I put regular air in a jar and then just held it …. with both hands… and sure enough the temp in the jar went up. WOW. LMAO
“Great Post there Dr S. I keep sharing the false science that Bill N the (lying guy) is trying to promote and luckily the less ignorant ones are coming around. I find it sad how some try to keep spewing their emotional silliness even though the facts that you show refute them. So glad that there is some honesty out there and we now know what the A. Gores of the world are really about âŚ.â Just tax itâ.
Good job, Dr. Spencer,
Sadly, here in the UK, the leftist warmists at the British Bull**** Corporation have banned sceptics (realists) from the airwaves.
https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/sep/10/bbc-climate-change-deniers
Thanks for your work.
That’s false.
Reread how the BBC stated their new policy.
Then explain why deniers should be tolerated. On what grounds? Because they have mouths that speak?
Should flat-earthers get an equal say on the BBC?
Anti-vaxxers?
Phrenologists?
Re: BBC and climate deniers:
“Climate change has been a difficult subject for the BBC, and we get coverage of it wrong too often.”
It then states: Manmade climate change exists: If the science proves it we should report it. In the section warning on false balance it says: To achieve impartiality, you do not need to include outright deniers of climate change in BBC coverage, in the same way you would not have someone denying that Manchester United won 2-0 last Saturday. The referee has spoken.
Also: (**)
“There are occasions where contrarians and sceptics should be included. These may include, for instance, debating the speed and intensity of what will happen in the future, or what policies government should adopt.”
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/sep/07/bbc-we-get-climate-change-coverage-wrong-too-often
David that is not science.it is dictatorship and propaganda.a theory is a theory not a fact until it can be proven and we are a long way from that.no mention on the BBC of record cold in parts of the Southern hemisphere ,up to 100 000 sheep dead in New Zealand and not a peep.early snow in parts of the Northern hemisphere not worthy of a mention.nearly as bad as the MET office together they said 2018 hottest yr on record in England.yet CET said it was not 1976 was.the BBC is horribly bias,not quite as bad as the guardian but not far behind,
The BBC routinely silences anyone who doesnt follow the party line. They go so far as deleting programmes.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3355441/QUENTIN-LETTS-vaporised-BBC-s-Green-Gestapo.html
Their so-called journalists are nothing of the sort. Theyre activists reading verbatim from the Guardian. A cursory search will confirm this.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/topics/cmj34zmwm1zt/climate-change
If you can find any articles from the sceptical side among the countless alarmist ones Id be interested to read them.
David Appell wrote –
“If 280 ppmv of CO2 causes the basic greenhouse effect of 33 C, why wouldnt more CO2 cause a higher greenhouse effect?”
He can’t actually describe the greenhouse effect, of course. Apparently it has nothing to do with greenhouses, and is not describable as a scientific effect.
David seems to follow the delusional James Hansen (and others) who believe that increasing the amount of CO2 between the Sun and a thermometer makes the thermometer hotter! Of course, none of the loonies can actually bring themselves to make such a silly statement, because they realise how stupid and ignorant they would appear if they did. And rightfully so.
About as stupid and ignorant as claiming that removing the CO2 between the Sun and a thermometer would cause the the temperature of the thermometer to drop by 33 C. A pack of pseudoscientific clowns – trying to convince people that they have the power to prevent the climate from changing, four and a half billion years of history notwithstanding!
All part of the rich tapestry of life, no doubt.
Cheers.
Someday they might accidentally stumble upon the kinetic theory of gases.
David, Bill Bye is a glorified mechanical engineer pushing propaganda like climate change and gender identity. Just because someone is interested in a subject doesn’t mean their claiming to be the expert. Climate science can NEVER be settled because our planet is constantly changing and has been it was pulled into orbit around the sun. It is kinda like describing evolution. When people reply that we are looking at a minute portion of the process and the results are given over millenniums.
The center of Florence is on the South Carolina coast. It will turn west. Will pull water vapor from the Gulf of Mexico. Then it turns north-west and it will meet with a cool jet stream. This will download the next huge amount of water from the atmosphere.
https://images.tinypic.pl/i/00971/i7enojspr0ux.png
https://images.tinypic.pl/i/00971/ahpnnggalxs1.png
The active Atlantic will also bring rainstorms to Europe.
The typhoonâs eye enters over China over Hong Kong.
https://images.tinypic.pl/i/00971/hh4oledfsnl6.png
Ever notice that Mike Flynn, despite writing thousands of comments, has never linked to a scientific article? It appears that he is completely infatuated with his ability to impress himself with his rhetorical cheapshots.
Ah, another “link addict”.
Anonymous astro, you are missing the point Mike Flynn continually makes. Links to pseudoscrience are the only places you find the bogus AGW/GHE.
Do you believe it actually exists?
Ever noticed that people like Astro never seem to be able to find any facts to back up any disagreement with anything I write?
Just more carping and whining.
As to cheap shots, it’s not my fault if Gavin Schmidt is an undistinguished mathematician, or if Michael Mann was too dim to realise he didn’t really get a Nobel Prize!
If Astro is referring to other things, maybe he could specify what they are. Climatological pseudoscience is based on the tactics of deny, divert, and confuse. No GHE description, no testable GHE hypothesis, no theory – no nothing.
Science? More like a complete absence thereof!
Cheers.
astro,
From Retraction Watch –
“Because of how scattered, incomplete, and sometimes even wrong retraction notices are, every retraction must be located, double-checked, and entered by hand. That means all 18,129, at the time of this writing and growing every day.”
Which ones do you want me to link to?
How would you know if a link points to a paper which was later retracted for plagiarism, stupidity, fabrication or fraud? Are you stupid and ignorant enough to believe every “scientific” article you read!
Tell me you believe “Atmospheric CO2: Principal Control Knob Governing Earths Temperature” to be a “scientific” paper. The lead author is an undistinguished mathematician, who later tried to imply that the title really meant something else, and was not really meant to be public. Read his Twitter comments trying to weasel out of the title and contents of his pseudoscientific propaganda piece!
Climate is the average of weather – any competent 12 year old can calculate an average. Anybody claiming to be a “climate scientist” is either a fool or a fraud, strictly speaking. Weather produces climate, not the other way round.
Off you go, now. Quote me, disagree, and provide a fact or two to support your disagreement if you wish. Or not. I don’t really care.
Cheers.
“Gordon, no one cares about your opinion on anything. When youre not lying youre pretending youre more qualified than you are.”
Seriously how old are you dude? Ive just checked out this comments section and its alarming how retarded, immature and abusive you are. Go away and grow a god damn penis and balls you loser!
Krispen, don’t let David Appell get to you.
Most people know he’s a clown.
But he’s as persistent as he’s insulting and childish. He doesn’t back down from anyone no matter how wrong he is and will always go deeper into the gutter then anyone else. His misery knows no bounds and there’s limitless anger for everyone he converses with.
What a man!
The sad thing is that there are many others here who support and enable him.
Plus, anyone that criticizes him; that to David is just proof that he is on the right path. If the deniers are against him, he must be doing the right thing. Thats how he seems to see it.
The end result is, he just gets worse and worse over time. By now, it is almost at the point of self-parody. Its at the point where he gives someone like me, someone who calls himself Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team, credibility.
He just needs to stop trolling, but right now he doesnt even see that its trolling. He barely reads what anyone writes, he asks the same questions over and over again no matter how many times people answer, and he starts under each new article as if no previous discussions ever happened, so its back to square one on every conversation. Then the rest is just pettiness and trading insults. The sheer volume of comments itself is just unreal, the man literally must have nothing else to do with his time. This entire blog seems to consist of 50% David Appell comments (probably not even that much of an exaggeration, thats the scary thing).
Right. It’s like no matter what you say he believes his job is to disagree with you. I don’t even think he has any idea what he’s talking about. It seems to be a political thing with him. He’s doing his part for the fascist democrat entitled establishment. Science doesn’t matter and neither does his own belief system. His ends always justify the means, no matter how violent and psychotic.
I’m just glad I’m not his therapist.
This DREMT quote about David Appell goes to the heart of his problem:
“He barely reads what anyone writes, he asks the same questions over and over again no matter how many times people answer…..”
If he does read what anyone writes his comprehension is minimal so there can never be a meaningful debate with such a troll. He is still going on about 150 W/m^2 which in his fevered imagination is some kind of “Gotcha”.
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 other 150 W/m2?
Yes, just like that.
You fail physics 101.
“He barely reads what anyone writes, he asks the same questions over and over again no matter how many times people answer, and he starts under each new article as if no previous discussions ever happened, so its back to square one on every conversation. Then the rest is just pettiness and trading insults.”
A really quite perfect description of Mike Flynn! Yet amazingly he is never called out for it, DREMT.
N,
Why do you find it amazing? Are you really so stupid and ignorant?
I don’t find it amazing at all!
Cheers.
He is attacked constantly.
He is treated appropriately as background noise most of the time.
Not even remotely true, so no surprises there.
Krispen,
If you have read the long history of continuous nonsense that Gordon writes, you might understand better.
Nate, please stop trolling.
For Gordon, I would modify the DREMT description a bit:
“He barely reads what anyone writes, he posts the same illogical false claims (HIV, Reagan, Thatcher, NOAA, etc) over and over again no matter how many times people point out the errors, and he starts under each new article as if no previous discussions ever happened, so its back to square one on every conversation. Then the rest is just pettiness and trading insults.”
Yet amazingly he is never called out for it, DREMT.
He is attacked constantly.
Typhoon is moving over Vietnam, Florence over Georgia.
You know Roy if you had the courage to match your rhetorical output, you wouldn’t spend all your time dazzling willing rubes like Tucker Carleson or for that matter all the long distance truckers and mint julep swilling geriatrics here on your blog.
You’re a Christian Evangelist. Why don’t you invite your professional peer and fellow evangelist Kathryn Hayhoe over for a little boxing match on equal terms?
She’d run away, just like Gavin Schmidt did.
bk,
Why don’t you tap into your vast store of knowledge, and explain how increasing the amount of CO2 between the Sun and a thermometer makes the thermometer hotter?
You could just cut and paste from your esteemed evangelist and self styled climate scientist, Kathryn Hayhoe, couldn’t you?
As they say, Hay-hoe, and off you go! How hard can it be?
Cheers.
You two Hill billies mind just stepping aside a moment? I asked Roy the question
bk,
You may request what you want. I’ll ignore you if I so desire.
I asked you a couple of questions – of course, you don’t have to answer. It’s your choice.
If Dr Spencer doesn’t respond to your question, why is it anything to do with me? Do you really think he has appointed me as his keeper or question answerer-in-chief, or are you just stupid and ignorant?
You may do as you wish. I do.
Cheers.
bk, please stop trolling.
two points:
1) I factually point out that essentially no one here or on FOX news has any skills of validating anything that Roy Spencer might claim. Roy is essentially a preacher preaching to his flock, a flock that has no choice but to be compliantly faithful.
2) In the interest of this blog being anything other than a personality cult, I suggest that Roy shows a little initiative and courage by conversing the issues of climate change with an actual peer, particularly one who shares a similar view of the world through the same religion.
And you consider this Trolling? I rest my case. Not only are Mike and the rest a bunch of Hill billies, so apparently is Dr Roy’s emergency moderation team!
bk,
You may suggest as you wish. You can assert what you like. Good for you!
If you call that resting your case, others might suggest you are stupid and ignorant – or even assert it as fact, if you prefer.
What are “Hill billies”? People whose opinions you don’t like? Or are you just trying to be gratuitously offensive, in the usual manner of climatological pseudoscientists who can’t even find a testable GHE hypothesis, let alone Trenberth’s missing heat, or Michael Mann’s Nobel Prize?
Maybe you could come up with a reason why someone should care what you think. At least you give me the opportunity to have a bit of fun at your expense, so you are not a total waste of oxygen.
Maybe you need to do bit more work on your case, just in case.
Cheers.
No bk, I consider your trolling to be trolling.
I use the term “Hill Billy” in a context of its stereo type of ignorance ( in this case no skill of validation in climate science) combined with belligerence ( common sense is superior to skill so there ) which is at the very heart of Anti Intellectualism in American Life ( google it and read it…. if you have the humility). To be clear, the way i use the term (perjoritively) it has little if anything to do with living in the hills or smoking a corncob pipe and everything to do with a no skill / all attitude sense of superiority can be found anywhere in society from any construction site to the current day office of the President.
I hope that explains it but you should note, I already did explain that quite clearly, just as i have already explained clearly why anyone should care – because a blog on climate science is no place for an echo chamber of clapping seals applauding witlessly everything their chosen personality cult leader says. He could say it is all caused by green cheese on the moon and none of you actually have the skills of validating skepticism to prove otherwise. You can repeat what you have been told or even say what you’ve imagined yourself…..but you can’t validate.
capiche?
Pointing these things out – which can be factually demonstrated as true by any application of the social and psychological sciences – is not “Trolling” if you know anything about trolling, which i strongly doubt as explained above. You simply want to protect your personality cult from criticism. All I’m saying is that if Roy does deserve to be defended, it can best be accomplished by stepping away from the arena of personality cult and debate – as any true scientist should – with people who are as skilled as they are.
Something like Jordan Peterson and Sam Harris. Without a doubt their blog and theatre debates have been far more productive in defining and validating the issues of their skill domain, all in a forum that respects the limited skills of the audience.
Yes, bk, I capiche that you have gone to extraordinary lengths to rationalise your trolling behaviour.
“But hes as persistent as hes insulting and childish. He doesnt back down from anyone no matter how wrong he is and will always go deeper into the gutter then anyone else. His misery knows no bounds and theres limitless anger for everyone he converses with.”
Don’t blame me, I voted for Hillary.
Ha! Apt.
If only. If only this web could be shutdown. The cherry picked USA centric data that does not take into account the rainfall and flood damage is completely over the top. Spreading disinformation like this criminal.
If only you could be “World Tyrant”, huh Ross?
They always have an excuse to silence and censor, but they’re not fascists, nahhh. They’re just trying to stop the hate. Sure they are.
–This is the state of climate science today: if you support the alarmist narrative, you can exaggerate threats and connections with human activities, fake experiments, break government rules, intimidate scientific journal editors (and make them resign),and even violate the law.
As long as you can say you are doing it for the children.–
Doing it for the children does sound a lot better than doing it for the politicians.
Why do Arabs imagine that the Jews are controlling the weather?
Are the Jews Colluding to Control the Weather? One Jew Investigates
https://splinternews.com/are-the-jews-colluding-to-control-the-weather-one-jew-1825387207
And:
Iranian & Democrat Officials Agree – Jews DO Control the Weather!
https://townhall.com/columnists/marinamedvin/2018/07/03/iranian–democrat-officials-agree–jews-do-control-the-weather-n2496768
I have to try a different search engine, here we go:
“According to a Jordanian columnist, Jewish powers aren’t just limited to weather control; Jews can also cause earthquakes!
Kamal Zakarneh, a columnist for the Jordanian daily Al-Dustour, accused Israelis of causing the earthquakes that shook the Al-Aqsa mosque in the attempt “to Judaize Jerusalem.” He went on to explain that Jews are known for “blaming nature” for natural disasters.”
https://townhall.com/columnists/marinamedvin/2018/07/19/its-not-just-weather-jews-control-earthquakes-too-n2501731
We are all the Jews and we control the weather.
No, no, that’s not right at all, actually, only Trump controls the weather.
g,
Blaming Nature for natural disasters? Geez. What next? Blaming people for man-made disasters?
The mind definitely boggles. I hope there is enough blame to go around.
Cheers.
“No, no, thats not right at all, actually, only Trump controls the weather.”
No he doesn’t. But on many many occasions he has promoted equally ridiculous conspiracy theories. But you guys are OK with it.
“But you guys are OK with it.”
It always comparative- Trump obviously better than Clinton.
And Trump obviously has been better than Obama.
As general rule, Politicans suck.
In terms of the skill of politicians, Bill Clinton was pretty good.
But Bill Clinton was not vaguely a great President and Trump already a great president- even if he only gets one term- and there is fair chance he will get two terms.
It seems to me all presidents do a lot of work- I am not sure that Trump is working harder as comparison to other presidents- but he seems more effective than most.
Made my point, thank you.
He does things that you find horribly wrong or offensive if only done by others..
Just like T-party is now fine with Trumps $T deficits for the forseeable future, but that was an impeachable offence for O.
“Nate says:
September 17, 2018 at 9:36 PM
Made my point, thank you.
He does things that you find horribly wrong or offensive if only done by others..”
Nope. He has done nothing which is “horribly wrong or offensive”
“Just like T-party is now fine with Trumps $T deficits for the forseeable future, but that was an impeachable offence for O.”
If true why was O not impeached?
Because it would be silly.
Because deficits are the responsibility of Congress- as they have the power of purse.
Plus, no Obama budget that he proposed ever became law- I think even when Dems controlled Congress, O’s proposed budgets were basically ignored.
I think same is true in regards to Trump’s presidential budget proposal- so far.
Or for example, obviously Trump wants border wall funding, and has yet to get enough funding to do it.
But neither Obama or Trump have vetoed a budget- though Trump seems to threatening to do this [which all presidents tend to do -to some degree].
Of course a President has the legal right to veto a budget. And your argument of “now fine with Trump $T deficits” can only be that Trump didn’t veto the omnibus bill {passed by a Republican controlled Congress} and some could view that an omnibus as “better crap sandwich” than passing a continuing resolution, wiki:
“In the United States, a continuing resolution (often abbreviated to CR) is a type of appropriations legislation. An appropriations bill is a bill that appropriates (gives to, sets aside for) money to specific federal government departments, agencies, and programs. The money provides funding for operations, personnel, equipment, and activities. Regular appropriations bills are passed annually, with the funding they provide covering one fiscal year. The fiscal year is the accounting period of the federal government, which runs from October 1 to September 30 of the following year. When Congress and the president fail to agree on and pass one or more of the regular appropriations bills, a continuing resolution can be passed instead.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continuing_resolution
Oh, wait:
“Barack Obama
Main article: Barack Obama
Twelve vetoes, the status of five of which is disputed (Obama considered them pocket vetoes, but since he returned the parchments to Congress, the Senate considers them regular vetoes)”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_presidential_vetoes
And one was on appropriations legislation:
“December 30, 2009: Vetoed H.J.Res. 64, a joint resolution making further continuing appropriations for fiscal year 2010, and for other purposes. Override attempt failed in House, 143245, 1 present (260 needed).”
And Obama had 1 veto overridden.
George W. Bush had 4 vetoes overridden
Trump has yet to veto anything.
Will not follow you into the weeds Gbaike. But..
“Because deficits are the responsibility of Congress- as they have the power of purse.”
Ryan gave in to Trumps request for a tax cut and increase in military spending. Hence $1T deficits are long-time deficit hawk Ryan’s parting gift to America.
And this during a robust economy. Just wait til the next recession, it will explode.
Oh and he’s drained the swamp-but refilled it with numerous ethically challenged swamp monsters.
Deficits in billions
2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
$161 $458 $1,413 $1,294 $1,295 $1,087 $679 $485 $438 $585 $665
https://www.usgovernmentdebt.us/federal_deficit
“In FY 2017 the federal deficit was $665 billion. But the gross federal debt increased by $670 billion.
This year, FY 2018, the federal government in its latest budget has estimated that the deficit will be $833 billion.”
And as percentage of GDP:
“In FY 2017 the federal deficit was 3.4 percent of GDP.
This year, FY 2018, the federal government in its latest budget has estimated that the deficit will be 4.2 percent of GDP.”
“Federal Deficits were declining in the mid 2000s as the nation climbed out of the 2000-02 recession, down to 1.1 percent of GDP in 2007. But the recession that started late in 2006 drove deficits higher, with a deficit of nearly 10 percent of GDP in FY 2009, driven mainly by bank bailouts under the TARP program.”
Obama spent a lot money bailing out business that were “too big to fail”.
Though it is true, that president Bush started doing this program, but it should be noted, that Obama greatly expanded it.
And it should be noted that governmental policy caused it to occur in the first place. And roughly it was about a government effort to increase American’s home ownership.
Needless to say, it did not work.
Obama got the financial crisis which could have been worse than the 30’s if aggregate demand had not been stabilized.
https://tinyurl.com/ydees7jc
The deficit was on the mend when Trump came in and made it worse during a positive part of the business cycle:
https://tinyurl.com/yaljw3ac
Changing the direction of the jet stream over the Atlantic followed on increase in the geomagnetic activity at the end of August 2018.
https://images.tinypic.pl/i/00971/7bo73tmq8gb9.png
It looks like Parker Solar Probe is about 1/2 way to Venus:
https://tinyurl.com/y8zhggr5
Link from article:
“On Sept. 13, Parker Solar Probeâs first-of-its-kind water-cooled Solar Array Cooling System (or SACS) was made fully operational. The SACS will protect Parker Solar Probeâs solar arrays â responsible for powering the spacecraft â from the intense heat of the Sun.”
https://tinyurl.com/yd3dl6tm
South Australia is beating Denmark and Germany for the highest retail price of electricity:
https://tinyurl.com/y8evhvlh
“South Australians suffer the worlds highest power prices because they rely on heavily subsidised and chaotically intermittent wind & solar.
Its a relationship for which the economic backwater has become world renowned. Along with its notoriety as a (notionally) first world economy with a third world power supply.
If youre looking to attack the infantile nonsense of running an economy on sunshine and breezes, then routine load shedding and mass blackouts will do it every time.”
Linked from:
https://tallbloke.wordpress.com/
California Dreaming: Push for 100% Wind & Solar Doomed to End in Costly Failure
It’s not too surprising. Big business can of course generate their own electrical power. Why do think people got electrical power in first place- big business started it- they don’t need a grid.
It’s the consumers and business start up and small business who don’t use large amount electrical power who getting screwed. Basically it’s going to cause people getting their own electrical generators- which due to scale in less inefficent and more costly.
It good idea to get a back up generator but it’s bad idea to have everyone running small generators for constant electrical needs.
Re: Trump complicit in Florence. No obviously not.
But what WaPo clearly meant by this intentional hyperbole was that he is anti climate science, anti-climate change mitigation, anti-Paris accord. He has fully bought into the the ‘AGW is a Chinese hoax’ notion.
Meanwhile, contrary to what Roy says on Fox, there IS LEGITIMATE RESEARCH linking the magnitude of hurricane impacts and extreme precipitation events to global warming.
Such as:
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1029/2018EF000825
“Legimate research”?
Only to the uneducated.
There is no CO2/ocean heat linkage. It must be imagined, like the “tooth fairy”.
N,
Completely nonsensical. Pseudoscientific wishful thinking.
From the propaganda piece –
“Human-induced climate change continues to warm the oceans which provide the memory of past accumulated effects.”
Unfortunately, some people might be stupid and ignorant enough to believe this sort of nonsense. Are you one of them? It seems so, but let me know if I’m wrong.
In the meantime, I’ll point out that there is no testable GHE hypothesis, no theory of AGW, and climate is merely the average of weather. Not much to get upset about, is there?
Cheers.
Ger* and MF, its just ordinary science. Therefore trolls must reject it.
I actually watched a couple of the early episodes of Bill Nye’s series. It was even worse than Tyson’s awful remake of Sagan’s “Cosmos”.
Climate loonies like Al Gore or Bill Nye lie and they are rewarded financially.
Climate realists like you or me tell the truth while becoming poorer.
Who still believes crime does not pay or liars do not prosper?
https://www.indiewire.com/2017/04/bill-nye-saves-the-world-review-netflix-1201806140/
gallopingcamel
Maybe it is because the liars are being rewarded by the Ruler of this world. You will probably find they are not happy people and the financial reward really does not help. If you lose your soul what is going to make you joyful?
GC, There are hucksters and con men on both sides of the problem. The truth is exceedingly difficult to present, given the scientific basis is so hard to understand. The trouble is, the denialist have much more money to spend and therefore more influence in the public arena and are thus able to “win the debate”. Not to forget that our political system in the US is incapable of addressing long term problems which lack clear definition. As Craig Dilworth pointed out, we are Too Smart for out Own Good.
ES,
There is no problem. You cannot name one person who does not believe that the climate changes, and has always done so.
Physical facts are not changed by debate.
There is no GHE. No testable GHE hypothesis. No AGW theory. Facts – debate is meaningless.
Cheers.
MF, Yes debating with you is a useless activity, since you won’t debate.
ES,
Debate with yourself, if you wish.
Nature doesn’t care. Nor do I. Maybe you can debate a GHE description into existence, or maybe not. The inability of CO2 to make thermometers hotter is not subject to debate – it’s a fact.
You may indulge in as much mass debating, (nudge, nudge, wink, wink) with others of your ilk, as you wish.
The force of gravity will remain unchanged. The Sun will continue to shine. Not a single physical fact will change as a result of your furious mass debating, will it? At least all that mass debating might make you feel good for a while. Go for it.
Cheers.
ES, you appear to be completely delusional at this point. Governments have poured over $500 billion into promoting the pseudoscience. Colleges and universities have followed willingly, as have the subservient media. Then there are the misleading “experiments”….
Reality is only preserved by those able to think for themselves.
ES: What exactly is a ‘denialist’? Do you mean those who don’t believe in the supposed dangerous man-made global warming story? If an individual is a scientist with relevant experience who considers that the evidence doesn’t agree with the idea that we face climatic Armageddon, does that make them a ‘denier’?
‘Denier’ is of course a deliberately insulting and ugly term, particularly when applied to a professional scientist.
Where has there been any sign that those who don’t share the view that mankind is contributing to dangerous climatic changes the weather are ‘winning the debate’?
What debate?
Any potentially interesting public debate is stifled by the media such as the UK’s BBC, and also certain newspapers – notably the Guardian and Independent. They present only the view they favour and nothing else.
I’d say that those who believe in the CO2/man-induced global warming story have, whether it’s correct or not, got their own way.
You say ‘denialists have much more money to spend.’ Really? Leaving aside your use of the term ‘denialist’, governments are spending billions on ‘climate change’- here’s a link:
https://www.gao.gov/key_issues/climate_change_funding_management/issue_summary
Nice work if you can get it!
Carbon guy, I use “denialist” to refer to people who have a vested interest in denying scientific facts. It’s a complicated subject and much of the government money spent by the US goes for data acquisition, such as that provided by the satellites in orbit used by Dr. Spencer for his monthly MSU/AMSU product. Oceanography is also funded and that’s another very expensive effort.
On the political side, the pro-fossil fuel groups have had much more money to spend than the environmentalist who support renewable energy. Now that some sources of renewable energy cost less than fossil fuels, that may change.
ES: Thank you for your comments. I take your point about the use of government money for the acquisition of data, but here in the UK I’ve seen nothing much in the way of promotion of fossil fuels or pro-fossil fuel group activity.
There are government proposals that 10% of the fuel for use in cars should be ethanol in a couple of years or so. A newspaper article last Sunday commented that the wind turbine industry was ‘booming’, and electric or hybrid car sales are increasing.
E. Swanson,
Thanks for that book idea. Currently I am slogging through “Overcharged” by Charles Silver and David A. Hyman which explains how what we waste on health is more than $1 trillion per year.
I did read the Amazon summary which gave me the impression that this is yet another Malthusian prediction of doom although not as crazy as Paul Ehrlich’s.
Thus far there have been hundreds of such predictions but none of them have materialized. Instead the Cornucopian view has been vindicated time after time.
Eventually the Malthusian predictions will turn out to be right but by then the Cornucopians will be colonizing distant star systems:
https://diggingintheclay.wordpress.com/2013/06/17/bussard-revisited/
Here in Alamance county, North Carolina, Florence delivered 1.5 inches of rain over the first three days (Friday, Saturday & Sunday) and winds up to 35 mph. Power remains ON.
This morning we got another 1.5 inches of rain and flash flood warnings. Update…..the sun just made an appearance at 1000 hours!
Yeah, we had similar weather here in Western NC as the center of the storm moved over the mountains to our south. Of course, the river did rise about 3 feet above it’s banks and flooded the road to my S/D. The waters had receded by the time I ventured out yesterday afternoon. Mathew’s impact was similarly mild.
But, anyone who studies weather and climate knows that precipitation is highly variable because of localized measurements. Given the storm’s track inland from Wilmington, it’s not surprising that you all had relatively little rain.
I’d say we were both fortunate to have dodged a bullet.
ES,
Climate is merely the average of weather. Neither is amenable to prediction any better than a naive persistence projection.
Climatological pseudoscience can do no better than a competent 12 year old with a ruler and pencil.
The child is a lot cheaper.
CO2 has no heating properties, does it? There is no testable GHE hypothesis, is there?
Do you really believe that climatological pseudoscientists can predict the future? Even you cannot be that stupid and ignorant, I assume. Correct me if I’m wrong.
Cheers.
MF wrote:
CO2 in the atmosphere acts like insulation under a roof. It reduces the rate of energy flow from the lower elevations toward deep space. Increasing more CO2 acts much like adding more insulation, i.e., it causing the surface to warm. You have already been “corrected” numerous times, yet you continue with your denialist farce.
BTW, climate is the statistics of weather, which includes both the average and the distribution. It’s the extremes which tend to define the impacts on mankind, not the average.
ES, your beliefs block your ability to reason, or face facts. CO2 in the atmosphere is NOT “like insulation under a roof”.
CO2 both absorbs AND emits. So if more is added, you get more absorbers AND more emitters.
Learn some physics.
Huffing Man, Yes, CO2 (and other greenhouse gases) in the atmosphere both absorb and emit IR EM radiation. Individual molecules emit in a random direction, so the emission from a large quantity of molecules is in all directions. In an atmospheric layer, the horizontal emissions are absorbed again, while the emissions which exit the layer result in half the emissions going up and the other half going down. It’s those down welling emissions which warm the layer(s) below, ultimately warming the surface.
ES believes: It’s those down welling emissions which warm the layer(s) below, ultimately warming the surface.”
Sorry ES, but the down-welling can not warm the surface. It may sound good to you, but it doesn’t happen, in reality.
Learn the relevant physics, or remain a clown.
Entirely your choice.
Huffing Man, That down welling IR EM is absorbed by the layers below or the surface, adding to the kinetic energy of those absorbers. That energy doesn’t vanish or be “ignored”, that would be a violation of the First Law of Thermodynamics.
ES,
Are you actually disagreeing with anything I wrote? It doesn’t seem so. You just keep making pointless and irrelevant analogies about how CO2 “acts”, rather than describing the GHE.
In your foolish analogy, increasing the amount of CO2 under your notional “roof” will not make a thermometer under that same “roof” hotter, will it? In point of fact, the thermometer will get hotter if the “roof” is removed – this is just basic physics.
Maybe you would do better to quote me, disagree, and support your disagreement with fact.
Otherwise, others might assume you are just another clueless climatological pseudoscience supporter.
No GHE. CO2 will not make a thermometer hotter – try it. The Earth has been cooling for four and a half billion years.
Off you go then – try and convince somebody that increasing the amount of insulation between the Sun and a thermometer somehow makes the thermometer hotter! Good luck – you’ll need it.
Cheers.
ES, you have been mis-informed.
Higher layers in the troposphere are colder than lower layers. So, down-welling IR EM would not be absorbed by the layers below, or the surface. That would be a violation of the Second Law of Thermodynamics.
Learn some physics.
MF, As usual, you are wrong. If it’s colder outside than inside, as one might experience during Winter at temperate latitudes, removing the roof will without doubt make the room colder. Removing the roof in summer during night time will likely make the room colder as well, depending on the outside temperature.
Facts which you will probably continue to ignore.
ES,
Maybe you overlooked the fact that the mythical GHE is supposed to result in “heating” or “increasing temperature”. At night, in the absence of sunlight, the temperature generally “falls”, or “decreases”.
As I wrote –
“Off you go then try and convince somebody that increasing the amount of insulation between the Sun and a thermometer somehow makes the thermometer hotter!l
To state an obvious fact, namely that temperatures fall at night, does not advance your case.
Trying to deny, divert and confuse, by refusing to describe your mythical GHE, is not as effective as it once was. If you agree that increasing the amount of insulation between the Sun and a thermometer reduces the temperature of the thermometer, just say so.
If you believe that increasing the amount of insulation between the Sun and a thermometer makes the thermometer hotter, just say so.
I suppose you could claim that increasing the amount of insulation between the Sun and a thermometer makes no difference at all, and if you do, maybe you could just say so.
It boils down to this – increasing the amount of insulation between the Sun and a thermometer either
– makes the thermometer hotter.
– makes the thermometer colder.
– makes no difference at all.
Are you prepared to stick your neck out and say what you believe, or do you want to fly off at a tangent, furiously attempting to deny, divert, and confuse?
Your choice, of course.
Cheers.
@Mike Flynn,
I think we are generally in agreement so I hope you won’t be offended when I take issue with this statement:
“CO2 has no heating properties, does it? There is no testable GHE hypothesis, is there?”
Actually CO2 does have heating properties as does nitrogen, oxygen and argon. When you mix gases together the mixture has a Cp (specific heat at constant pressure) that depends on the relative proportions of the gases present. In the troposphere of all bodies in our solar system the temperature gradient is -g/Cp except on Earth and Titan where oceans exist.
As I have said many times before on this blog you can find a first principles mathematical model that explains all this in a NatGeo letter by Robinson & Catling.
Where oceans are present the tropospheric temperature gradient is = α * g/Cp, where “α” is an arbitrary constant less than one. If you want more details, follow the links here:
https://diggingintheclay.wordpress.com/2014/04/27/robinson-and-catling-model-closely-matches-data-for-titans-atmosphere/
There is a testable GHE if you define GHE as the warming effect of adding an atmosphere to an airless body. Consensus climate scientists claim that the GHE is 33 Kelvin.
Given that the Mooon’s average temperature is 197 Kelvin you could make a case for a GHE of 91 Kelvin.
My personal estimate of GHE is 79 Kelvin because the Moon’s average temperature would rise by about 12 Kelvin if it was rotating at the same rate as our home planet.
https://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2017/06/06/extending-a-new-lunar-thermal-model-part-iii-modelling-the-moon-at-various-rotation-rates/
When claiming the GHE is “real”, it is most important to clearly differentiate between the IPCC/GHE and Earth’s natural heat transfer capabilities.
Certainly, the masses of both the atmosphere and oceans play an important role in Earth’s
energy balance, but neither is a “thermodynamic heat source”. The IPCC/GHE implies a “forcing” from atmospheric gases, which is clearly impossible.
Nate says:
September 15, 2018 at 3:54 PM
But you repeated the statement on Tucker Carlson that âthe frequency of hits of the US by major hurricanes has gone down by 50% since the 1930s and 1940sâ.
This sounds like an impressive and supportive statistic, but what you didnt say is that this 50% reduction has NO statistical significance.
_____________________________________________________
Here is my calculation with ALL major hurricanes; no matter if landfalling or not.
Because of the greater number much more significant:
https://preview.tinyurl.com/Major-hurricanes
Datasource wikipedia
Rice University prof: Global warming could help eliminate racism
“A professor at Rice University believes rising global temperatures are a good thing in that they could assist in alleviating the scourge of racism.
Writing at NBC.com, Scott Solomon says as the temperature rises, âmassive migrationsâ will take place with the ultimate outcome a being âblendingâ of Earthâs races.
âThese migrations will erode the geographic barriers that once separated human populations,â Solomon writes. âIn fact, this process is already underway. As of 2017, 258 million people were living in a country other than the one they were born in â an increase of 49 percent since 2000.â ”
https://www.thecollegefix.com/rice-university-prof-global-warming-could-help-eliminate-racism/
With such a metric, Syria and Venezuela have been doing bang up job.
Linked from:
https://pjmedia.com/instapundit/
You can see how water vapor is distributed over the Earth by the upper winds.
http://tropic.ssec.wisc.edu/real-time/mtpw2/product.php?color_type=tpw_nrl_colors&prod=global2×pan=24hrs&anim=html5
In winter, in medium latitudes, the lack of water vapor in the upper troposphere means frost.
It’s always frustrating watching these TV interviews. As you said, the time allotted is short, and not enough time is given to go into detail. There’s only enough time for a few “sound bite” statements.
Index Nino 3.4 dropped below zero.
https://www.tropicaltidbits.com/analysis/ocean/nino34.png
A Test of the Tropical 200-300 mb Warming Rate in Climate Models
Posted on September 17, 2018 by curryja | 27 Comments
by Ross McKitrick
…
“John and I have published a new paper in Earth and Space Science that adds to the climate model evaluation literature, using tropical mid-troposphere trend comparisons (models versus observations) as a basis to make a more general point about models.”
…
https://judithcurry.com/2018/09/17/a-test-of-the-tropical-200-300-mb-warming-rate-in-climate-models/#more-24352
Good catch, ren – seems like Salvatore is gonna be right after all.
FOX News … the true fake news.
B,
What is fake news? Facts are facts. It is a fact that no testable GHE hypothesis exists. It is a fact that no AGW theory exists. It is a fact that climate is the average of weather, and determines nothing.
If FOX News reports these facts, would you say this is fake news?
I suppose a stupid and ignorant person would. What about you?
Cheers.
“GIGANTIC JETS IN THE CARIBBEAN: Last Saturday, Sept. 15th, Tropical Storm Isaac dissipated in the Caribbean. Just before the storm died, it fired off a barrage of Gigantic Jets. Frankie Lucena video recorded the display as the storm passed south of his home in Puerto Rico:”
http://spaceweather.com/
And:
Spotless Days
Current Stretch: 5 days
Galactic radiation increases again.
https://cosmicrays.oulu.fi/webform/monitor.gif
.
âśâ âśâ âśâ âśâ
âśâ âśâ âśâ âśâ
âśâ âśâ âśâ âśâ
âśâ âśâ âśâ âśâ
.
A simple bar chart, that shows how bad global warming is.
Most pictures are worth 1000 words, but this one is worth 2000.
https://agree-to-disagree.com/it-is-worse-than-we-thought
Where is that graph from? What agency, university, or individual. I can make a graph with some crayons and say it’s real science but that doesn’t make the data valid.
HJ,
Are you disagreeing with the graph? I can’t see where it refers to “real science” (as opposed to climatology pseudoscience, I suppose).
Are you claiming the graph is really pointless and meaningless climatological pseudoscience?
You might be right, but I would be more easily convinced if you could provide some facts to support your implied, though strangely unstated, disagreement.
Have you a point?
Cheers.
Come on you guys his 10 year old did a great job
Regards
Harry
Hillbilly Joe,
I made the bar chart, using the GISTEMP gridded temperature series (Land-Ocean Temperature Index, ERSSTv5, 1200km smoothing).
⢠the Arctic region is anything north of the 66N line of latitude. This is approximately 4% of the Earth.
⢠the Antarctic region is anything south of the 66S line of latitude. This is approximately 4% of the Earth.
⢠Land is anything between the 66N line of latitude, and the 66S line of latitude, where you can stand without getting your feet wet. This is approximately 26% of the Earth.
⢠Ocean, is anything between the 66N line of latitude, and the 66S line of latitude, where your feet get wet, if you stand there. This is approximately 66% of the Earth.
I am thinking about making some even more detailed bar charts. Like this one, but for different hemispheres etc. I have all the data, I just need to analyse it.
You can laugh at my “colouring in”, but I didn’t go over the line, even once.
==========
Harry Cummings,
I do not turn 10 until my next birthday. Dad has promised to buy me some waterproof marker pens, so that when I “colour in” the “Oceans” bar, it won’t smudge.
Dr Spencer, you are the image of truth. And who may abide the day of his coming?
Sheldon,
Really interesting graphic. GISTEMP?
Hi Snape,
yes, GISTEMP gridded temperature series (Land-Ocean Temperature Index, ERSSTv5, 1200km smoothing).
the Arctic region is anything north of the 66N line of latitude. This is approximately 4% of the Earth.
the Antarctic region is anything south of the 66S line of latitude. This is approximately 4% of the Earth.
Land is anything between the 66N line of latitude, and the 66S line of latitude, where you can stand without getting your feet wet. This is approximately 26% of the Earth.
Ocean, is anything between the 66N line of latitude, and the 66S line of latitude, where your feet get wet, if you stand there. This is approximately 66% of the Earth.
I am thinking about making some even more detailed bar charts. Like this one, but for different hemispheres etc. I have all the data, I just need to analyse it.
Here’s a review by four scientists of Roy’s op-ed:
“USA Today op-ed ignores evidence to claim climate change had no role in Hurricane Florence,” Dessler, Chavas, Elsner, Emanuel, ClimateFeedback, 9/17/18
https://climatefeedback.org/evaluation/usa-today-op-ed-ignores-evidence-to-claim-climate-change-had-no-role-in-hurricane-florence-roy-spencer/
DA, were you able to do any “due diligence” on your 4 “scientists”?
For example, how many are, directly or indirectly, receiving public funding?
Do any of them understand the relevant physics?
There are a lot of phonies. Be wary.
“Do any of them understand the relevant physics?”
https://emanuel.mit.edu/research-papers
A quote from his “essay”:
“When the greenhouse gases (and clouds, which also act as greenhouse agents) absorb infrared radiation, most of which comes from the surface and lower layers of the atmosphere, they must reemit radiation, otherwise the temperature of the atmosphere would increase inde nitely. This reemission occurs in all directions, so that half the radiation is emitted broadly downward and half broadly upward. The downward part is absorbed by the earths surface or lower portions of the atmosphere. Thus, in effect, the earth’s surface receives radiant energy from two sources: the sun, and the back-radiation from the greenhouse gases and clouds in the atmosphere, as illustrated in Figure 1. Now here is something surprising: on average the earth’s surface receives almost twice as much radiation from the atmosphere as it does directly from the sun, mostly because the atmosphere radiates 24/7, while the sun shines only part of the time. This is how powerful the greenhouse effect is.”
He clearly doesn’t understand the relevant physics.
Here’s a quote from one of the references within the link:
‘Natural disasters such as the recent Hurricanes Harvey, Irma, and Maria highlight the need for quantitative estimates of the risk of such disasters. Statistically based risk assessment suffers from short records of often poor quality, and in the case of meteorological hazards, from the fact that the underlying climate is changing. This study shows how a recently developed physics-based risk assessment method can be applied to assessing the probabilities of extreme hurricane rainfall, allowing for quantitative assessment of hurricane flooding risks in all locations affected by such storms, regardless of the presence or quality of historical hurricane records.’
Disasters? A disaster is a sudden calamity. Hurricanes are expected – they’re not sudden; it’s the hurricane season, yet notice how the word ‘disaster’ has been inserted to make it all suitably extra scary.
Risk assessments on a hurricane? Is there no end to the climatic nonsense? More grant money, please……..
Hurricane experts are a lot like economists.
No matter how many of them you put end to end, they still won’t reach agreement.
You can believe our resident troll’s experts namely Chavas (Purdue), Dessler (Texas A&M), Elsner (FSU), Emanuel (MIT).
Or you could believe Roy Spencer and Ryan Maue.
Dessler and Emanuel were savaged by Richard Lindzen:
https://www.masterresource.org/north-gerald-texas-am/lindzen-vs-emanuel-non-sequitur-mit-climate-scientists-on-the-policy-implications-of-global-warming/
GC: What do you find wrong with the claims made by the four scientists in the ClimateFeedback link? Did Roy mention intensity and rainfall during his interview? Is it relevant that Florence has set rainfall records in NC and SC?
“Record rainfall from Tropical Storm Florence plagues Carolinas,” Axios, 9/15/18
https://www.axios.com/hurricane-florence-epic-flooding-record-rains-carolinas-b140b416-829e-462a-a88c-0845f75899f5.html
Thirty inches of rainfall is pretty impressive but it is weather rather than climate.
It is weather influenced by climate change — warmer ocean, more water vapor in the atmosphere.
So what was wrong with the claims of the 4 scientists in the ClimateFeedback article? You can’t get away with just throwing up Lindzen’s name — on a blog run by oil industry interests, which writes, “…his [Lindzen’s] penchant to probe and forward hypotheses that he had to later take back.” — let’s discuss what they said about the science.
And that blog post heralds Lindzen & Choi, which has little-to-no acceptance in the science community. Nor the contrarian community:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2010/01/lindzen-and-choi-unraveled/
“CO2 both absorbs AND emits. So if more is added, you get more absorbers AND more emitters.”
Good job, Huffy!
*****
Now, if you think of a CO2 molecule as a plate, emitting equally up and down, what happens when you add MORE plates?
Here’s a nice explanation:
http://rabett.blogspot.com/2018/08/the-simplest-green-plate-effect.html?m=1
Heres the correct application of physics:
https://postimg.cc/image/jcotys8e3/
Ha Ha Ha, I remember that one!
Sending 200W rightward between surfaces of the same temperature was just one of the flaws.
Best of all your afterthought, imagining that one side was perhaps 0.1 C less, brilliant!
No one would expect irrelevant anonymous clowns to understand.
Yes, try the patent office!
A heater that is not hot will have a great market.
Please be quick though, another guy named “ger*an” had the exact same idea a few months ago, just before he got banned for the second time.
Svante’s inability to understand basic physics is amusing. Not very original, but amusing nevertheless.
Hilarious!
S,
Try two plates – one emitting 200W/m2, the other emitting 300W/m2, facing each other.
Are you stupid and ignorant enough to believe that the hotter plate will get even hotter by absorbing photons from the colder? That it will heat up enough to melt? Both are made of ice, (in an environment colder than either, just to ensure that nobody tries to sneak in a hidden heat source).
Even you couldn’t possibly be stupid enough to believe that a hotter body can have its temperature increased by a colder! That would be a climatological pseudoscientific fantasy – just like the mythical and indescribable GHE!
Ha Ha Ha?
Cheers.
Mike Flynn
YOU: “Even you couldnât possibly be stupid enough to believe that a hotter body can have its temperature increased by a colder! That would be a climatological pseudoscientific fantasy â just like the mythical and indescribable GHE!”
If the hotter body is a heated one (has a continuous input of energy) the temperature of a colder body will change the steady state temperature of the hotter heated body. If the colder body temperature goes up, the heated body will reach a higher temperature.
Not stupid at all but actually demonstrated to be quite correct by actual experimental evidence.
Review for you benefit.
https://app.box.com/s/5wxidf87li5bo588q2xhcfxhtfy52oba
Things to note. Blue plate reached a higher temperature when Green plate was moved to position. Previous to this move the Blue plate steady state temperature was controlled by the amount of energy it received from the input light and the amount of energy it received by the colder surroundings. Colder surroundings peaked at around 30 C. Green plate (colder than Blue plate) peaked at 75 C but it increased the temperature of the blue plate by 10 C.
N,
You wrote –
“If the hotter body is a heated one . . .”
Yes, and if my bicycle had three wheels it would be a tricycle. If someone could describe the GHE, then maybe someone could propose a testable GHE hypothesis.
If . . .
If only. Bad luck, Norman. The Earth has cooled for four and a half billion years or so, and can’t be bothered listening to your diversionary nonsense.
The atmosphere happens to be between the Sun and the surface. Always has been. On the other hand, if it wasn’t . . .
Cheers.
Norman still can’t undestand basic concepts.
At least he can type.
H,
Ask nicely, and I bet Swanson will help you with the math.
–Ryan gave in to Trumps request for a tax cut and increase in military spending. Hence $1T deficits are long-time deficit hawk Ryans parting gift to America.–
Ryan wants to do entitlement reform- that is the Ryan giving in to Trump. Trump obviously do not want this added “Unwinable” fight, and Ryan can’t be stupid enough to imagine he pass such as thing- it is more along the lines of virtue signaling or a symbolic gesture. But Reps are well known as stupid.
As said for quite while, the Reps are not winning, rather the Dems are losing.
And Trump actually wants to win.
The USA will spend #3.6 trillion on health care in 2018. Waste, corruption, fraud and price gouging account for more that one third of this spending so our annual deficits could be turned into surpluses simply be ending this insanity.
The answer is blindingly simple. Eliminate federal control of health care starting with the FDA. Allow each state to create health care systems that make sense to them. When that is done medical tourists won’t have to go to India, Thailand or Costa Rica to get affordable health care.
Wonderful idea.
Enter problem: the dems.
GC wrote:
Allow each state to create health care systems that make sense to them.
Poor states can’t afford it. Red state politicians cruelly reject anything like a government health care system, leaving their poor citizens with nothing. Health insurance companies don’t want to deal with 50 different systems.
Meanwhile, we know what health care system works, because it’s been tried all around the world, for decades, by many different governments. And it’s provided universal care at a cost about 1/2 that of the US’s: single payer.
Here is John Staddon’s commentary on the British health care system that has the ability to keep drug costs much lower than in the USA. The British NHS (National Health Service) negotiates drug prices downwards while the FDA has created a system that does the opposite:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ndi75dIfr2k
cam…”The answer is blindingly simple. Eliminate federal control of health care starting with the FDA”.
The problem with your assessment is blindingly obvious as well. Right-wing states like Texas will ignore health care, or pay lip service to it.
Health care needs to be enshrined in your constitution. Everyone in the US should have a right to health care, especially the poor and needy. Your country can afford it, that’s not the issue. The problem is mean spirited people who believe no one should get a free lunch. They have no problem with corporations getting a free lunch, but someone who is sick cannot have one.
Even though we have universal medicare in Canada there are many detractors who want to privatize the system. They spread fables about long waiting times for surgery and so on. Anytime I have required immediate surgery (appendix, gallbladder) I got into surgery immediately and it cost me nothing.
I had elective surgery for a minor complaint recently and I waited something like 3 months. I could have been bumped had a more serious case needed surgery but I am OK with that. I was told it was unlikely that I’d be bumped.
Health care works well in Canada because everyone chips in. If you are below a certain income level you don’t pay premiums. We are not supposed to be paying premiums at all but some right-wing provinces have implemented premiums up to $60/month.
Any seats the GOP loses in November will be “Own Goals” scored by RINOs (McConnell, Flake, Corker, Collins, McCaskell in the senate and Ryan plus many more in the House). What a bunch of pompous asses!
Bohner was a disaster and Ryan is even worse. Let’s make sure the next speaker will support the Trump agenda and will trample on Democrats rather than cave to them.
Trump should not sign any more spending bills until adequate funding for the wall is included.
Please note that I am not a Republican. I am an “Unaffiliated” voter who does not like Republicans any more than Democrats. I did not vote in the 2004, 2008, 2012 elections because it made no difference which party was in power. The Elites were going to continue running the country to benefit themselves and to hell with the “Little People”.
At last, under president Trump, things are starting to improve for the “Little People” and we need to show up in force in November to “Keep America Great” and end the rule of the Elites with their corrupt lick spittle “Deep State” bureaucrats.
Apologies to all and especially our revered host for going “Off Topic”.
My outrage at the appalling behavior of our ruling classes got the better of me……I will try not to do it again.
No apology needed, GC.
You’re not alone in your frustration.
GC wrote:
At last, under president Trump, things are starting to improve for the Little People
How so, specifically?
It is astonishing that you should ask such a question. You are like John Cleese who asked “What have they ever given us?:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qc7HmhrgTuQ
The elites who have increased their control of the USA for the last 30 years run the country for their own benefit. If you don’t understand that….wake up!
Donald Trump has done many things to transform the USA in ways that create jobs rather than dependency. Here are just a few of the items that have helped to raise the wages of the lowest quartile of our population after decades of stagnation:
1. Reducing taxes
2. Eliminating thousands of job killing regulations
3. Negotiating fairer trade deals
4. Discouraging illegal immigration
gbaikie…”As said for quite while, the Reps are not winning, rather the Dems are losing”.
Viewed from afar, in Canada, that’s how I see it. I used to think the Dems were the good guys but that view began to fade with Clinton’s sexual escapades in the Oval Office, with Al Gore, Hillary Clinton, and Obama.
The past year since Trump won has revealed the Dems as a load of politically-correct, whining losers. The US media have also mean exposed as biased. I think Trump’s label of fake news is appropriate.
For those of you not familiar with Huffypuff U, students there are taught that a blue plate will refuse to absorb energy from a green plate with the same temperature (gets reflected). The green plate, they are told, will be happy to absorb from the blue.
https://postimg.cc/image/jcotys8e3/
*******
At HU it’s all about color.
Snape, please stop trolling.
Ms Snape opines: “At HU it’s all about color.”
No Ms Snape, it’s not about race. Save your “race card” for another time.
It’s about physics. A simple example would be two batteries, in parallel, fed by a source, and feeding a load.
But that would be over your head….
S,
Put two plates made of ice emitting 300W/m2 opposite each other. Make them of any coloured water you wish.
Place them as close as you like.
Ensure the surrounding environment is emitting less than 300W/m2 – otherwise you have introduced a cunning hidden heat source, wot?
Off you go now. Tell me which plate will get hotter, if you can. If you believe CO2 has magic properties, use solid CO2 (dry ice), and make appropriate adjustments to the environment.
Learn some physics. You can’t even describe the mythical GHE, let alone find a testable GHE hypothesis. Just blather more pseudoscientific diversionary nonsense, eh?
What a fool you are – do you believe in the Tooth Fairy as well?
Cheers.
snape…”For those of you not familiar with Huffypuff U…”
HU fiziks 101:
1)two plates in thermal equilibrium will exchange radiation but neither plate will warm.
2)two plates with one hotter than the other must obey the 2nd law. Heat can be transferred from the hotter plate to the colder plate but not in the opposite direction. That’s true even though radiation from each body is intercepted by each body.
3)in the blue plate-green plate fiasco by swannie, the green plate was specified to be cooler than the blue plate (since the BP had been warmed by an external heat source) therefore the green plate cannot warm the blue plate via radiation. The blue plate warms because it moves towards it natural temperature when dissipation is blocked by the green plate.
With the green plate removed from the heat source initially, the blue plate alone warms. It reaches a state of thermal equilibrium where it absorbs heat (converted from EM) from the heat source and radiates heat away from itself by converting it to EM. Therefore its equilibrium temperature is lower than the temperature it could reach if all means of dissipation were blocked.
When the GP is moved near to it, blocking it’s means of heat dissipation due to radiation, the BP warms closer to the temperature it would be if all dissipation was blocked.
It’s really simple and back-radiation plays no part in the warming of the BP. The BP is happy, the 2nd law is happy, and all of fiziks is happy. I’m happy too.
Huffy
We already know your thinking on this. There’s a one way transfer of energy from the blue to the green plate, right?
At HU, plates are like batteries. It doesn’t matter if they’re the same temperature.
Snape, I have been reading these threads for a very long time, long before I started commenting. I dont think I have ever once seen you correctly represent an opponents argument. The plates has been discussed ad nauseam. You have no excuse. It can only be trolling!
You’re exactly right, DREMT.
Snape doesn’t want to learn.
Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:
Snape is not incorrectly representing his opponents argument.
Opponent:
https://postlmg.cc/HrxkJyBB
Shows blue and green plate at same temperature. Color of arrows shows green plate absorbs 200 W/m^2 from blue plate. Blue plate absorbs 0 energy from green plate (all energy emitted by green plate
toward blue plate is reflected back to green plate). It is what the diagram shows.
Also this graphic is pseudoscience. Made up with no supporting evidence.
YOU: “The plates has been discussed ad nauseam.”
Yes it was, that is why one poster (E. Swanson) actually performed a real world experiment under vacuum conditions to eliminate any effects of conduction and convection.
The real world results do not support the made up pseudoscience but the pretenders keeps acting like they know physics. Why they do this only they know.
Real solution:
https://app.box.com/s/5wxidf87li5bo588q2xhcfxhtfy52oba
Blue and Green plate DO NOT reach the same steady state temperature! The Blue plate temperature goes up when the Green plate is moved its view. These are the facts. The rest is garbage physics. If you have been reading a long time I hope you are learning that JDHuffman is wrong.
Also you said this: “You have no excuse. It can only be trolling!”
That would be a correct assessment of your posting here. You are trolling. Trying to provoke thoughtful scientific minded people and leaving the real trolls (JDHuffman, Mike Flynn) completely alone. Never once telling these trolls to stop. Why is that? Why are you so biased?
N,
In the absence of an exterior heat source, any number of plates will reach the same steady state temperature – absolute zero.
If you have an unstated heat source of infinite capacity, you can create any illusion you want.
You can’t even describe this GHE, can you? And yet, you claim to believe! This is religion, based on belief – no more no less.
Carry on preaching. I’m sure the leader of the Latter Day Temple of Hansenism (James Hansen) will assure your seat on the right hand of the Climate Prophet, in the afterlife.
Maybe you need to pray harder. Chant the sacred Manntras, ever more stridently. Call down the Wrath of the Climate Gods on the Unbelievers! Go for it.
Cheers.
Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:
Mike Flynn’s post is a clear example of trolling. He brings up a point that is not part of the Blue/Green plate (the blue plate is heated so will not reach absolute zero).
Then he goes on about how accepting GHE as a valid science is really a cult religion. THIS IS NOTHING BUT TROLLING! It has no valid science, does nothing to address the debate and is insulting to attribute valid science reasoning to a cult religion.
That you do not tell him to stop trolling makes you a phony troll with your biased and troll comments to tell scientific minded people (attempting to shut down the legitimate discussion on the science) to “please stop trolling”.
You should do as you did before. Stop posting. You are just another anti-science troll who supports fantasy physics and attacks good valid science based upon experimental, observational and empirical evidence. We already have a couple of anti-science posters who make up their own physics and call valid good science pseudoscience but their made up unsupported science we are supposed to believe without question.
Norman, please stop trolling.
No Norman, Snape does not ever seem to correctly represent his opponents argument, as JD Huffman had confirmed in this case. It is for JD Huffman to say if his argument is correctly represented or not!
The differences between the plates thought experiment and the actual experiment have also already been discussed and explained by numerous commenters, and to pretend otherwise is disingenuous.
So please stop trolling.
Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:
I think you made one comment on it about how heat flow would change 10 C based upon the heat resistance of plates in the real world. You did not explain at all why you thought this. You just stated it as if it had meaning. So no, the plates have not actually been discussed at all. Gordon Robertson stated the green plate reduced heat dissipation. Which does not change that the real world experiment is equivalent to the thought experiment of Eli Rabbet. Rabbet has the correct physics, he understands heat transfer by radiant energy. The “skeptic” make declarations with zero support and think that is science. You are also one that makes unsupported statements and considers this a valid approach to a scientific discussion. Not sure why you believe this but you have already done this. When I questioned you, you launched an attack but never answered. I doubt you ever will.
Norman, I dont need to explain how insulation works. The real life green plate possesses some degree of thermal resistance. The thought experiment plate does not.
You did not question me about my statement, you changed it and demanded explanation for your altered version of it.
You cannot debate honestly about this subject.
PST,
Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:
Ok go with your point. In the real world the Green plate has some thermal resistance. That means the side facing the blue plate will be slightly warmer than the one opposite the blue plate.
Ok so how does that explain the rise of the Blue plate temperature?
Google insulation. Then stop trolling.
Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:
Sounds like you will do the same as JDHuffman. Make declarations but refuse to support them.
I ask a question and you say “google insulation”
That answers no questions.
Again (so you can avoid it): “Ok so how does that explain the rise of the Blue plate temperature?”
Norman queries: “Ok so how does that explain the rise of the Blue plate temperature?”
Norman, the green plate can NOT raise the temperature of the blue plate.
Learn some physics.
Norman, in Swansons experiment the blue plate raises in temperature by 10 C because the green plate insulates the blue. Without the green plate, there is no impediment to heat loss from the blue plate. With the green plate present, there is an impediment to heat loss from the blue plate.
In the thought experiment, the plates possess no thermal resistance. So the green plate cant insulate the blue.
Remarkably simple. The only reason you dont get it is because you dont want to.
Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:
Maybe I am not clear enough so I will attempt again.
YOU: “Norman, in Swansons experiment the blue plate raises in temperature by 10 C because the green plate insulates the blue. Without the green plate, there is no impediment to heat loss from the blue plate. With the green plate present, there is an impediment to heat loss from the blue plate.”
I am trying to get you to explain how the green plate is impeding the heat loss from the blue plate. What is the mechanism. Just making simple declarations that the green plate insulates the blue plate has no underlying mechanism on the how. How does the green plate impede heat loss?
Thermal resistance. Norman, I have absolutely no idea why this is so difficult for you to understand.
Norman is confused, again. He is confused by both plates being at the same temperature.
Of course, in a real environment, the plates would have some infinitesimally small difference. Just as if the plates were exactly together, conduction would require some infinitesimally small difference.
Norman remains confused due to his inadequate background and established false beliefs
Nothing new….
JDHuffman
You continue to peddle your false and misleading pseudoscience upon the ignorant.
The two plates are not even close to the same temperature in the real world experiment. You are wrong and confused and misleading with intent, as is your usual path.
Once you separate the plates from conduction you get a significant temperature change. The Blue plate warms and the green plate cools. This is the reality you can’t see. Too blind to look at facts.
The blue plate warms because it can no longer conduct energy away to the green plate. The green plate cools because it is only receiving energy from the blue plate via radiant energy and not conduction.
When together you have a very similar temperature between the two plates. When you separate them the temperature change is significant. Learn some physics. Do some experiments. If you would do an experiment set up similar to E. Swanson and have the blue and Green plate together, you will soon see you are wrong when you separate them. The Blue plate temperature will rise to a higher steady state temperature than when the plates were together and the Green plate will cool. Do the experiment and you will see you do not know what you are talking about. I won’t hold my breath that you will ever actually do any real science. You will continue making false declarations and making false untrue statement about other posters.
Norman was unable to understand my comment, hence his continued confusion.
But at least he was able to type a long, rambling, diversionary reply.
Obviously it’s another slow day at his dead-end job.
JDHuffman
So explain you point better. What are you trying to say?
Where is DRMET with your derogatory insulting post?
YOU: “Norman remains confused due to his inadequate background and established false beliefs”
That is pure trolling. It addresses nothing and is just a personal attack. Why does not DREMT tell you to “Please Stop Trolling”?
Sorry Norman, but it’s reality. You are confused due to your inadequate background and established false beliefs.
Face reality. Learn some physics. Think for yourself.
All good advice.
JDHuffman
YOU: “Norman queries: Ok so how does that explain the rise of the Blue plate temperature?
Norman, the green plate can NOT raise the temperature of the blue plate.
Learn some physics.”
You are most clearly wrong. The Green plate can and does raise the temperature of the Blue plate. The energy it radiates is absorbed by the blue plate along with the heat lamp energy so the Blue plate warms until it reaches a new higher temperature that is able to radiate the amount of energy it is receiving from the two inputs.
https://app.box.com/s/5wxidf87li5bo588q2xhcfxhtfy52oba
Look at the graph and read what the temperature changes result from.
The Green plate is moved in position and the Blue plate temperature goes up. Can’t help you if you are in full denial.
I know plenty of physics. You are the one who needs to learn some. Open a textbook and start reading.
Norman, I’m not referring to Swanson’s invalid “experiment”. I’m referring to the valid blue/ green shown here:
https://postimg.cc/image/jcotys8e3/
Green plate can not warm blue plate.
You keep claiming that you understand physics, but there is no evidence to support such claims. You can’t even understand basic concepts:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rotation_around_a_fixed_axis
Learn some physics, then you won’t have to fake it.
JDHuffman
Your post to your own made up physics is not proof. Send this crap to a physics professor and let me know what they say about it. That is not based upon any known physics. It is completely made up and not supported.
https://ocw.mit.edu/courses/aeronautics-and-astronautics/16-050-thermal-energy-fall-2002/lecture-notes/10_part3.pdf
Real physics for people who want real science.
Read through the chapter on radiant energy.
JDHuffman
Yes look at your own link. Learn what rotation around an axis means. The Earth’s gravity field does not act like a rod connecting the Moon. It must rotate once per orbit to keep its same side facing the Earth. You have many examples of this reality. That you can’t understand what is being shown to you would be your problem not mine.
But for your sake I will try again. Maybe as the iteration of anonymous JDHuffman you will be able to grasp at what you could not as g.e.r.a.n
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jYBjYf3xLPw
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VKTQx8IySBk
Do the tests yourself and see if you can keep the same face to the center object without rotating the orbiting object.
You will see you really don’t know what axis of rotation means just as you can’t comprehend radiative flux. I am not sure you are able to understand any physics. I hope you might but I am losing hope with each of your brain-dead posts.
Norman here you go again, trying to fake it.
Linking to sources over your head doesn’t fool me. People, that have a solid background, studied material like that years ago. But studying is not enough. You must understand and know how it applies.
You will never get there.
At least you know how to type….
JDHuffman
Too changing from an anonymous poster g.e.r.a.n to the equally anonymous JDHuffman, you unfortunately did not change your mental abilities. Still the same corny responses.
I link you to real science and you Huff and Puff with this pretend post hiding the fact that you are ignorant and have no ability to understand the material I link to.
I gave you two simple experiments you could do in your home to show that the Moon must rotate to keep the same face to the Earth. You won’t do either test but will spout off acting like you know what you are talking about. Sad but true. I wish the name change could have helped you.
Norman…”The Earths gravity field does not act like a rod connecting the Moon. It must rotate once per orbit to keep its same side facing the Earth”.
Of course it does. The Moon behaves as if there is a rod from the centre of the Earth connecting the Moon and holding it with one face always toward the planet.
WRY the Moon rotation is defined as angular momentum about the Moon’s axis. The Moon has no angular momentum in that regard hence it does not rotate.
From the perspective of the SUN it APPEARS to rotate but that’s because the Moon is held with one face toward the Earth while the Moon orbits the Earth. As the Moon orbits the Earth the Earth orbits the Sun AND the Earth rotates on its own axis.
Norman…” The energy it radiates is absorbed by the blue plate….”
2nd law according to Clausius, heat can NEVER by its own means be transferred from a colder object to a warmer object.
The green plate is colder, case closed. So is the atmosphere and there goes GHE and AGW.
Gordon Robertson
Ok YOU STATE: “Of course it does. The Moon behaves as if there is a rod from the centre of the Earth connecting the Moon and holding it with one face always toward the planet.
WRY the Moon rotation is defined as angular momentum about the Moons axis. The Moon has no angular momentum in that regard hence it does not rotate.”
Where do you get this from. You make it up but can’t support it at all. You know we can all start making up our own ideas and think they are correct. Where does that get science?
What is your supporting evidence that gravity acts like a rod holding the Moon? Where do you get the notion the Moon has no angular momentum? What is the source of your made up ideas?
Gordon Robertson
This might be the hundredth time you have done this. I say energy and you put “heat” into it. I have no idea why you keep doing this.
Is Heat equal to energy?
You have the facts, you have the evidence. The Blue plate reaches a steady state temperature with the surroundings after a vacuum is established.
https://app.box.com/s/5wxidf87li5bo588q2xhcfxhtfy52oba
When the colder Green plate is moved into position the Blue plate temperature goes up.
I have asked you many times, you have never answered (and I don’t expect you ever will). Where does Clausius say that a powered object will not reach a higher temperature if colder surrounding temperature is increased? He never has made that claim and the evidence shows that the temperature of the colder object will and does change the temperature of a powered object. Your points may be correct in your application. They do not apply to this case or the Earth. The Earth is a powered object (solar powered), it is constantly receiving trillions of joules of energy. If you have an atmosphere that absorbs this energy and transmits a considerable amount back to the surface, the surface will reach a warmer temperature than in absence of an atmosphere. You can torture Clausius, but it he would NEVER agree with the way you abuse his highly logical and correct physics. I feel sorry for this brilliant scientist whose work is twisted by people like yourself. Leave the poor man alone, if you can’t understand him just let his great ideas alone.
Norman, your two youtube links just make my point. You can’t think for yourself. You can’t read the definition of axial rotation, and understand it. You refuse reality.
Nothing new….
Just in case anyone is honestly having trouble with the concept and trying to understand, here’s an alternative example that may help.
Because of convection and conduction, an altitude layer in the real atmosphere can emit more or less radiation than it absorbs. To keep things simple, though, letâs imagine that thereâs no convection or conduction: at equilibrium each layer has to emit all it absorbs. Also, the real atmosphere absorbs some solar radiation directly, but in our hypothetical the atmosphere is completely transparent to solar radiation; it absorbs radiation only from the surface and other layers.
The following quantities are consistent with those assumptions but show that the surface emits 2.2 W/m^2 for every 1 W/m^2 it absorbs from the sun. Yet there’s no internal power source, and only that 1 W/m^2 escapes back to space.
Total
Absorbed from: Surface L.Atm U.Atm Space Absorbed
Absorbed by:
Surface 0.0000 1.0500 0.1500 1.0000 || 2.2000
Lower Atmosphere 1.6500 0.0000 0.4500 0.0000 || 2.1000
Upper Atmosphere 0.4125 0.7875 0.0000 0.0000 || 1.2000
Space 0.1375 0.2625 0.6000 0.0000 || 1.0000
————————————————
Total Emitted: 2.2000 2.1000 1.2000 1.0000
So the question is, Where has energy been created or destroyed?
And the answer is, Nowhere. It’s just that the same energy gets batted back and forth a bit before it escapes, so at, e.g., the surface it’s counted more than once.
Sorry about the table. It was actually quite readable when I entered it; it looked as though it was being monospaced. I’ll try once again, this time with tags that say to keep the spacing. But I doubt they work at this site.
Total
Absorbed from: Surface L.Atm U.Atm Space Absorbed
Absorbed by:
Surface 0.0000 1.0500 0.1500 1.0000 || 2.2000
Lower Atmosphere 1.6500 0.0000 0.4500 0.0000 || 2.1000
Upper Atmosphere 0.4125 0.7875 0.0000 0.0000 || 1.2000
Space 0.1375 0.2625 0.6000 0.0000 || 1.0000
————————————————
Total Emitted: 2.2000 2.1000 1.2000 1.0000
Am I dissing your alma mater?
S,
You wrote –
“Am I dissing your alma mater?l
Are you just trolling, or trying to appear stupid and ignorant for some bizarre climatological pseudoscientific reason?
Cheers.
An introduction to Alarmist statistical testing (also called hypothesis testing).
==========
Rule 1. Never specify a null hypothesis.
If you can’t “prove” that your favoured hypothesis is true, then it is easier to claim that you are still correct, if you don’t have a null hypotheses.
==========
Rule 2. Insist that a slowdown or pause, must be statistically significant, before you will accept that it exists.
Slowdowns and pauses are both “negative” results. They exist when there is NO statistically significant result.
By saying that you will not accept that a slowdown or pause exists, unless it is statistically significant, you are effectively saying that you will NEVER accept that a slowdown or pause exists, even if it lasts for 10,000 years.
Compare the Alarmist belief, with this statement. “I will never accept that the apple barrel is empty, unless there are a statistically significant number of apples in it”.
Slowdowns and pauses should be specified in the null hypothesis. Remember rule 1, never specify a null hypothesis.
==========
Rule 3. Looking for a slowdown or pause, in “noisy” temperature data, is like looking for a black cow on a moonless night. They are hard to see.
An Alarmist is like a person who has cow manure on their shoes, who insists that there are no black cows around, on a moonless night.
==========
Sorry, I only had 5 minutes to put this together. I have a hypothesis, that Alarmists make a lot more stupid statistical mistakes, than the ones that I have described here. But I am not going to specify a null hypothesis (because I know that I am right, and I don’t want to allow the possibility that I might be wrong).
Sheldon
“Looking for a slowdown or pause, in “noisy” temperature data, is like looking for a black cow on a moonless night. They are hard to see.”
Correct me if I’m wrong, but when the UAH monthly anomaly is less than ~ 0.31 C., a small slowdown in the 40 year trend is created. It is hard to see (usually invisible) only because the trend value gets rounded to the nearest 100th.
Snape,
you seem to be implying that because some slowdowns are very minor, then all slowdowns should be ignored.
I know that some of my ideas are a bit strange, but how about we judge each slowdown, on how much it slows down.
Sheldon
That wasn’t my intention. I’ve never had a stats class, and perhaps naively assumed that any amount of decrease in a trend could be called a slowdown, even if not statistically significant.
Snape,
you are correct.
If your car speed decreases from 100 km/h to 99 km/h, then technically, that is a slowdown.
If your car speed decreases from 100 km/h to 50 km/h, then technically, that is also a slowdown.
Most people would regard slowing to 99 km/h as trivial.
But most people would probably regard slowing to 50 km/h as significant.
How much does a car have to slow down by, to be regarded as significant?
It depends on the circumstances. If you kept a constant speed of 100 km/h for 5 hours, then slowing to 90 km/h could be regarded as significant.
Imagine that you were constantly speeding up to 100 km/h, and then slowing down to 10 km/h, and repeating that, over and over again. You probably wouldn’t regard slowing from 100 km/h to 90 km/h as significant, under these circumstances.
This is one of the reasons why people argue about slowdowns and pauses, so much. We first need to answer the question, “how long is a piece of string?”.
Galloping Camel,
You wrote –
“@Mike Flynn,
I think we are generally in agreement so I hope you wont be offended when I take issue with this statement:
CO2 has no heating properties, does it? There is no testable GHE hypothesis, is there?
Actually CO2 does have heating properties as does nitrogen, oxygen and argon. When you mix gases together the mixture has a Cp (specific heat at constant pressure) that depends on the relative proportions of the gases present. In the troposphere of all bodies in our solar system the temperature gradient is -g/Cp except on Earth and Titan where oceans exist.”
No offense taken.
However, I will take exception to your implication that a temperature gradient exists by virtue of gravity. Not so. If a body is at absolute zero, in an environment of the same temperature, the gradient is zero. Gravity is force, and heats nothing.
Any temperature gradient in the Earth’s atmosphere results from the fact that the gas closest to the surface is at a higher temperature than that most distant. A temperature gradient therefore exists. Gravity affects the density of the atmosphere, with resultant effects on specific heat, conductivity and so on. No heating effect.
You will be aware of temperature inversions, where temperature increases with altitude – the force of gravity notwithstanding. I am obviously not a believer in any gravitothermal effect because it doesn’t exist.
You also wrote –
“There is a testable GHE if you define GHE as the warming effect of adding an atmosphere to an airless body. Consensus climate scientists claim that the GHE is 33 Kelvin.”
Unfortunately, any claim that the act of surrounding an airless body with a gas creates a rise in temperature is wrong, without some explanation of how this miracle is achieved. Merely saying that it happens, and appealing to the authority of a gaggle of self-styled experts, is not sufficient.
You wind up in the silly situation of trying to explain why adding an atmosphere to the Earth resulted in an average temperature of several thousand K billions of years ago, through every intermediate temperature to its present surface temperatures ranging roughly from -90 C to +90 C. The GHE would have to have an incredibly variable effect, would it not? Completely incalculable!
Still no description of the GHE in scientific terms, leading to a testable GHE hypothesis.
I agree with Feynman, who said “It doesn’t matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn’t matter how smart you are. If it doesn’t agree with experiment, it’s wrong.”
Just saying “The Greenhouse Effect is the warming effect of adding an atmosphere to an airless body” is both pointless, and demonstrably wrong. Place an object in a vacuum chamber. Measure its temperature. Admit some gas at that temperature. Watch the temperature change not one bit.
If you try to to modify your GHE description to accord with reality, you will discover why nobody has managed to do it. At least, the climatological pseudoscientific consensus now agree that the effect has nothing to do with greenhouses, and is not a scientific effect at all.
So sad, too bad. Still no GHE, no CO2 heating, no AGW theory. Some “science”!
Cheers.
–You also wrote
There is a testable GHE if you define GHE as the warming effect of adding an atmosphere to an airless body. Consensus climate scientists claim that the GHE is 33 Kelvin.
Unfortunately, any claim that the act of surrounding an airless body with a gas creates a rise in temperature is wrong, without some explanation of how this miracle is achieved.—
Lunar surface is warmed by sun to as high about 120 C and Earth at same distance, has surface only rising to about 70 C.
A major aspect of atmosphere is it absorbs energy from the heated surface. The air of atmosphere allows more sunlight energy to be absorbed as compared to an airless world.
Earth air as specific heat of 1 joule per gram per K. A Metric ton of air is 1 million joules per K. And you have about 10 metric tons per square meter. The surface or ground has about .7 to 8 joules per gram and less than 1 ton of ground per square meter is warmed much in day. So more energy from the sun is absorbed by the atmosphere as compared to the ground per square meter.
g,
I’m a little unsure what you are trying to say. Maybe I should have been clearer, and explained that surrounding a body with gas does not result in a higher surface temperature.
You have confirmed what I wrote, in any case. Higher maximum temperature on the airless Moon, without any atmosphere to interfere with energy emitted by the Sun.
Specific heat is somewhat irrelevant, as absorbed energy depends on a number of factors, including albedo, angle of incidence and so on. For example, water has a specific heat of some 4.19 j/gm/ deg C, but at different angles of incidence, or for particular frequencies of light, the actual energy absorbed might vary from say, 1000 W/m2 to 0 (at incident angles less than the critical angle).
More complicated than climatological pseudoscience might have one believe. Have fun.
Cheers.
–Mike Flynn says:
September 19, 2018 at 4:11 AM
g,
Iâm a little unsure what you are trying to say. Maybe I should have been clearer, and explained that surrounding a body with gas does not result in a higher surface temperature.–
Global average surface air temperature is 15 C and surface air is about the same temperature as surface of ocean and surface of ocean is 70% of surface of Earth.
The average surface temperature of the ocean is about 17 C and average surface air temperature of land is about 10 C.
The surface ground temperature of land is not measured and would not matter much if it was.
Air does not warm [increase the temperature] of the ocean surface or ground surface, but air warms air in sense of maintaining or remaining near a temperature [the entire atmosphere cools and warms] and you are measuring surface air temperature in the shade five feet above the ground.
-Specific heat is somewhat irrelevant, as absorbed energy depends on a number of factors, including albedo, angle of incidence and so on. For example, water has a specific heat of some 4.19 j/gm/ deg C, but at different angles of incidence, or for particular frequencies of light, the actual energy absorbed might vary from say, 1000 W/m2 to 0 (at incident angles less than the critical angle).-
The ocean is warmed by both direct and indirect sunlight [unlike the land] and ocean does not reflect much sunlight when above 30 degrees above horizon. When sun is below 30 degrees above horizon is it doesn’t warm the surface of land or the surface ocean much.
A hour is 15 degree increase or decrease of sun angle above horizon when sun is 90 degrees [or at zenith]. 3 hours before noon and after noon, the sun is 45 degree or more horizon. This is where most heating of surface is done and it’s done in the the tropics. The tropical ocean is the heat engine of planet Earth.
@gbaikie,
“Unfortunately, any claim that the act of surrounding an airless body with a gas creates a rise in temperature is wrong, without some explanation of how this miracle is achieved.”
No miracles needed. You can get a pretty decent estimate applying physics and mathematics. The trick is to make some simplifying assumptions in the hope of reducing the volume of computations to a manageable size.
My own calculations match observations on airless bodies with an RMS error of less than 1 Kelvin.
When it comes to bodies with significant atmospheres I am still trying to improve on the Robinson & Catling model but why bother when they have done such a great job? Their model uses only three radiative channels (one “down” and two “up”) yet it is in close agreement with measurements on Venus, Earth, Saturn, Titan, Jupiter, Uranus and Neptune.
“My own calculations match observations on airless bodies with an RMS error of less than 1 Kelvin.”
Does it predict the temperature at each point on the Moon’s surface, or along its equator? Or just the average?
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2018/09/my-tucker-carlson-interview-last-night-and-calling-out-bill-nye-james-hansen/#comment-321180
gbaikie…”Unfortunately, any claim that the act of surrounding an airless body with a gas creates a rise in temperature is wrong, without some explanation of how this miracle is achieved.”
The miracle is in the Ideal Gas Law. Given that a body has sufficient gravity to compress the air near the surface, the surface temperature will rise. That’s presuming gravity produces a constant volume container.
When air is compressed by gravity it has to warm because the molecules are closer together and collisions are more frequent.
GR,
Indeed, when a gas is compressed, work is done, heat is generated. Then the compressed gas cools.
Whether the gas in a cylinder is 200 bar or 1 bar, it will cool to ambient if left alone.
As to molecules being closer, etc., remove any external heat source (and gravity is not a heat source), and the gas will cool – all the way to absolute zero, if allowed to.
No gravitothermal effect. No GHE. No CO2 heating. No offense intended.
Cheers.
Gordon Robertson says:
When air is compressed by gravity it has to warm because the molecules are closer together and collisions are more frequent.
Neither of these factors imply a warmer gas.
The temperature of a gas is proportional to the average kinetic energy of the gas molecules.
Gordon Robertson says:
Given that a body has sufficient gravity to compress the air near the surface, the surface temperature will rise.
How does gravity prevent infrared radiation from escaping the atmosphere to space?
Show us the equation for how surface temperature depends on g.
Why is Venus so much hotter than Earth when its surface gravity is 10% less?
MF, A proper comparison would require the use of an average temperature over a long period, say, 1 year. Of course, the Moon’s surface will become rather warm under full sunlight, and the same is true for a satellite. But, during the Moon’s “night” facing away from the Sun, the surface temperature drops, again, just as is the situation for a satellite as it orbits thru the Earth’s shadow. The moon’s temperature varies from a maximum of 127 C to a minimum of minus 173 C, a crude average gives minus 46 C.
And, you wrote:
You are apparently forgetting my Green Plate experiment using a vacuum chamber. My results showed that removing the air from the chamber caused the Blue plate’s temperature to increase, much like occurs on the sunlit side of the Moon.
ES, when Feynman said “experiment”, he was referring to a properly performed, valid experiment. Not some rigged backyard nonsense.
You’ve got a lot of work to do if you are trying to change the laws of physics.
Feynman’s most famous experiment was dipping a O-ring into a glass of cold water. Rigged backyard nonsense?
Not rigged.
Not backyard.
Not nonsense.
Try again, DA
You haven’t shown that any experiments were “rigged.”
The point is, Feynman’s O-ring experiment was sufficient to prove his point in front of Congress, not to a peer reviewed journal. NASA engineers had done their own tests of the idea. Experiments don’t have to be perfect to be useful.
DA, you just want to argue because you can’t understand.
Feynman’s experiment WAS perfect! It clearly demonstrated the reason for the O-ring failures.
ES has attempted various iterations (rigging), even changing what he claims he is trying to “prove”.
He has successfully fooled the useful idiots..
JDHuffman
You provide zero physics to support your phony allegations about E. Swanson’s experiment. You accuse him of “rigging” the setup. Then you go on accusing him of being dishonest and fooling idiots.
You are so convinced of this then DO YOUR OWN experiment!!
Prove you are right and he is wrong. You make claims that are not supported by any physics at all. I suggested you send you ideas to a University Physics Professor but you refuse. You come on here with a bunch of made up crap and call people idiots but you will not even attempt to do your own experiment.
You are a sniveling coward. You sit and make false misleading accusations about people but will not do your own testing. What a phony you really are. Do a test, prove his experiment is fraud or just Shut up with you mouthing!
N,
Maybe if you could describe the GHE in any scientific fashion, a testable GHE hypothesis could be formulated.
Of course you can’t, so you resort to demanding that others waste their time dancing to your erratic and discordant tune!
Have you any proof that you are not just another cultist fanatic, sucked in by the rantings of a delusional psychotic?
Carry on, Norman. Keep believing in the mythical GHE (which you can’t even describe).
Cheers.
Feynman’s experiment was perfect? Afraid not.
Was the temperature the same as at launch? Were the o-rings? How long had the shuttle been sitting on the launch pads? Did it make a difference that the shuttle was in air and the o-ring dipped in water? How much did the o-rings give? How much did they give in Feynman’s demonstration. Etc etc.
Feynman’s little demonstration was, typically, clever, simple and to the point. But it was hardly an experiment.
DA,
Read the official report. Don’t be a lazy troll. You need to put in more effort, if you want recognition.
What part of the official report of the proceedings is beyond you?
It seemed fairly straight forward to me, but as I am obviously smarter than you, maybe you need to read more slowly. Did you cover English comprehension during your 16 hours of journalism study?
I’m here to help, if you wish. You don’t need to thank me.
Cheers.
ES,
Exactly. Removing insulation between a heat source and an object allows more energy to reach the object, resulting in temperature rise.
This is already well known, and can be demonstrated by moving from sunlight to shade, and back again!
I am not “apparently forgetting” anything. You imply that your demonstration somehow supports the mythical GHE. You can’t even describe the GHE, and your demonstration shows nothing unusual.
Maybe you could try describing the GHE, before trying to convince anyone that you have done anything to demonstrate that your knowledge of the scientific method is not appreciably different from zero.
No GHE. No CO2 warming. The Earth has cooled for four and a half billion years.
Try again.
Cheers.
The Moon and the Earth receive the same amount of radiation from the sun (~1,361 W/m^2) yet the Moon has an average temperature of 197 Kelvin while the Earth averages 288 Kelvin.
What you would call that temperature differential if you don’t like the term GHE?
1) difference in albedos: 0.11 for the Moon, 0.30 for the Earth.
2) atmosphere vs no atmosphere. Global temperature equilibrium is assumed for the Earth, but only pointwise equilibrium can be assumed for the Moon. See this link for the calculation for both:
https://davidappell.blogspot.com/2012/04/norfolk-constabulary-made-wrong-charges.html
How about “the temperature differential due to the correct application of physics”?
gc,
The Moon’s surface and the Earth’s surface receive totally different amounts of radiation from the Sun. Both NASA and Tyndall agree that around 35% of insolation never reaches the Earth’s surface.
If I didn’t like the term GHE, I would call a temperature differential a temperature differential..
Why concoct a irrelevant, stupid, and misleading moniker in an effort to appear sciency?
That’s the sort of thing a climatological pseudoscientist would do.
No GHE. No CO2 heating. No gravitothermal effect. Just ordinary physics at work.
Cheers.
The TSI for the Moon and Earth is essentially identical.
Because the Earth has an atmosphere some of the incoming energy never reaches the surface. Even though the atmosphere returns some of the incident energy to space the net effect of our atmosphere is to warm the planet rather than to cool it. Most of us think of that as the Greenhouse Effect (GHE).
We are into semantics here. As Bill Clinton would say:
It depends on what the meaning of the word is is.”
gc,
You wrote –
“Because the Earth has an atmosphere some of the incoming energy never reaches the surface.”
Exactly so. Thermometers react to receiving lesser amounts of radiation (in general) by showing a lower temperature. Climatological pseudoscientists try obfuscation to deny fact, by declaring that a reduction in the rate of cooling is actually warming, or similar attempts to avoid facing reality.
From your words, it appears that most of you think of the GHE as a reduction in the amount of energy reaching the surface. How this is supposed to make thermometers hotter is beyond me.
You still can’t describe the GHE, can you? Surrounding an object with CO2 does not raise its temperature! The Earth has cooled, notwithstanding being surrounded by an atmosphere containing CO2 for four and a half billion years or so.
No testable GHE hypothesis. No AGW theory. If you consider this to be science, we obviously have different definitions. CO2 heats nothing – if a thermometer shows a temperature rise, I would look for a source of increased radiation. You obviously wouldn’t. Your decision, of course.
Cheers.
GC stated: “Even though the atmosphere returns some of the incident energy to space the net effect of our atmosphere is to warm the planet rather than to cool it.”
No GC, the atmosphere does NOT warm the planet. The atmosphere cools the planet.
The Sun warms the surface. The surface warms the atmosphere. The atmosphere radiates to space.
Just remember the catchy phrase: “It’s the Sun, stupid!”
☼
@JD Huffman,
I am baffled by your logic. Here is a post describing my calculations of the temperature of the Moon.
https://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2014/04/18/a-new-lunar-thermal-model-based-on-finite-element-analysis-of-regolith-physical-properties/
Note that my model is in close agreement with the Diviner LRE measurements. There are at least four other independent models that are consistent with my model.
It seems safe to say that we can explain the average surface temperature of the Moon and it is ~197 Kelvin.
The Earth has an atmosphere so if the atmosphere has a cooling effect why is the average temperature ~288 Kelvin?
Color me confused!
JDHuffman says:
No GC, the atmosphere does NOT warm the planet.
Any planet with an atmosphere has a greenhouse effect, which increases the global average surface temperature beyond its brightness temperature.
Easily understood science.
GC: It sounds like all you’re doing is statistical regression, based on this sentence at your link:
“Empirically, I used my synthsiser software to match both data but as continuous waves.”
What does that mean??
Meanwhile, standard physics easily predicts the Moon’s temperature along its equator — I calculated it at this link. The equatorial temperature curve is simply a cosine to the 1/4th power.
https://davidappell.blogspot.com/2012/04/norfolk-constabulary-made-wrong-charges.html
The 1/4th is just the reciprocal of 4, which comes from the SB Law.
All of you have made a fetish of the Moon’s temperature, when basic physics easily explains it. But that seems to be the one thing you all must avoid.
GC, yes pseudoscience can be confusing.
But a quick reality-check can be helpful. The well-vertfiied atmospheric lapse rate indicates the direction of heat transfer–surface to atm to space.
@David Appell,
“GC: It sounds like all youâre doing is statistical regression, based on this sentence at your link”
If you took the trouble to read my post you would know that I used Finite Element Analysis to calculate the Moon’s surface temperature, hour by hour. Most people here know that FEAs are numerical differential equation solvers. To avoid the need for a super-computer I used a model with only 100 nodes and 455 time intervals.
That may still seem like using a steamroller to crack a nut. As you demonstrated there are more elegant ways to calculate the average temperature for a static situation.
Using your methods can you say whether changing the Moon’s rate of rotation would have any effect on the average temperature? If there is an effect can you quantify it? The advantage of my method is that I can estimate the effect of rotation rate.
I have a couple of minor criticisms of your calculation. Assuming a Bond albedo of 0.11 for the surface of the Moon leads to errors because the Moon is non-Lambertian. You may still get the average right but the hour by hour temperature cannot track closely with observations. Your noon temperature is too low and your evening/morning temperatures are too high.
To model the non-Lambertian behavior of the Moon Vasavada used an 8th order polynomial, Tim Lambert and I used different cosine functions.
Likewise you appear to have used an emittance of 1.00 for outgoing thermal IR which means your night time temperatures won’t track closely either.
All that said I congratulate you for backing up your assertions with equations and calculations this time.
GC: If you had presented the physics and EQUATIONS of your model, I’d have some idea what your model is, and not have to rely on a bunch of claims and handwaving….
GC says:
Using your methods can you say whether changing the Moons rate of rotation would have any effect on the average temperature?
Yes I can — it would not.
If there is an effect can you quantify it?
Yes — there is no dependence on rotation rate.
The advantage of my method is that I can estimate the effect of rotation rate.
How does the Moon’s average nightside temperature depend on is rotation rate? (equation please)
How does the Moon’s pointwise nightside temperature depend on its rotation rate? (equation please)
Sheldon
I’m not sure if it’s right to call km/h a trend. Sure, both are rates, but a trend is more like “tendency”, don’t you think?
******
Also, I thought “statistical significance” referred to the likelihood that a given trend is not just a matter of chance?
Couldn’t a trend be statistically significant, yet unimportant?
M
Snape,
are you sure that you haven’t done a stats class?
Because you seem to have a good grasp of the concepts.
==========
You said, “I thought statistical significance referred to the likelihood that a given trend is not just a matter of chance?”
That is correct.
A result that is unlikely to have happened by chance, is statistically significant.
A result which could easily have happened by chance, is NOT statistically significant.
==========
You said, “Couldnt a trend be statistically significant, yet unimportant?”
Again, that is correct.
Importance, and statistical significance, are only loosely coupled.
So something can be statistically significant, and important.
Or something can be statistically significant, and unimportant.
Or something can be NOT statistically significant, and important.
Or something can be NOT statistically significant, and unimportant.
Imagine if a baseball player has amazing performance statistics, which are statistically significant. If you are not interested in baseball, then his performance is unimportant.
Statistical significance is affected by statistical “noise”. Temperature data is very “noisy”. So it is hard to find a 10 year period, where the temperature trend is statistically significant.
It is easier to find a statistically significant temperature trend, with a 30 year period.
Does that mean that there was no global warming in the 10 year period, but that there was global warming in the 30 year period?
What if I told you that the 10 year period was part of the 30 year period?
==========
You said, “Im not sure if its right to call km/h a trend. Sure, both are rates, but a trend is more like tendency, dont you think?”
A warming rate (degrees Celsius per century), is the rate of change of temperature
A speed (km/h), is the rate of change of distance.
if you can have a temperature trend, then you can also have a “distance” trend.
Imagine a graph of temperature versus time, and a graph of distance versus time.
I agree that people don’t normally think of km/h as a trend, but the mathematics is the same.
Europe, get ready for the cold! The temperature of the North Atlantic drops.
https://www.tropicaltidbits.com/analysis/ocean/natlssta.png
Sheldon
“if you can have a temperature trend, then you can also have a “distance” trend.”
What if we plot the change in an object’s location at one hour intervals?
– First dot (data point) shows the object moved 1 mile due north.
– Second dot, the object is now 1 mile south of where it started.
– Third dot, the object is 2 miles north of where it started.
What was the object’s average velocity? Well, it traveled a total of 6 miles in 3 hours, so 2 mph.
Was there a trend in the object’s changes in location? Yes, the trend was northerly, at a rate of 0.66 mph.(after 3 hours it was 2 miles north of where it started).
******
Velocity and trend were both expressed using the same math (mph), but they seem to be very different concepts.
Snape,
temperature is a 1 dimensional variable.
distance can be a 1, 2 , or 3 dimensional variable.
This affects how we think about them.
To get around this difference, I created “Robot-Train”, as an analogy for temperature. That made “distance” more “1 dimensional”, because Robot-Train had to stay on the railway tracks.
If you haven’t seen my article about Robot-Train, it is here:
https://agree-to-disagree.com/robot-train-contour-maps
Snape,
What if we plot the change in an objectâs temperature at one hour intervals?
â First dot (data point) shows the object’s temperature increased by 1 degree Celsius.
â Second dot, the object’s temperature is now 1 degree Celsius colder than where it started.
â Third dot, the object’s temperature is 2 degrees Celsius hotter than where it started.
What was the objectâs average velocity? Well, it traveled a total of 6 degrees Celsius in 3 hours, so 2 degrees Celsius per hour.
Was there a trend in the objectâs changes in location? Yes, the trend was increasing temperature, at a rate of 0.66 degrees Celsius per hour.(after 3 hours it was 2 degrees Celsius hotter than where it started).
test
Having problems posting on Dr. Spencer’s site. Maybe a character limit. Arctic sea ice minimum is bottoming out between 4.5 and 4.6 million km2 for 2018.
@ob Mitchell said:
“Having problems posting on Dr. Spencerâs site. Maybe a character limit.”
I had the same problem. Tinyurl was helpfull.
Rob…”Having problems posting on Dr. Spencers site”.
No character limit. You have to watch for certain letter combinations like d-c, without the hyphen, in both the text and URls.
eg. absorp-tion, Had-crut. Neither works without the hyphen.
If you have multiple paragraphs and you have trouble, post the first paragraph as part1. If it posts, trying the next paragraph as part2 on a separate post. If a paragraph won’t post, try applying hyphens or dots between letters on suspicious words.
After a while you get used to which words won’t post and you add punctuation naturally.
Also, don’t mention N.O.A.A., ever. Because they publish a lot of science.
Rob
Is this what you were trying to post?
http://nsid$c.org/arcticseaicenews/charctic-interactive-sea-ice-graph/
The letter d followed by a c is the problem. I put a dollar in between.
Here are the numbers (Arctic sea ice extent) compared to other years:
https://sunshinehours.net/
******
(Shhhh……….don’t tell David Appell I linked a “denier” website)
Thank you for the tips. I will probably have to say National Snow and Ice Data Center for now on.
Here’s a more illuminating, to me, presentation of the Arctic SIE data:
http://akclimate.org/sites/Default/Files/NH_seaice_extent-2018-9-13.png
Regarding plates of various colours, purporting to demonstrate something novel – how a colder object can raise the temperature of a hotter one, seemingly in contravention of the laws of thermodynamics.
As with any good illusion, semantic misdirection is the key. Intricate apparatus, coloured plates, multicoloured graphics – all designed to mislead the onlooker.
This illusion depends on the assumption that it is somehow connected to the supposed heating properties of CO2, or AGW, or the GHE – or something! The GHE does not exist – it has never been described, has nothing to do with greenhouses, and appears nowhere in science as an effect leading to the proposal of a testable hypothesis.
Increasing the amount of insulation between a heat source and an object reduces the temperature of the object. Removing the insulation and ascribing the resultant temperature increase to the properties of the insulation is simply pseudoscientific misdirection. Stupid and ignorant at best, fraudulent at worst.
If the GHE can’t be described, it doesn’t exist. GHE belief is religion – no more, no less. Thomas Jefferson said “It does me no injury for my neighbour to say there are twenty gods, or no god. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg.”
Unfortunately, my GHE neighbour desires to pick my pocket, all the while telling me how grateful I should be to be saved from the evils of CO2.
No GHE. No CO2 heating. Just a delusional crew of second raters sitting in a circle agreeing with each other. So sad, too bad.
Cheers.
Mike…”This illusion depends on the assumption that it is somehow connected to the supposed heating properties of CO2, or AGW, or the GHE….”
Besides what you said, it’s really related to a misunderstanding of Stefan’s equation, which later became the Stefan-Boltzman equation. Boltzmann was a student of Stefan, his first Ph.D student, and Boltzmann went on to independently confirm Stefan’s equation using statistical means.
All of the research and experimentation which underlies Stefan’s equation was based on heat transfer from a hotter body to a cooler body. There is nothing about the equation that suggests in any way that heat can be transferred from a colder body to a warmer body.
Stefan actually based his equation on the interpretation by another scientist of an experiment done by Tyndall. Tyndall heated a platinum wire by running an electric current through it. As he increased the current, he noted the platinum began to show different colours and he noted them. The other scientist hypothesized temperatures for the colours based on colour temperature theory.
Stefan derived his T^4 relationship between temperature and EM radiation from the hypothesized temperatures although at the time he knew nothing about EM. Like other scientists of his era, including Planck and Boltzmann, he thought heat was flowing through the air, or an aether.
It’s plain from Tyndall’s experiment that heat was being transferred from a hotter body to a cooler environment. That is stated in Stefan-Boltzmann as p = ebA(T^4hot – T^4 cold).
The only way heat could flow to the heated platinum wire is to make the environment hotter than the wire and that would take something like a blast furnace.
Somehow, modernists have gotten it in their heads that if S-B works one way it MUST work the other way. In other words, a two-way heat transfer. That could work in principle if you went to the trouble of setting up devices to exchange heat much the way an air conditioning system works. As we know, that requires external power and equipment like compressors.
They are wrong. Under normal conditions, as found in our atmosphere, as Clausius has stated, heat can NEVER be transferred by its own means from a colder body to a hotter body.
In the same way, water can never by it’s own means flow up a hill. A boulder cannot by it’s own means move itself up a cliff.
Gordon Robertson says:
All of the research and experimentation which underlies Stefanâs equation was based on heat transfer from a hotter body to a cooler body.
The SB Law has nothing to do with any second object. It simply states the total energy radiated by a blackbody.
It works. It’s been verified by many many scientists after S&B. Ear thermometers work by utilizing it. Heat-seeking missiles depend on it. Astrophysicists utilize it. It’s as firm a piece of physics as there is. Whining about it doesn’t change that fact.
Gordon Robertson says:
Under normal conditions, as found in our atmosphere, as Clausius has stated, heat can NEVER be transferred by its own means from a colder body to a hotter body.
Gordon, you’ve been corrected on this that it’s clear you’re just lying.
You’re making a deliberate decision to lie when you write on this forum.
Why?
DA, learn some physics.
A lame reply that completely skirts the question and avoids even trying to respond rationally.
As usual here from Ger*an, regardless of whatever fake name he uses here.
Yes, that important scientific question of whether Gordon is a liar…
DA…”Gordon, youve been corrected on this that its clear youre just lying.”
If I am lying them Clausius is lying. I quoted him verbatim. If we are not lying then you are the liar.
Still lying, Gordon.
Quote Clausius’s version of the 2nd law. EXACTLY.
Heat can never pass from a colder to a warmer body without some other change, connected therewith, occurring at the same time.
The other change being external work performed on the system, eg refrigeration, as confirmed in gbaikies quote from Wikipedia below:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2018/09/my-tucker-carlson-interview-last-night-and-calling-out-bill-nye-james-hansen/#comment-321189
So once again it seems like Gordon is telling the truth, and you are the liar.
MF, As usual, you have again demonstrated your utter lack of understanding of both my demonstration and the effects of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. You wrote:
The energy flows from the heated object to the cooler surroundings, i.e., from the Earth to Deep Space at about 2.7K, just as expected from the Second Law. The “object” is the heated Earth or the Blue Plate in my demo. Your statement of the situation is exactly backwards, as you consider said object to be placed such that the insulation is between the source of energy and the object. The incoming energy from the Sun has a shorter wavelength than the outbound IR EM, thus the atmosphere has a different impact on the two energy flows. AGW involves the outbound energy pathways, the incoming energy from the hot Sun to the surface is little impacted.
Your average first year physics student could figure this out. One must consider that you are intentionally distorting the problem statement to delude your readers.
swannie…”The incoming energy from the Sun has a shorter wavelength than the outbound IR EM, thus the atmosphere has a different impact on the two energy flows. AGW involves the outbound energy pathways…”
1)without incoming solar IR there would be no outgoing IR.
2)the implication is that GHGs act as a blanket to slow down terrestrial radiation, or to trap heat. Meteorologist/physicist, Craig Bohren referred to that as a metaphor at best, and at worst, plain silly.
Neither you nor anyone else has explained how a gas at 0.04% of atmospheric gases can act to slow down the rate of terrestrial radiation when it cannot absorb more than 5% of it and when atmospheric temperature is determined by nitrogen and oxygen, making up 99% of the atmosphere.
How can you expect a partial gas in air, with a concentration of 0.04%, to determine the second T-factor in the Stefan-Boltzmann equation.
p = ebA(T^4surface – T^4atmosphere)
Do you seriously think that piddly 0.04% affects Tatmosphere in any way?
Your theory, with the surface as the blue plate, that introducing a green plate between the blue plate and space will warm the blue plate through back-radiation from the green plate.
Absolute pseudo-science.
Do you seriously think that piddly 0.04% affects plant life at all?
S,
Do you seriously think that diversionary gotchas make you appear smart?
GHE worshippers all describe their god differently. Some think it is insulation, some think a temperature differential, and some believe it has something to do with greenhouses. A most secretive religion.
Do you seriously think that worshipping something so mysterious that it cannot be described is science? Do you seriously think that you can turn fantasy into fact with the intensity of your devotion?
How would you describe the GHE? Seriously?
Cheers.
Lab tests have indicated the best ĆO2 level for plants might be 0.055%.
I’m not sure we can get it that high, but we can try.
While I was beavering away building relativistic particle accelerators at Duke university my colleagues in a nearby building were operating “Phytotrons”, a different kind of accelerator.
Here is one of their experiments:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/226447566_The_Duke_Forest_FACE_Experiment_CO2_Enrichment_of_a_Loblolly_Pine_Forest
Lab tests have indicated the best ĆO2 level for plants might be 0.055%.
Which lab tests? Citations?
BTW, hypercapnia begins at around 0.02%. At 0.05% it is significant:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypercapnia#Tolerance
Im not sure we can get it that high, but we can try.
Idiotic.
DA can’t even understand his own wiki source!
Percentages are far too advanced for him.
No wonder he’s afraid of physics….
DA, learn about “percentages”.
Thanks for correcting me.
My bad. Please accept my apology for the insult.
svante…”Do you seriously think that piddly 0.04% affects plant life at all?”
Once again, you are applying numbers where they do not belong. In the atmosphere, where the average temperature is determined by the average kinetic energy of all the molecules, nitrogen and oxygen make up 99% of the molecules and CO2 0.04%.
The Ideal Gas Law tells you that in a constant volume, pressure is directly proportional to temperature. Pressure is directly proportional to the number of molecules and as I said, temperature is the average kinetic energy of the molecules.
Dalton proved that in a mixed gas, the partial pressure of each gas contributes to the total gas pressure. It follows that the total gas kinetic energy is proportional to the kinetic energy of each gas.
Figure it out. If N2/O2 makes up 99% of the mass then it should contribute about 99% of the pressure and about 99% of the heat. That leaves CO2 to contribute a few hundredths C of the heat.
Gordon says:
“N2/O2 … should contribute about 99% of the heat”.
No, N2/O2 catch 0% radiative heat.
https://diggingintheclay.wordpress.com/2014/04/27/robinson-and-catling-model-closely-matches-data-for-titans-atmosphere/#comment-6070
Gordon leaves out an entire sector of nature (radiation and radiative transfer), and then wonders why he doesn’t get the right answers.
He’s doing this on purpose, and he knows he’s purposely doing it.
So ask yourself why.
Why Gordon?
@DREMT,
That was a great comment fro “Ron C.”
It is good to know that at least one person took the time to read it. Robert G. Brown’s comments were worth reading too.
Its a good mind-opener. Straight-forward and easy to follow, as it should be. Zero obfuscation.
Svante says:
No, N2/O2 catch 0% radiative heat.
Not exactly.
Sometimes two N2 molecules come together and briefly form a 4-atom molecule which has an electric dipole and can therefore act as a GHG, temporarily.
Same with two O2 molecules, or an N2 and O2.
The radiative forcing of such a thing is small, but not zero.
Hence any atmosphere has a greenhouse effect.
Thanks for correcting me David.
I also took the time to read the link from Dr Roys Emergency Trolling Team. It also confirms that O2/N2 radiative properties (the basis for the GHE) are insignificant.
What Ron C says is basically true, but it is not the whole truth. The end result is like E. Swanson’s green plate experiment.
Poor Svante, trapped in a mental prison.
Yes, I’m trapped in reality.
False.
Gordo wrote:
Sorry, my little demonstration agrees with well accepted engineering principles as presented in text books. For example, read the NASA inspired text, Thermal Radiation Heat Transfer. I am currently reading thru a copy of the 4th edition, but I suspect the basic physics in latest editions has little change.
swannie…”Sorry, my little demonstration agrees with well accepted engineering principles as presented in text books”.
You had better read the fine print. Most of them gloss over Kircheoff’s Law which applies only to bodies of equal temperature in thermal equilibrium. They also describe a two way heat transfer while omitting the units.
Others have modified S-B to show a two way transfer using EM. That is plain wrong. Stefan of S-B created his relationship between heat and EM based on only a transfer from hot to cold.
When you check out the problems they give as examples you won’t find one of them where heat is transferred cold to hot.
Get it straight swannie, there is absolutely no way for heat to be transferred from a cooler body to a warmer body in a situation where heat is transferred by its own means. External power and processes are required to bring that about.
Gordon Robertson says:
Stefan of S-B created his relationship between heat and EM based on only a transfer from hot to cold.
I doubt it. The SB Law pertains to a single body, and is independent of anything that absorbs its radiation.
This should be blindingly obvious even to you.
j=epsilon*sigma*T^4
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2018/09/my-tucker-carlson-interview-last-night-and-calling-out-bill-nye-james-hansen/#comment-321085
ES,
You haven’t disagreed with anything I wrote, have you?
Maybe I could help you to find something with which to disagree?
The atmosphere is situated between the Sun, and the surface of the Earth. You cannot describe the GHE, of course, but if you accept that the atmosphere is an insulator, I will state the following –
Increasing the amount of insulation between the Sun and the Earth’s surface will not raise the temperature of the surface.
You seem to be implying that increasing the amount of CO2 between the Sun and a thermometer makes the thermometer hotter. Is this correct, or are you going to attempt some more diversion and obfuscation?
Your religious belief in a GHE that you cannot even describe, is fine. It isn’t science, though.
Cheers.
MF, I have repeatedly disagreed with your framing of the problem as if GHE warming is due to the effects of CO2 on incoming energy from the Sun to the Earth’s surface. That’s not the problem and your continued refusal to accept the proper definition of the problem leads to your rejection of AGW.
Once again, AGW is the result of changing the atmosphere’s optical properties in the long wave region effecting the outbound IR energy from the surface to the ultimate sink in deep space. Since you won’t address the problem in it’s proper context, then it’s obvious that you are either grossly ignorant of the physics or are intent on spreading lies and disinformation in order to discredit the well known scientific facts in the political arena. Which is it?
ES: MF, like G*/JH, is a scientific nihlist. His motives aren’t those of understanding and learning. For some reason he enjoys writing the same old ridiculous thing day after day after day. It’s a pretty sad hobby.
Self-awareness = 0.
Ironically, you’re the biggest troll of all here.
David, just keep ranting at the mirror.
If I’m only ranting in a mirror, why do you keep replying to me?
Im holding up the mirror for you. You can thank me later.
Clearly you’re looking in the mirror, in order to reply to my comments.
There’s no shame in admitting it.
No, the mirror is facing you, so it is pointed away from me.
You dont understand the point of all this yet. Thats OK. You will, in time.
ES,
Keep at it. Disagree away, but unless you can actually clearly express what you are trying to say, people won’t be able to understand what you are trying to get at.
You write –
“Once again, AGW is the result of changing the atmospheres optical properties in the long wave region effecting the outbound IR energy from the surface to the ultimate sink in deep space.”
You can’t describe AGW itself, but you claim to know what it results “from”! The Earth has cooled for four and a half billion years – no warming there. Night is cooler than day – no warming there. Winter is even cooler than a Summer. Surface temperature varies roughly between -90 C and +90 C.
Now tell me how you change the atmoshere’s optical properties, again? And what happens then?
Complete nonsense. Even you don’t understand your own babble, do you? I understand. Trying to support a GHE which you can’t describe, with no testable GHE hypothesis, can’t be easy.
Maybe you could find a Global Warming Theory? Even Skeptical Science states –
“Because AGW is a complex theory with many auxilliary hypotheses, it is difficult to develop “crucial tests”, ie, any individual test that will show it to be false. In fact, in the very short term it is impossible.”
Even SS cannot actually produce this “complex theory”. No wonder it is impossible to test!
Play with your plates all you like – rediscovering physics will do you no harm at all. In the meantime, still no GHE. No hypothesis, no theory, no nothing. Fantasy is not fact.
Others can no doubt make up their own minds.
Cheers.
@David Appell,
“GC: What do you find wrong with the claims made by the four scientists in the ClimateFeedback link?”
Short answer……EVERYTHING
Longer answer……your four scientific whores claim that hurricanes are getting more severe and frequent thanks to “Climate Change” (whatever that may be).
Roy and Ryan Maue point out that hurricanes have been trending recently. They have the facts on their side.
That’s not an answer, it’s just an excuse not to answer.
I don’t think you can answer it.
DA,
How many people care what you think? Do you have a list?
The world wonders.
Cheers.
Mike
A few months ago the kids and I visited a lava tube cave (fairly common here in the Pacific NW).
Absolutely no cell service.
What’s your secret?
S,
What’s your point? Is there one, or is this secret pseudoscientific climate code?
How did you go trying to describe the GHE?
Cheers.
Norman asked –
“What is your supporting evidence that gravity acts like a rod holding the Moon?”
It’s called tidal locking, resulting in synchronous rotation. Well known to astronomers, obviously not so well known to ignorant believers in climatological pseudoscience. Which also makes them stupid, for asking silly gotchas.
From Wikipedia –
“For example, the same side of the Moon always faces the Earth, . . . ” You can look up the rest if you wish.
Keep looking like a lazy troll, Norman. It suits you.
Cheers.
JDHuffman, Flynn believes in synchronous rotation:
https://tinyurl.com/y8xskpqc
Please tell him about your toy train.
Toot Toot!
Svante likes to toot his tooter.
Kids these days….
Hilarious!
svante…”JDHuffman, Flynn believes in synchronous rotation:”
Come on svante, the Moon in both of those gifs is not rotating wrt Earth or even wrt its own axis.
Your mind is fooling you into thinking that’s the case but if the same side of the Moon always faces the Earth the Moon is not rotating wrt to Earth of it’s own axis.
If it was, we’d be able to see the dark side of the Moon.
It is one gif with two different cases.
Graphic on left is orbiting, not rotating on its own axis, tooter. (Same as Moon.)
Graphic on right is both orbiting AND rotating on its own axis.
Learn about orbital motions, tooter!
Tell me about your toy train!
Toot Toot!
JDHuffman says:
September 21, 2018 at 9:05 AM
Graphic on left is orbiting, not rotating on its own axis, tooter. (Same as Moon.)
It is orbiting.
It is also rotating.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Tidal_locking_of_the_Moon_with_the_Earth.gif
Look at the moon in this figure, on the left, irrespective of the Earth.
You’ll see that the dark splotch on the Moon first faces to the left (in the 3 o’clock position relative to the Earth), then downward in the 12 o’clock position, then to the right in the 9 o’clock position, then to the top in the 6 o’clock position. Again, ignore the Earth.
What you’re seeing is the rotation of the Moon in space, about its polar axis.
Svante, in stating further below that he agrees with Mike, thus disagrees with Norman who argues gravity does not act like a rod holding the moon. Like Mike, gbaikie, and Gordon, Svante apparently agrees that gravity (or the gravity gradient) does act like a rod holding the moon. Norman is increasingly outnumbered here, which is surprising, since his argument about gravity not acting like a rod holding the moon is pivotal to his position that the moon rotates on its axis.
It’s not a rod, it’s tidal locking.
Norman knows more than me about physics, so if he says otherwise I’m wrong.
Obviously it is not literally a rod.
Gordon Robertson says:
No rotation here then:
https://tinyurl.com/k733hk8
That rotation you see mid air is not due to preservation of momentum, but is imparted through the wire by a flick of the wrist at the moment of release, isn’t that what you said Gordon? I have not found any instruction for that trick, where did you learn about it?
Svante patiently waits until there is literally no chance Gordon will be reading before sneaking in another snarky little cheap shot post.
S,
What part of what I wrote can you show to be incorrect?
Nothing?
The you are just trolling. Have fun.
Cheers.
You say synchronous rotation.
Gordon and JDHuffman say no rotation.
Can the three of you resolve this impasse?
S,
Are you disagreeing with anything I said? No?
Then you are trolling, because you are too stupid and ignorant to think for yourself.
Posing pointless and irrelevant gotchas is a characteristic sign of the climatological pseudoscientific cultist, or maybe someone suffering from an intellectual deficit.
Carry on, young Snape. Just keep admitting you are stupid. If you believe that makes you appear intelligent, good for you. I wish you well.
Cheers,
In this case I agree with what you said Mike, Gordon and JDHuffman are away with the fairies.
Norman says gravity does not act like a rod holding the moon.
Mike and Svante say that it does.
Can the three of you resolve this impasse?
–Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:
September 22, 2018 at 6:37 AM
Norman says gravity does not act like a rod holding the moon.
Mike and Svante say that it does.
Can the three of you resolve this impasse?–
It’s Earth’s gravity gradient which acts like a rod holding the moon.
And a rod would have gravity gradient. A 1000 km long rod, following a path similar to the Moon would end up having one end pointing at Earth.
But Moon is in gravity well of sun and is in orbit around the sun just like Earth is in orbit around the sun.
One could say all things in orbit around Earth, have a motion and vector which misses hitting Earth.
You going in a direction and falling towards earth but going fast enough, that you “miss” hitting Earth.
What missing is you also “miss” hitting the sun.
It’s not easy hitting Earth or hitting the Sun- first, you need to be in orbit around our galaxy- going same speed and direction as our sun.
We inherit all such motion- but lacking such inheritance, it’s not easy to get it.
From our position there is no helpful stick that allows to hit the the Sun and rather than having a rod attached to us, it’s easier to leave the sun than hit it. And if on the Moon, there is no handy stick which allows us to hit or connect with Earth.
You could make such a stick or rod.
And generally these are called space elevators.
I should note that I think using a space elevator as way to leave Earth, is a bad idea.
Once you leave Earth- once humans are spacefaring, then you could make space elevators.
Since I am bored, and I am talking about gravity gradients. I will mention my idea which I like and have mentioned from time to time.
I call it a pipelauncher. It’s a pipe which launches rockets.
It floats in a ocean and floats vertically due to a gravity gradient.
The main thing is it floats. You make float very well- it needs to displace enough mass of water to not only float a massive rocket, but also with enough force to accelerate the rocket, up.
It’s shaped something like a pencil- long and narrow. But much, much bigger and with far less density.
One can see this gravity gradient if you throw a soda bottle into some water- it fill up with some water then float vertically.
Anyhow talking about something quite large, like say a battleship or large cargo ship, and it floats vertically unlike a battleship or cargo ship- though these ships float this way when they are sinking- maybe broken in half [or something].
One would launch a rocket from condition in which the pipelauncher is mostly submerged [or sunk]. And you add air, which re-floats it, and you would re-float it, quite fast.
So it’s sunk and 10 seconds later it’s jumping out of the water- kind of like whale breaching out of the water.
Anyhow the rocket would sit on top of the sunken pipelauncher, and would blast off, after or as it is jumping out of the water.
Now to get to orbit, requires a lot of speed, and pipelauncher lacks such speed. And purpose is to have someplace to launch a rocket from the ocean and two to provide a “launch assist”.
And in some ways this similar to launching a nuclear missile from a nuclear submarine. But also quite different. But nuclear missile launched from submarine do have a mechanism which involves a assisted launch to the rocket. Though one say it has to do with not wanted to be at the surface and being a sitting duck.
And purpose of pipelauncher in terms adding some velocity, is related to concept call gravity loss.
Gravity loss is why leaving earth at say a speed of 200 mph, is impossible [unless you using space elevator- but leaving earth slowly on space elevator, still has gravity loss and is bad idea- but it possible to do it. With rocket it’s not- and with fictional starship Enterprise with endless rocket power- it’s a bad idea to travel at such slow speeds [due to gravity loss].
So with a rocket- say Falcon-9 rocket- it’s biggest loss is not air resistant [air drag] but rather it’s gravity loss [gravity drag]. Wiki:
“In astrodynamics and rocketry, gravity drag (or gravity losses) is a measure of the loss in the net performance of a rocket while it is thrusting in a gravitational field. In other words, it is the cost of having to hold the rocket up in a gravity field.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravity_drag
continuing from wiki:
“On a planet with an atmosphere, the objective is further complicated by the need to achieve the necessary altitude to escape the atmosphere, and to minimize the losses due to atmospheric drag during the launch itself. These facts sometimes inspire ideas to launch orbital rockets from high flying airplanes, to minimize atmospheric drag, and in a nearly horizontal direction, to minimize gravity losses.”
The “high flying airplanes” are also called motherships and are another example of an “assisted launch”.
So you have the Pegasus rocket, and private sector building a mothership called the stratolaunch [nicknamed the Roc]. And you have Virgin galactic using mothership for it’s suborbital travel.
Back to wiki:
“… so gravity losses become significant. For example, to reach a speed of 7.8 km/s in low Earth orbit requires a delta-v of between 9 and 10 km/s. The additional 1.5 to 2 km/s delta-v is due to gravity losses and atmospheric drag.”
And 1.5 km/sec is about 3355 mph. Air drag about .15 km/sec loss [335.5 mph] and what called steering losses about same as air drag.
Also rockets are more efficient in less dense air- or best in a vacuum.
Space is not far away- if you drive car straight you be there fastest than many city commutes and rockets get there in couple mins. Or in couple mins a rocket losing about 1.5 km/sec of rocket thrust from gravity drag.
Though it should be mentioned that sfi antigravity is just preventing a spacecraft from having gravity loss.
And I sometimes call a pipelauncher an antigravity machine- because it actually is.
Or doesn’t work unless there is gravity- it needs it. The more gravity the more useful it would be.
But people sometimes get mad, if use that term, because anti-gravity machines are impossible.
gbaikie says:
I should note that I think using a space elevator as way to leave Earth, is a bad idea.
Once you leave Earth- once humans are spacefaring, then you could make space elevators.
Depends. Once you build a first space elevator (which does require a different way to get into space), you can use the first space elevator to build others, until you have what you need.
It might not be the fastest way, but it would be the cheapest way.
“David Appell says:
September 22, 2018 at 3:50 PM
gbaikie says:
I should note that I think using a space elevator as way to leave Earth, is a bad idea.
Once you leave Earth- once humans are spacefaring, then you could make space elevators.
Depends. Once you build a first space elevator (which does require a different way to get into space), you can use the first space elevator to build others, until you have what you need.
It might not be the fastest way, but it would be the cheapest way.”
https://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2000/ast07sep_1
“Current plans call for a base tower approximately 50 km tall — the cable would be tethered to the top. To keep the cable structure from tumbling to Earth, it would be attached to a large counterbalance mass beyond geostationary orbit, perhaps an asteroid moved into place for that purpose.”
https://www.economist.com/the-economist-explains/2018/01/30/why-the-world-still-awaits-its-first-space-elevator
https://www.extremetech.com/extreme/176625-60000-miles-up-geostationary-space-elevator-could-be-built-by-2035-says-new-study
“A space elevator made of a carbon nanotubes composite ribbon anchored to an offshore sea platform would stretch to a small counterweight approximately 62,000 miles (100,000 km) into space. Mechanical lifters attached to the ribbon would then climb the ribbon, carrying cargo and humans into space, at a price of only about $100 to $400 per pound ($220 to $880 per kg).
In this article, we’ll take a look at how the idea of a space elevator is moving out of science fiction and into reality”
https://science.howstuffworks.com/space-elevator.htm
I like idea of tower 50 km high. I thought of that kind of thing before- you could make it so it floats in the air, and course floats in the ocean.
Though you do a lot thing with a tower a “mere” 20 km high.
In one above articles, they said funding would be not problem, I agree, if it was profitable or close or had chance to be profitable.
And they all say the ribbon/cable is the main problem, in terms of needed strength [strength to weight].
I think a fundamental problem is it like a road- 10,000 miles long and you only send one car on the road at a time. Or one freight truck carrying tons of valuable cargo.
How much is charged is related to time used up to travel on road- by the hour or day. So if you travel down the 10,000 mile road at 1000 mph and need the road for 10 hours, it should be roughly half the price charged if traveling at 500 mph and using the road for 20 hours.
Another thing is that your acceleration is your weight- if you are 10 tons and you are accelerating at 9.8 m/s- you weigh 20 tons. And constant speed is 10 ton.
Now, you could accelerate before you get on the road and merely maintain a speed and be payload of 10 tons.
What is distance to accelerate to 500 mph if 9.8 m/s/s
500 mph is 223.52. And 223.5 / 9.8 = 22.8 second
Distance = 1/2 acceleration time time squared
2547.9 meters.
So could have 2.6 km vertical track you accelerate at 1 gee to speed of 500 mph, before getting on the ribbon/cable track to GEO
And if maintain that speed, the 10 tons is 10 tons of weight/force on cable/ribbon.
And lets do 1000 mph: 447 m/s / 9.8 is 45.6 second.
Squared is 2079.9 times 4.9 = 10191 meter. So vertical track of 10.2 km tall.
“a base tower approximately 50 km tall” could 38 km high plus on top a vertical acceleration track which is 12 km which merges into the ribbon/cable which going to GEO.
But a snag is, why not forget about using the ribbon/cable?
I just want to use a part of your long road for about 46 seconds- and then I use a rocket to go the rest of the way [and get there much faster].
If accelerated to 1000 mph to elevation of 50 km [or even 20 km] and then if use a rocket you will reduce your gravity loss by a lot- it could be, say .1 to .2 km/sec rather than 1.5 km/sec loss.
You might prefer a horizontal track rather than vertical track, because you launch vertically from earth surface to get as quickly as possible out of the dense atmosphere- and 20 or 50 km is out of the dense atmosphere. But if want to go to GEO and you at the equator, you can go straight up. Vertical fine, as long as you don’t want to go to LEO.
One thing they mention in article is energy cost is a bit more than $1 per kg of payload. And things would cheaper going down [and could make electrical energy.
And I think that another thing a space elevator could do- generate electrical power by bringing mass from space to earth surface.
Though bringing mass from space to Mars or Moon using space elevator, might be better.
Or if we spacefaring, we probably get space elevator or Mars and/or the Moon, before we get space elevator for Earth.
Dr Roys Emergency Trolling Team says:
“Norman says gravity does not act like a rod holding the moon.
Mike and Svante say that it does.
Can the three of you resolve this impasse?”
Resolved upthread.
If you disagreed with Mike, why didnt you say so?
SOI index indicates that there is no El Nino.
https://www.longpaddock.qld.gov.au/soi/
It’s still early for any El Nino to develop. Columbia IRI puts the chance of a weak-to-moderate El Nino this winter at 70%, and NOAH* at 65-70%.
*NOAH = the agency that must not be named here.
“NOAA”
DA, learn to spell.
Some people can post that word here. Others can’t.
Makes a lot of sense, I know.
The bad apples deserve to get things tougher. NOAA, NOAA, NOAA.
Low solar activity will not allow the development of El Nino.
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/enso_update/sstweek_c.gif
Sheldon,
“distance can be a 1, 2 , or 3 dimensional variable.”
“To get around this difference, I created “Robot-Train”, as an analogy for temperature. That made distance more “1 dimensional”, because Robot-Train had to stay on the railway tracks”
********
“Distance” is the measure of separation between two points – a straight line. A straight line is only one dimension.
The “dots” in my example could have been located anywhere in 3 dimensional space, but I intentionally aligned them due north and south.
In other words, you didn’t have to create a robot train to “get around this difference”. I laid the tracks myself.
*****
Regardless, I liked the bar graph you created, so am definitely curious about the triangles.
Snape,
you are correct, I used the wrong terms.
Distance is 1 dimensional, as you said.
Position is 3 dimensional.
I wanted to use distance, to be like temperature. But distance is complicated, if position uses more than 1 dimension. So I restricted Robot-Train to a single position dimension. Distance along the railway tracks.
Sheldon…”Distance is 1 dimensional, as you said.
Position is 3 dimensional”.
Distance, position, and time are essentially the same thing. In a one-dimensional context, say along the x-axis, distance and position are one-dimensional.
In a 3-D context, it’s the same. Distance in polar coordinates is the distance from the origin to the position of a point in 3-D space. With Cartesian coordinates the only difference is that the point and distance is measured in x.y.z coordinated rather than radial distance and angle.
Time is a subdivision of the Earth’s rotational period. A day represents the period and a second is 1/38,600 of the period. However, the period can be measured in angles on the circumference which represent distance and position. Therefore a second can be expressed in miles or kilometres while representing position and distance.
Gordon Robertson says:
Distance, position, and time are essentially the same thing.
Obviously wrong.
I’m sitting in a chair. In one second I’ll still be at the same position (in space), but not at the same point in time. I will have moved in spacetime.
Velocity through spacetime is always the same.
https://tinyurl.com/yd8swcug
Snape,
I am happy to answer any questions that you have, about my triangular graphs.
If you would like to pick a temperature series, that you would like to see made into a triangular graph, then I will make it for you.
As well as picking the temperature series, you can pick:
– the date range (e.g. 1880 to 2018, or 1970 to 2018, etc)
– the region of the earth (e.g. entire earth, or northern hemisphere, or southern hemisphere, etc. Some temperature series have other regions, e.g. UAH has tropical, contiguous USA, etc)
– months of the year (e.g. all months, one particular month, one particular season, etc)
There are lots of global warming contour maps on my website:
https://agree-to-disagree.com
An interesting article is “USA Warming”. This uses the new NOAA ClimDiv temperature series, which is Land Only, Contiguous USA. It shows the temperature history since 1900, and includes warming, and cooling. It shows the recent Slowdown, very clearly:
https://agree-to-disagree.com/usa-warming
With Earth the tropical ocean is the heat engine.
And with Venus the heat engine is the thick clouds which completely cover the planet- though as with Earth, most the sun’s energy is absorbed the region nearer to the equator.
The rocky surface of Venus gets very little sunlight- far less than surface of Earth. And it rotates slows relative to the sun.
Wiki say at rocky surface: “last 116.5 Earth days- The surface of Venus spends 58.3 days in darkness before the sun rises again behind the clouds”. And says:
“The cloud cover is such that typical surface light levels are similar to a partly cloudy day on Earth, around 5000â10000 lux. The equivalent visibility is about three kilometers, but this will likely vary with the wind conditions. Little to no solar energy could conceivably be collected by solar panels on a surface probe. In fact, due to the thick, highly reflective cloud cover, the total solar energy received by the surface of the planet is less than that of the Earth.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmosphere_of_Venus
Wiki, re Lux: [on Earth]
Sunrise or sunset on a clear day: 400 Lux
Overcast day; typical TV studio lighting: 1000 Lux
Full daylight (not direct sun):10,000â25,000
Direct sunlight: 32,000â100,000 lux
So on Earth when light levels are dim enough during day, that you should turn on your headlights of your car while driving, the light levels are 400 lux or higher. Or there more light than brightly lit indoor lighting which dim compared normal daytime sunlight [and not talking about looking at direct or reflected direct sunlight- which can blind you].
On rocky surface of Venus there is no danger looking at the sun- it’s that not bright, but when sun is near zenith, the light levels would be like very brightly lit room [or TV studio lighting or brighter].
But at Venus Sunrise or Sunset sunlight will dimmer than most earth nights, or something like:
“Moonless, overcast night sky: 0.0001 Lux”
And early morning and late afternoon is going to pretty dark, something like:
“Full moon on a clear night: 0.05â0.3 lux”
So the “Venus spends 58.3 days in darkness” is more like 100 days in darkness with about 20 earth days- if you somewhat near the equator- of daylight, dim daylight.
Or if you at, say 40 degree latitude or higher, it’s lots of darkness and something like moonlight near “noon hours”
Of course no moonlight or star light at the Venus rocky surface, but there could be light from lightning, wiki: “The clouds of Venus are capable of producing lightning much like the clouds on Earth.” And probably, unknown effects might also might cause there to be light- in an otherwise, very dark rocky Venus surface.
Wiki:
“Venusian clouds are thick and are composed mainly (75-96%) of sulfuric acid droplets. These clouds obscure the surface of Venus from optical imaging, and reflect about 75% of the sunlight that falls on them. The geometric albedo, a common measure of reflectivity, is the highest of any planet in the Solar System. This high reflectivity potentially enables any probe exploring the cloud tops sufficient solar energy such that solar cells can be fitted anywhere on the craft. The density of the clouds is highly variable with the densest layer at about 48.5 km, reaching 0.1 g/m3 similar to the lower range of cumulonimbus storm clouds on Earth.
So upper atmosphere of vast atmosphere of Venus, in contrast is very well lit- one would need some dark sunglasses.
And up there, one has different “daytime and night”, wiki:
“The linear wind speeds at this level are about 100 Âą 10 m/s at lower than 50° latitude. They are retrograde in the sense that they blow in the direction of the retrograde rotation of the planet. The winds quickly decrease towards the higher latitudes, eventually reaching zero at the poles. Such strong cloud-top winds cause a phenomenon known as the super-rotation of the atmosphere. In other words, these high-speed winds circle the whole planet faster than the planet itself rotates. The super-rotation on Venus is differential, which means that the equatorial troposphere super-rotates more slowly than the troposphere at the midlatitudes. The winds also have a strong vertical gradient. They decline deep in the troposphere with the rate of 3 m/s per km ”
So if Venus atmosphere the length of day could be around 4 earth days. And probably tend to sail in the midlatitudes.
And 100 m/s is 223.69 mph
Of course, Venus’s scorching surface temperature is due to its massive greenhouse effect.
DA,
This is the “greenhouse effect” which you claim is climatological pseudoscientific jargon, used in lieu of “insulation”, I suppose.
Now all you need to explain is how putting so much insulation between the Sun and the surface, severely limiting the amount of energy reaching the surface, makes the surface hotter!
Available light on the Venusian surface is equivalent to a dull overcast day on Earth. No amazingly high temperatures in that greenhouse due to sunlight, eh?
Keep on fantasising, David. No indescribable GHE, no “runaway greenhouses” theory. No CO2 heating. Pseudoscience end to end.
Cheers.
DA…”Of course, Venuss scorching surface temperature is due to its massive greenhouse effect”.
Amazing. Even astronomer Andrew Ingersoll could not account for why the surface is 450C. He claimed it is not possible to explain that via a greenhouse effect since it contradicts the 2nd law.
It seems me and Andy agree on the 2nd law but you don’t.
Gordon Robertson
Sorry but you have to support your declaration about Andrew Ingersoll.
I pulled up this article and I don’t see him saying the words you put into his mouth.
https://authors.library.caltech.edu/3987/1/INGjas69c.pdf
Norman,
1) you’re not “sorry”, and
2) you don’t want to see any “support”.
Here’s a sincere apology, something you are incapable of:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2018/09/my-tucker-carlson-interview-last-night-and-calling-out-bill-nye-james-hansen/#comment-320986
https://authors.library.caltech.edu/37176/1/JA085iA13p08219.pdf
That paper is *not* Ingersoll & Pechmann claiming a violation of the second law….
It is shown below that barring measurement error and assuming the probe sites are typical of the planet, the measurements cannot satisfy the second law of thermodynamics unless additional heat sources are present.
Pioneer Venus observations of temperatures and radiative fluxes are examined in an attempt to understand the thermal balance of the lower atmosphere. If all observations are correct and the probe sites are typical of the planet, the second law of thermodynamics requires that the bulk of the lower atmosphere heating must come from a source other than direct sunlight or a thermally driven atmospheric circulation. Neither the so-called greenhouse models nor the mechanical heating models are consistent with this interpretation of the observations.
The physical impossibility arises because the atmosphere cannot spontaneously transfer energy from low temperatures, where it is absorbed, to high temperatures, where it is emitted.
Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:
The physical impossibility arises because the atmosphere cannot spontaneously transfer energy from low temperatures, where it is absorbed, to high temperatures, where it is emitted.
Why not?
That was a direct quote from the paper.
Gordon Robertson says:
Even astronomer Andrew Ingersoll could not account for why the surface is 450C. He claimed it is not possible to explain that via a greenhouse effect since it contradicts the 2nd law.
Citation?
I don’t believe you.
And if Ingersoll did say that, he was wrong. But I’m sure he didn’t say what you claim he said.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2018/09/my-tucker-carlson-interview-last-night-and-calling-out-bill-nye-james-hansen/#comment-321048
–David Appell says:
September 20, 2018 at 2:03 PM
Of course, Venusâs scorching surface temperature is due to its massive greenhouse effect.
Reply
Mike Flynn says:
September 20, 2018 at 4:38 PM
DA,
This is the âgreenhouse effectâ which you claim is climatological pseudoscientific jargon, used in lieu of âinsulationâ, I suppose.–
Venus has hot surface rocky surface air temperature for same reason the dried up Mediterranean Sea had high air temperature at it’s dried ocean basin floor.
“As winds blew across the “Mediterranean Sink”, they would heat or cool adiabatically with altitude. In the empty Mediterranean Basin, the summertime temperatures would probably have been extremely high even during the coldest phase of any glacial era. Using the dry adiabatic lapse rate of around 10 °C (18 °F) per kilometer, a theoretical temperature of an area 4 km (2.5 mi) below sea level would be about 40 °C (72 °F) warmer than the temperature at sea level. Under this simplistic assumption, theoretical temperature maxima would have been around 80 °C (176 °F) at the lowest depths of the dry abyssal plain…”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Messinian_salinity_crisis
It’s neither “greenhouse effect” nor âinsulationâ.
As I said Venus clouds are what is being heated or the clouds of Venus is the heat engine of Venus.
Remove the clouds of Venus and Venus would cool.
Remove the tropical ocean and Earth would cool.
Throw wrench into either of these heat engines and one could have dramatic effect.
Earth tropical ocean depends upon the transparency of the ocean.
So, if cause tropical ocean not to transparent and it would be an example of throwing a wrench into the engine.
And removing acid clouds- say, adding water would be a way to do this [or other ways] and it throws wrench into that heat engine.
So I think adding the most powerful greenhouse gas of Earth- water vapor- would cool Venus.
And covering ocean with black plastic [or a perfect blackbody surface if you like] or making water murky, would cool Earth.
Nothing to do with greenhouse effect or insulation in either case.
As I said Venus clouds are what is being heated or the clouds of Venus is the heat engine of Venus
So prove it.
You’re just hand-waving. Where’s your science?
gbaikie…”With Earth the tropical ocean is the heat engine.
And with Venus the heat engine is the thick clouds which completely cover the planet-”
Not trying to be argumentative, but haven’t you forgotten something? The Sun. It’s the heat engine for both Earth and Venus and without it the oceans on Earth would likely be solid ice.
Stephen Wilde has metaphorically called the oceans a hot water bottle, which makes more sense to me.
The surface temperature of Venus is around 450C. There’s no way the atmosphere could account for such heat. Sunlight would have to get through to the surface and heat it. Unless the solar energy was absorbed by the atmosphere and it became the heat source.
Lindzen has claimed that the surface of our planet would be around 70C from solar radiation alone (no convection). There is majaor difference between 70C and 450C, even if Venus is closer to the Sun. I could see 100C, but not 450C.
There’s just no way the Venusian atmosphere could receive solar energy, heat to 100C, then heat the surface to 450C.
2nd law.
There’s something else going on there, like a good deal of geothermal activity or maybe a nuclear fusion reactor close to the surface.
“Gordon Robertson says:
September 20, 2018 at 5:02 PM
gbaikieWith Earth the tropical ocean is the heat engine.
And with Venus the heat engine is the thick clouds which completely cover the planet-
Not trying to be argumentative, but havent you forgotten something? The Sun. Its the heat engine for both Earth and Venus and without it the oceans on Earth would likely be solid ice.
Stephen Wilde has metaphorically called the oceans a hot water bottle, which makes more sense to me.”
Of course the sun is warming both Earth and Venus. But if you put trillions of hot water bottles over entire tropical ocean, it causes earth to cool, unless the hot water bottle are transparent to sunlight [I have never seen a transparent hot water bottle- though transparent hot water bottles could or perhaps have been been made].
Now the aspect of high specific heat of water or retention of heat of water is an important element, but the ability of sunlight energy to pass through the ocean surface is important factor.
But if put non transparent hot water bottles on your lawn, the sunlight will warm them to around 80 C – or warm up just like any garden hose with water in it, which left in sunlight.
“The surface temperature of Venus is around 450C. Theres no way the atmosphere could account for such heat. Sunlight would have to get through to the surface and heat it. Unless the solar energy was absorbed by the atmosphere and it became the heat source.
Lindzen has claimed that the surface of our planet would be around 70C from solar radiation alone (no convection). There is majaor difference between 70C and 450C, even if Venus is closer to the Sun. I could see 100C, but not 450C.”
At 1 atm or roughly in middle of the thick clouds of Venus the air is about 70 C. If air was 1 atm at 50 Km in elevation, then at sea level air would around 450 C.
“2nd law.
Theres something else going on there, like a good deal of geothermal activity or maybe a nuclear fusion reactor close to the surface.”
well, that require a lot of geothermal activity, and apparently Venus has less geothermal activity then Earth. Or it would need a lot more than Earth.
Impactors could deliver a lot more energy.
Impactors have boiled the oceans of Earth in the past, any impactor hitting Venus have more energy than compared to Earth [Venus has higher orbital speed around the sun. And any thing which could hit venus would hit it harder [as compared to Earth]- the Parker probe if hit Venus would hit it hard.
But it seems an impactor would have to be recent and Venus should cooling after the event. And probably leave some weird mark on the atmosphere.
Now you have theory of entire Venus surface being re-surfaced, but that thought to be +50 million years ago and in such time period it should cooled significantly.
GR says:
Theres something else going on there, like a good deal of geothermal activity or maybe a nuclear fusion reactor close to the surface.
Is there the slightest bit of evidence for any such thing?
No, there isn’t.
A massive greenhouse effect is obvious and explains Venus’s temperature very well. Too bad if you can’t deal with reality.
GR says:
Theres just no way the Venusian atmosphere could receive solar energy, heat to 100C, then heat the surface to 450C.
Why are you ignoring the greenhouse effect?
Do you think CO2 doesn’t absorb infrared radiation? If you do, that’s just wrong.
Gordon Robertson says:
Lindzen has claimed that the surface of our planet would be around 70C from solar radiation alone (no convection).
Citation?
http://www-eaps.mit.edu/faculty/lindzen/cooglobwrm.pdf
pp 294-295
That’d be useful, except there *is* convection.
Which Manabe & Wetherals has already included by then, in their (correct) calculation of the average global surface temperature.
You asked for a citation, you received it. It was not remotely difficult to find. Now you can accept that what Gordon said, which you asked for the citation for, is correct, you can go back to the original comment and deal with it in context.
You are delusional. An atmosphere between the sun and a thermometer on the surface of Venus could not possibly make the thermometer hotter. Cheers.
MF,
Thanks for saving me the time and effort.
More insulation lets less heat in, of course. The peculiarities of Venus – retrograde rotation, no moons, no apparent plate tectonics, and so on, combined with an atmosphere somewhat similar to that of the infant Earth, easily explain the high observed surface temperature.
No GHE needed. Just as well, because nobody can even describe the GHE!
Cheers.
norman…”If the hotter body is a heated one (has a continuous input of energy) the temperature of a colder body will change the steady state temperature of the hotter heated body”.
That’s it norman, I am declaring your understanding of physics null and void.
If a body is heated by 100 watts of electrical power it will reach a certain temperature based on its environment. If it can freely dissipate heat, it will cool from the maximal temperature produced by the 100 watt input to temperature that puts it in thermal equilibrium with its environment.
You cannot heat the body beyond the temperature it is heated by the 100W unless the environment warms to a temperature beyond the temperature produced by the 100W. Since you are referring to a cooler body it is IMPOSSIBLE for that body to increase the temperature of the hotter body via radiation or conduction.
All, it can do is interfere with the heat dissipation of the hotter body, in which case the hotter body will recalibrate it’s temperature upwardly, but it can NEVER exceed the temperature derived from the 100W input.
That means the Earth’s surface can NEVER exceed the temperature derived from solar input. It is simply not possible.
That means the Earthâs surface can NEVER exceed -18 C.
It is simply not possible.
S,
Complete nonsense. The theoretical maximum temperature of a body emitting 1000 W/m2 is around 364 K – around 90 C. Measurement on Eath backs up theory. The airless Moon receives more radiation, and gets even hotter.
Learn some physics. It will generate more respect than constantly admitting you are stupid.
Cheers.
–Svante says:
September 20, 2018 at 5:52 PM
That means the Earthâs surface can NEVER exceed -18 C.
It is simply not possible.–
Well, of course you mean exceed an average global temperature of
-18 C.
Which is wrong, but not as wrong as never exceeding -18 C.
If a planet has average temperature of -18 C, it can have warmer temperatures than -18 C. It has to, unless a spherical planet is surrounded by many suns providing a exactly uniform temperature of -18 C.
Mars has average temperature of about -60 C and it’s surface is warmed to over 20 C.
Now as I said, the global average temperature of -18 C is wrong.
BUT let’s imagine it is correct, what does Earth with average temperature of -18 C look like?
First it makes no sense. But if moved Earth further from the Sun, at some distance, Earth would have an average temperature of -18 C.
And as rough guess this distance could be between Earth distance and Mars distance from the Sun.
So, if Earth was at some distance between Earth distance and Mars distance, and the distance was such that Earth average temperature was -18 C, what would Earth look like?
So, everything the same except the distance from the sun. So the moon orbiting earth, etc, etc.
Let’s say somewhere around 1.2 AU or at distance where sunlight is 1000 watts per square meter instead of 1360 watts per square meter.
So obviously the tropical ocean would not have average surface temperature of about 26 C. Let’s say instead it’s about 10 C.
And antarctica would not warm, but instead of become cooler than the average temperature of about -50 C. Let’s say it’s average is -100 C, or about 40 K warmer than Mars’ polar regions.
If tropics has average temperature of 10 C, it’s not going to have a gulf stream warming Europe. And Europe currently has average temperature of about 9 C. Without Gulf stream [and at 1 AU distance] Europe has average temperature of about 0 C. And since further from Sun, Europe would lucky to have average temperature of -20 C. Canada now at average of -4 C would be about -30 C.
And you walk from Canada to Europe on the frozen ocean.
And in tropics you could still get warm days reaching 30 to 40 C.
Or if you think my guesses are way off.
Use this metric:
Move earth further from the sun until the tropical ocean goes from 26 C to 10 C.
So whatever distance that is, and then you tell me, the average temperature of the rest of planet Earth.
–Lets say somewhere around 1.2 AU–
Btw, 1.2 AU distance from the Sun has solar energy of 944.4 watts per square meter.
Or solar energy is 1/ AU distance ^2
1.2 AU is 1.44 and 1360 / 1.44 is 944.4 watts per square meter.
How does this add to the questions about your argument?
–David Appell says:
September 22, 2018 at 7:32 PM
How does this add to the questions about your argument?–
I guessed 1.2 AU was somewhere around 1000 watts- and later, I corrected it.
So if Earth was at 1.2 AU, how warm would the tropical ocean be and what would the average temperature of Earth be?
Would Earth become a snowball Earth- if given a few thousand years at that distance? Or would become colder than snowball earth which some have imagined Earth was at some time in the past.
I would guess average tropical ocean surface temperature would be about 10 C and global average temperature might as cold or colder than -18 C.
Also think that it’s possible that CO2 freezes out at the poles- which might make it complicated. And I think most would agree there would be significantly less global water vapor.
Drier and less clouds.
svante…”That means the Earthâs surface can NEVER exceed -18 C”.
The hypothetical -18C number represents the Earth with no atmosphere and no oceans. With solar energy radiating onto a bare surface, with the surface exposed to outer space temperatures of about 3K (-270C), it likely would not heat to more than -18C.
We are talking about averages. It could heat to more than 100C during the day and drop to 3K at night.
With an atmosphere and oceans, the oceans can convert solar radiation to heat and store that heat for a while. The atmosphere can absorb heat from the solar heated surface as well and store it temporarily.
“An ideal thermally conductive blackbody at the same distance from the Sun as Earth would have a temperature of about 5.3 °C. However, because Earth reflects about 30% of the incoming sunlight, this idealized planet’s effective temperature (the temperature of a blackbody that would emit the same amount of radiation) would be about â18 °C”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_effect
So it’s ideal thermal conductive blackbody which reflects 30% of sunlight.
Which of course is silly.
Or same as ideal thermally conductive body which further from the sun than 1 AU and at distance which gets 30% less sunlight-
Intensity of sunlight 1360 – 408 = 952.
So as though ideal thermally conductive blackbody was distance from the sun in which the sunlight was 952 watts per square meter, rather than 1360 watts per square meter.
If earth reflected 75% of sunlight:
1360 – 1020 = 340
It would be like ideal thermal conductive blackbody at distance from the sun in which sunlight was 340 watts per square meter.
So like Ideal thermally conductive blackbody beyond Mars distance from the sun. So, 340/ 4 = 85 watts per square meter or 196.7 K [-76.5 C].
And gets more silly if reflected 99% of sunlight- especially when know than polished aluminum in space is pretty hot. And it could reflect more than 99% of the sunlight.
Or polished aluminum doesn’t absorb much sunlight but it does get hot, because it emits less energy in space.
So if enclose earth in polished aluminum sphere which reflects 99%
of the sunlight- it could make earth hotter than it is right now- hint: it depends on where the sphere is.
And what causes Earth to reflect 30% the sunlight is what causes Earth to have a higher average global temperature.
Or most agree that Earth atmosphere increases Earth’s average temperature and it’s Earth’s atmosphere reflects sunlight.
Or reduce the Earth atmosphere will reduce the amount reflected and it will reduce the average temperature.
Clouds have warming effect- or can have warming effect, and clouds increase the amount of sunlight reflected.
So you can’t simply reduce the power of sunlight by the amount a planet reflects sunlight.
An ideal thermally conductive blackbody tells you a planet at 1 AU should have average temperature of about 5 C.
And that is the end of it’s usefulness as a model.
–An ideal thermally conductive blackbody tells you a planet at 1 AU should have average temperature of about 5 C.
And that is the end of its usefulness as a model.–
You also look at the magical properties of Ideal thermal conductive body, and it could give some clues.
For example how can something in direct sunlight at 1 AU distance be 5 C.
Or it’s metaphorical educational tool.
gbaikie says:
An ideal thermally conductive blackbody tells you a planet at 1 AU should have average temperature of about 5 C.
The definition of a blackbody says nothing about how it *conducts* heat. It says only that it *absorbs* all radiation incident upon it.
gbaikie says:
And what causes Earth to reflect 30% the sunlight is what causes Earth to have a higher average global temperature.
Depends.
*Some* things that contribute to an increased albedo can cause a planet’s temperature to go up, but other things do not. It depends on the thing (clouds vs snow cover vs ocean surface vs land surface vs vegetation vs type of could (water vs sulphuric), et.
–David Appell says:
September 22, 2018 at 3:40 PM
gbaikie says:
And what causes Earth to reflect 30% the sunlight is what causes Earth to have a higher average global temperature.
Depends.
*Some* things that contribute to an increased albedo can cause a planets temperature to go up, but other things do not.–
It’s mostly the things which doing the most increase to reflection of sunlight light makes the idiots imagine Earth should be -18 C. Ie, the mass of the atmosphere and the clouds.
Or as I said if reduced the amount atmospheric mass and/or reduced amount clouds, Earth would reflect less than 30%- and in such situation; then, the idiots would imagine Earth should be warmer than -18 C.
Btw, David are you going to concede that it’s the reflective clouds of Venus which cause Venus to as hot as it is?
Or is that against your religious beliefs?
You do concede that Venus does reflect a lot sunlight.
I wonder if the cargo cult bothered get around to figuring what Venus temperature “should be” without greenhouse gases?
Let me give it shot:
2600 times .75 is 1950. And 650 / 4 is 162.5 watts.
Is about 131 K, so Venus would have global average temperature of
-142 C without it’s greenhouse gases???
–David Appell says:
September 22, 2018 at 3:36 PM
gbaikie says:
An ideal thermally conductive blackbody tells you a planet at 1 AU should have average temperature of about 5 C.
The definition of a blackbody says nothing about how it *conducts* heat. It says only that it *absorbs* all radiation incident upon it.–
But, an ideal thermally conductive blackbody does say how it conducts heat.
To repeat the wiki quote:
âAn ideal thermally conductive blackbody at the same distance from the Sun as Earth would have a temperature of about 5.3 °C. However, because Earth reflects about 30% of the incoming sunlight, this idealized planetâs effective temperature (the temperature of a blackbody that would emit the same amount of radiation) would be about â18 °Câ
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_effect
gb: But the Earth isn’t a blackbody in the solar spectrum. Because it doesn’t come close to absorbing all the sunlight incident upon it. (There’s a lot of reflection.)
“David Appell says:
September 22, 2018 at 5:06 PM
gb: But the Earth isnt a blackbody in the solar spectrum. Because it doesnt come close to absorbing all the sunlight incident upon it. (Theres a lot of reflection.)”
Well, been saying for quite while the Earth is not blackbody, and certainly is not a blackbody which 30% of sunlight.
But roughly speaking I am ok with the approximation that planet at 1 AU is about 5 C in terms of average temperature- as ideally thermally conductive blackbody model indicates.
Or if wildly off, one would have look for the main reason for it- which might be interesting.
Earth could be viewed as having a higher average temperature than 5 C.
Earth has atmosphere, it’s not a vacuum like most bodies in space.
And I think we all agree that an atmosphere increases the average temperature- or atmosphere can increase the average temperature.
But another significant aspect of Earth is that it’s surface is 70% covered by oceans.
And the ocean is not vaguely like a blackbody- it’s transparent.
It’s more like an atmosphere than as compared to sandy ground.
Now earth’s ocean average temperature is 3.5 C. And we know it’s been as cold as about 1 C, and we know it’s been above 10 C.
In the ice age that we are in, the ocean has varied between 1 to 5 C.
And the surface of the ocean is much warmer than average temperature of ocean. And air surface is much warmer than the entire atmosphere. And these gradients of air and ocean surface is what is essentially the Earth average global temperature.
The surface ocean surface temperature is about 17 C and average surface air temperature over global land surface is about 10 C.
Or whole global air temperature is about 15 C which obviously closer to 17 C than 10 C- due to there being more ocean surface than land surface.
The reason ocean surface temperature is 17 C, is due to warmer water rising, and reason surface air is warmest is due to denser air being warmer- with a well mixed atmosphere, and less well mixed ocean.
And to repeat ocean is not a blackbody- it’s transparent [and it’s reflective- as all transparent things are] and it evaporates.
..which 30% of sunlight
and certainly is not a blackbody which 30% of sunlight is reflected.
GR,
I know I might be rushing in where angels fear to tread, but . . .
Maybe people are confused between wattage and temperature, amongst other things.
For example, maximum junction operating temperature for a transistor might be 200 C. Different transistors may be rated at 200 mW, 500 mW, 50 W, or whatever.
In all cases, the maximum operating temperature will remain the same. In many cases, a separate heat sink will be specified. Removing the heat may result in rapid destruction of the device, due to maximum operating junction temperature being exceeded.
Now, a GHE enthusiast may point out, quite rightly, that surrounding a device and properly fitted heat sink with sufficient insulation with a temperature of, say, 25 C, will cause a rise of temperature of the junction. The problem is that the stupid and ignorant GHE supporters use this as an example of “colder making warmer even hotter”. Semantically correct, but irrelevant physically.
Just as the “Greenhouse Effect” is not an effect, and certainly has nought to do with greenhouses!
I have tried to be brief, and I apologise if I have not been clear enough.
Cheers.
Mike…”Maybe people are confused between wattage and temperature, amongst other things.
For example, maximum junction operating temperature for a transistor might be 200 C. Different transistors may be rated at 200 mW, 500 mW, 50 W, or whatever.
In all cases, the maximum operating temperature will remain the same”.
*******
A couple of examples from BJT transistors I know well.
The 2N2222 is a popular small-signal device.
-Max Ic = 0.6 amps or 600 milliamps
-max power dissipation = 625 milliwatts at 25C
-operating temp range = -55C to 150C
The 2N3055 is a power transistor that was popular in audio power amps.
-Max Ic = 15A
-max pwr diss = 115 watts at 25C.
-operating temp = -65C – 200C
As you can see the power transistor has a wider operating temperature but that is not really an indication of the junction capabilities. It has more to do with the effect on electrons moving through silicon. As temperature increases in any piece of silicon the power dissipation increases and causes further warming.
The thing to note here is the wide disparity in power dissipation between the low signal device and the power device, 0.6W versus 115W. The 2N2222 is a smaller device of about 1/4″ height by 1/8th inch width whereas the 2N3055 has a healthy chunk of metal at it base and is covered with a metal cap.
The metal surround is about 1″ in length and the cap is 1/2″ in diameter, therefore it has a healthy heat sink built around it. Even at that, temperature is critical. The 2N3055 can handle 115 watts up to 25C but beyond that temp it’s dissipation drops off linearly till it can handle only a few watts at 200C.
That’s why a heat sink is employed. It allows the device to operate over an extended temperature range. As the device draws more current, up to 15A, it warms up despite the ambient temperatures.
I have worked with these devices and even when they are drawing half their maximum 15A allotment, you cannot hold a finger on the metal case without burning your skin.
I keep emphasizing heat dissipation because it is critical. The argument of Norman and Swannie, that cooler air surrounding such a device will increase its temperature is sheer nonsense.
The only way to increase its basic operating temperature is to draw more current through the device. You can decrease the temperature created by the current by providing for heat dissipation. The metal case alone on the 2N3055 will do that to an extent if you limit the current through it to a few amps and allow for free space around it so it can interact with air temperature which is far cooler.
You can get the device to run cooler by mounting it on a heat sink using thermal compound between the transistor metal base and the heat sink. That helps CONDUCT heat away faster. The heat sink increases the surface area of radiation and interaction with the air for conduction by having many fins.
You can blow cooler air on the device with a fan or you can run it in an air conditioned enclosure or room to cool it even further.
All of those methods cool the device from the temperature produced by the current through it. If you remove those methods, the transistor will warm back up to the temperature produced by the current only.
Power dissipation in a transistor is related to the power it develops which is I^2 x R. If you have a 2N3055 running bare, with 3 amps through it across a 10 ohm load, you have a power = 3^2 x 10 = 90 watts. Already you are close to its power max of 115 watts.
However, if you use a good heat sink with thermal compound in a room at 25C you can run 8 amps through a 2N3055. That represents 8^2 x 10 = 640 watts. That means the heat sink is helping dissipate more than 500 watts.
If you ran 8 amps through that 2N3055 bare with no heat sink at at 25C it would heat up so much it would destroy itself. That means it would exceed its Tmax of 200C. Yet if you help it dissipate heat by using a heat sink it would run at a much lower temperature, well under 200C.
This is what Norman and Swannie fail to understand. When you suppress heat dissipation, devices warm rapidly toward the temperature they’d be without dissipation.
Cooler air in a room cannot cause that increase in temperature.
So cool the room 20C => 19C will cool the device.
Stop cooling, 19C => 20C will not affect the device?
Stop cooling, 19C => 19C.
Start warming, 19C => 20C.
Learn some thermo, tooter.
You should let Gordon repair your cooler, it doesn’t work.
Toot toot!
S,
Any supposed question or statement starting with “So . . . ” is generally a stupid gotcha. Yours seems to be so.
Attempting to appear wise and knowledgeable, your true character of stupidity and ignorance reveals itself.
If you disagree with somebody, you will generally get better results by stating the reasons for your disagreement, and supporting your reasons with factual information. If you disagree, feel free to state your reasons. If you don’t, your posing witless gotchas merely has you admitting that you are behaving irrationally. You are taking a course of action which you agree delivers less than optimal outcomes.
All part of climatological pseudoscience, I suppose.
Cheers.
Gordon Robertson says:
“You can blow cooler air on the device with a fan or you can run it in an air conditioned enclosure or room to cool it even further.”
Then what happens with the device temperature when you stop cooling the room?
Why didnt you just read his next sentence?
I missed that, thank you.
So Gordon says cold surroundings can influence his device temperature both ways, up and down.
What Gordon says is not cold warming hot.
Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:
“What Gordon says is not cold warming hot.”
1) He says cooling the room will cool his device.
2) Remove the cooling and device temp goes up.
Wiktionary etymology 2:
Warming: A small rise in temperature.
Do you have a different definition of warming, or does the device temperature not go up?
No, warming is warming.
Since I cant be bothered to wait another 12 hours or so for your next response, I will try to anticipate it. Yes, the device warms. No, that is not cold warming hot. It is removal of a cooling influence leading to the device warming back up to the temperature produced by the current only.
Fine, this is just like the enhanced GHE, no 2LOT violation.
What cooling influence is removed in the process of the enhanced GHE, and how could removing this cooling influence lead to temperatures rising beyond the temperature produced by the current only (solar radiation in this case)?
Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:
Cooling to space is influenced by GHGs.
For equilibrium, TOA radiation must equal absorbed solar radiation.
TOA is pushed up by GHGs but the lapse rate curve must finish at the same temperature, i.e. it must start at a higher surface temperature.
Svante, I asked you two questions based on applying Gordons analogy to the enhanced GHE. You failed to answer them, instead choosing to writing a response based outside the framework of the analogy.
Am I to take it that you concede the analogy is not just like the enhanced GHE, as you claimed?
Sorry I jumped ahead.
Earths radiative cooling depends on the (IR) temperature you see looking skyward. More GHGs make the atmosphere more opaque, so you see lower/warmer layers, just like having a warmer room.
One at a time then.
What cooling influence is removed in the process of the enhanced GHE?
I will try to answer for you, you can let me know if you disagree:
The cooling influence that is removed is a part of Earths ability to radiatively cool.
That answer is fraught with its own problems in any case, but let us accept it for now, in order to move on. According to Gordons analogy, which you are claiming is just like the enhanced GHE, removal of the cooling influence can only allow the device (Earth) to warm up to the level determined by the current (solar radiation).
The second question, then, how could removal of this cooling influence lead to temperatures rising beyond the temperature produced by the current only, is a bit of a trick question, since according to the analogy this is not possible (unless there was another heat source, perhaps).
So unless you have another significant heat source besides the sun, if the enhanced GHE is to be compared with Gordons analogy, removal of part of Earths ability to radiatively cool cannot cause the Earth to warm beyond the temperature determined by solar radiation.
1) His device has a certain input power.
2) At equilibrium, input and output power must be equal,
3) Net output power depends on the T^4 difference between the device and the room.
4) If the room gets warmer the device runs an energy surplus and must warm until equilibrium is restored.
Earth must restore reduced radiative cooling in the same way.
Sorry, Svante, the device cannot warm beyond the temperature determined by the current, without an additional heat source. That is the framework of the analogy, if you have to go outside of that, as you consistently have been, then the analogy does not work for the enhanced GHE.
And in the framework of reality, which one of these is wrong:
1) His device has a certain input power.
2) At equilibrium, input and output power must be equal,
3) Net output power depends on the T^4 difference between the device and the room.
4) If the room gets warmer the device runs an energy surplus and must warm until equilibrium is restored.
5) Earth must restore reduced radiative cooling in the same way.
Whats wrong is the concept that you can get beyond the temperature set by the current, under the framework of this analogy. If you are now saying that the reality is different to this analogy, then you are conceding that you were incorrect to say that Gordons analogy was just like the enhanced GHE.
OK, let’s state that we are below his temperature ceiling.
He says 200 C in his example.
For earth it would be 5,778 K, right?
Well, usually the estimate is around 255 K.
Yes, with no GHE, 33 K more with the current GHE.
Venus has 735 K with less absorbed solar radiation.
Maybe you should just pick a better analogy to claim is representative of the enhanced GHE. Be sure to bother somebody else with it once you have something.
I’m glad we agree that cold can influence warm temperature both up and down.
Im sorry I wasted my time believing you were sincere.
Svante, please stop trolling.
What do you mean, his room temperature did just that to his device temperature?
Svante, please stop trolling.
In the framework of reality, which of these is wrong:
1) His device has a certain input power.
2) At equilibrium, input and output power must be equal,
3) Net output power depends on the T^4 difference between the device and the room.
4) If the room gets warmer the device runs an energy surplus and must warm until equilibrium is restored.
5) Earth must restore reduced radiative cooling in the same way.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2018/09/my-tucker-carlson-interview-last-night-and-calling-out-bill-nye-james-hansen/#comment-321769
Svante, please stop trolling.
Svante, you are not getting beyond 255 K, without an additional heat source, using Gordons analogy. Even if you went with 288 K (which would not be logical, but even if you did) then not being able to get beyond 288 K also rules out Gordons analogy as being applicable to the enhanced GHE. If you can demonstrate to me that you are not trolling, I will go on to tell you what is wrong with your 1) to 5). To demonstrate you are not just trolling, please respond with the following statement, and the following statement only:
I, Svante, concede that I was incorrect to say that Gordons analogy is like the enhanced GHE.
How old are you?
There isnt a single one of you who can debate honestly.
In the framework of reality, which of these is wrong:
1) His device has a certain input power.
2) At equilibrium, input and output power must be equal,
3) Net output power depends on the T^4 difference between the device and the room.
4) If the room gets warmer the device runs an energy surplus and must warm until equilibrium is restored.
5) Earth must restore reduced radiative cooling in the same way.
Your logic is circular. You need the room (presumably the Earths atmosphere) to get warmer, so that your T^4 difference is reduced, so your device (presumably the Earths surface) can increase in temperature. However, the Earths atmosphere warming is in part the conclusion you wish to get to! So, you are taking the conclusion as a premise in your argument. It is pretty much the definition of circular logic. Your no. 4 point has no explanation. The room gets warmer. Why? Thats what you are trying to get to! Yet you take it as a given…to get to your conclusion!
Svante, you cannot reason your way out of a paper bag. You dont understand the limitations of Gordons analogy, so you argue outside of that framework. Which automatically means that you can no longer claim Gordons analogy is just like the enhanced GHE. Yet you cant even concede that point! You are unable to be critical of yourself in any way. You choose to insult me. And you are, quite simply, a joke.
DREMT, the premise of your question is vague.
“how could removing this cooling influence lead to temperatures rising beyond the temperature produced by the current only (solar radiation in this case)?”
There is no unique temperature produced “by the current only” or solar only. The temperature produced by the current will depend on the surroundings of the device.
If the device is sitting in air 20C it will achieve some nominal temperature. If its inside a metal box, as is often the case, it will be warmer (and need a fan).
If, as mentioned by Mike, it is surrounded by good insulation it could get very hot.
The atmosphere is Earth’s modest insulation, like the device in air.
Venus’s atmosphere is good insulation, with less absorbed solar power. It gets wicked hot, like the device in a box with insulation.
I don’t need the athmosphere to get warmer, it already is.
With the help of conduction and convection it has a lapse rate.
I just need to make it more opaque in IR to see more low/warm layers.
As Nate said, a unique temperature produced âby the current onlyâ is bogus, but we got around that by saying we were below it.
Any analogy breaks down at some point, but you haven’t found that point yet. When you do it will not be very surprising or interesting. I only set out to refute his bogus 2LOT violation claim.
Kristian has put me right many times, but he seems to be the only non-AGW regular with a bit of physics (did I miss anyone?).
Svante, your logic is circular, as explained. For your explanation of the mechanism of the enhanced GHE to work you are left needing a reason for the room (atmosphere) to be getting warmer, outside of the mechanism outlined in your 1) to 5), and yet your 1) to 5) is your apparent explanation of the enhanced GHE in its entirety.
The maximum temperature limit produced by the current only is not bogus, it has been explained by Gordon as the temperature the device would reach with all methods of heat dissipation removed. You can remove conduction and convection by treating the Earth as though it had no atmosphere. You cant remove its ability to radiate, since that is impossible, an object will always radiate based on its temperature and emissivity, but you could remove its ability to radiatively cool (radiative cooling being that situation where the object is radiating more than it receives). The situation where the object has no atmosphere, and is radiating out exactly as it receives, is calculated to be a maximum of 255 K, for the Earth.
P.S: Svante, as regards Kristian, and physics, so far this has nothing to do with it; you are failing at basic logic. It doesnt matter whether you have correctly described any of the physical processes you outline, your layout of those processes fails logically.
DREMT,
“The maximum temperature limit produced by the current only is not bogus, it has been explained by Gordon as the temperature the device would reach with all methods of heat dissipation removed. ”
Ok, clear evidence that DREMT doesn’t understand basic physics. Not surprising.
If “all methods of heat dissipipation removed” then the device will simply rise in temperature indefinitely, having no way to remove the heat input from the current.
It will of course melt before it gets to high.
You cant remove its ability to radiate, since that is impossible, an object will always radiate based on its temperature and emissivity
DREMT,,
“an object will always radiate based on its temperature and emissivity”
You are digging yourself into deeper and deeper holes.
The environment of the device must be specified, which falsifies your original statement that there is a “temperature produced by the current only”
If the device is surrounded by insulation and a metal box, radiation will have no path out. The device will melt.
No Nate, I was simply directing your attention to a part of my comment you had deliberately ignored. Lets put it back into context:
You cant remove its ability to radiate, since that is impossible, an object will always radiate based on its temperature and emissivity, but you could remove its ability to radiatively cool (radiative cooling being that situation where the object is radiating more than it receives). The situation where the object has no atmosphere, and is radiating out exactly as it receives, is calculated to be a maximum of 255 K, for the Earth.
See, no insulation or metal box to worry about.
Not that insulation, or a metal box, could prevent an object from radiating, in any case.
DREMT says:
It’s a minimum of 255 K, with unobstructed radiation to space at 3 K, OK?
If the view to space is obscured by anything warmer the equilibrium temperature will be higher, which it is, right?
No, Svante, it is a maximum of 255 K, as explained.
Heat dissipation from conduction and convection removed (no atmosphere), heat dissipation from radiative cooling removed (radiation in equals radiation out), and no insulation (sorry Nate, but it goes without saying that Gordons maximum temperature concept is exclusive of insulation).
That gets you a maximum of 255 K, dependent on your value for albedo. Whatever value you use for albedo, however, you will have a maximum well below 288 K.
Gordons entire point is that you have this maximum temperature set by the current (with no heat dissipation), you add in the methods of heat dissipation (cooling), and the temperature gets lower; removing, or reducing them results in the temperature increasing, but never beyond that maximum.
You are both trying as hard as you can to bypass this limit, and it is most amusing to see.
I expect the next step will be to redefine the GHE as insulation, in order to bypass Gordons point altogether.
Are you trying to tell me that the effective surface temperature is -18 C?
To avoid confusion, please restrict yourself to steady state temperatures. That is when input power equals output power [W].
No, Svante, I am telling you what, according to Gordons analogy (which you have claimed is just like the enhanced GHE) is the temperature ceiling as would apply to the Earth.
The conclusion of all this is that the warming mechanism described by the analogy cannot be the reason the Earths surface is the temperature it is. So your statement that the analogy is just like the enhanced GHE is false.
“but you could remove its ability to radiatively cool”
Well that is precisely the point I was making. Therefore it will warm up indefinitely, until it melts. And therefore, there is no max temperature set by the current (or solar input) alone.
“Gordons entire point is that you have this maximum temperature set by the current (with no heat dissipation), you add in the methods of heat dissipation (cooling), and the temperature gets lower; removing, or reducing them results in the temperature increasing, but never beyond that maximum.”
Now you have returned to your original wrong idea. Which is it, DREMT?
The atmosphere is acting as insulation, reducing the dissipation of energy to space, and therefore the surface temp rises above 255K.
Just as the device warms when its dissipation of heat is restricted. Svante was correct, and you owe him an apology.
Poor Neight is hopelessly confused.
1) Gordons analogy is not about insulation.
2) Removing the ability of an object to radiate (impossible) is not the same thing as removing (or limiting) the radiative cooling of an object (radiative cooling is where the object is radiating more than it receives).
But, he did immediately prove my prediction correct, where I said:
I expect the next step will be to redefine the GHE as insulation, in order to bypass Gordons point altogether.
Looks like Neight owes everybody an apology.
I have made the point that point that there is no unique temperature determined by the input power alone. The environment matters.
Whether that environment is vacuum, air, a box, a box with a fan, a box with insulation, whatever it is, it matters.
Your question “What cooling influence is removed in the process of the enhanced GHE, and how could removing this cooling influence lead to temperatures rising beyond the temperature produced by the current only (solar radiation in this case)?”
clearly shows you don’t this basic physics.
Who said they were looking for people to “debate honestly”?
And now look at how you obfuscate.
clearly shows you dont understand this basic physics.
And now “2) Removing the ability of an object to radiate (impossible) is not the same thing as removing (or limiting) the radiative cooling of an object (radiative cooling is where the object is radiating more than it receives).”
No. Radiative cooling does not require the object to be lowering its temperature, it simply means heat is leaving the object, being dissipated, via radiation.
Limiting the amount of heat dissipated by an object (by any mode) with the same input power, means the object must warm.
Plain and simple.
Made a right hash of that one, didnt you Neight!?
Well, I guess if we are at the repeating ourselves stage, the discussion is over.
…and it is definitely over if you are going to say things as silly as cooling does not require an object to be lowering its temperature.
The maximum temperature limit produced by the current only is not bogus, it has been explained by Gordon as the temperature the device would reach with all methods of heat dissipation removed.”
“sorry Nate, but it goes without saying that Gordons maximum temperature concept is exclusive of insulation).”
What is the purpose of insulation, other than to remove methods of heat dissipation?
You are not making sense DREMT.
From Wiki:
Thermal insulation is the reduction of heat transfer (i.e. the transfer of thermal energy between objects of differing temperature) between objects in thermal contact or in range of radiative influence.
Not what Gordons analogy is discussing.
N8, you are just picking nits at this stage.
Me nit picking? Pot-Kettle DREMT.
Speaking of which:
Wiki: Radiative Cooling
“Radiative cooling is the process by which a body loses heat by thermal radiation.”
Losing heat does not REQUIRE temperature lowering. It could be a means for maintaining a temp.
Such as
“In the case of the Earth-atmosphere system radiative cooling is the process by which long-wave (infrared) radiation is emitted to BALANCE the absor*ption of short-wave (visible) energy from the sun.”
from the same Wiki page
Do you really not understand that
” reduction of heat transfer (i.e. the transfer of thermal energy between objects of differing temperature)”
and reducing “heat dissipation” are the same thing?
Of course it is precisely what Gordon is talking about.
Neight, I am not going to argue against the idea that cooling does not involve an object lowering in temperature, because that is ridiculous. A poor choice of words in that Wikipedia article.
Well, I don’t know what to tell you. “cooling” is sometimes used that way in science, engineering and HVAC. It means ‘removing heat’ in this usage.
OK, so, I guess there is nothing else to say without repeating ourselves. End of discussion.
“OK, so, I guess there is nothing else to say without repeating ourselves. End of discussion.”
Well, look I made a simple point, that your premise in your question to Svante was invalid. It made no sense.
You refuse to acknowledge that this was an error, that my point was valid, and furthermore that Svante was making valid points.
That is not setting an example of DEBATING HONESTLY, that you insist on from other people.
Well, look, I made a simple counterpoint, that my premise in my question to Svante was valid. It made sense.
You refuse to acknowledge that what you said was an error, that my point was valid, and furthermore that what I argued against Svante were valid points.
That is not setting an example of DEBATING HONESTLY.
BTW, for whoever his statement from Gordon:
“If you ran 8 amps through that 2N3055 bare with no heat sink at at 25C it would heat up so much it would destroy itself. That means it would exceed its Tmax of 200C. Yet if you help it dissipate heat by using a heat sink it would run at a much lower temperature, well under 200C.”
This clearly agrees with what I have been saying:
“If ‘all methods of heat dissipipation removed’ then the device will simply rise in temperature indefinitely, having no way to remove the heat input from the current.
It will of course melt before it gets to high.”
So you really are just going to repeat yourself again and again? If so, I will keep linking to previous comments:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2018/09/my-tucker-carlson-interview-last-night-and-calling-out-bill-nye-james-hansen/#comment-322217
This was what you call a counterpoint:
“The maximum temperature limit produced by the current only is not bogus, it has been explained by Gordon as the temperature the device would reach with all methods of heat dissipation removed.”
I see no counterpoint, only a restatement of the false premise.
With a steady INPUT of power to a device, and “all methods of heat dissipation removed”, meaning NO HEAT OUTPUT, then the device, by 1LOT, has no choice but to heat up indefinitely.
So this is a fundamental misunderstanding of physics on your part.
Or at minimum it is a misunderstanding of basic words.
What does “dissipation” mean to you?
Dissipate-“disappear or cause to disappear” “disperse”
Then you move the goal posts by saying “radiation” is still there. Oh is it?
Here was Gordon said in reply to Swanson:
“Once again, I stipulated that my Tmax is the temperature of the heated body with all radiation, conduction, and convection suppressed. Its the temperature the body would reach based on its heat source alone if it was prevented from dissipating any of the heat.”
No Neight, heat dissipation is chilling, cooling, temperature reduction, the process of becoming cooler; a falling temperature. Google it! That was the top result.
As I said, you can remove conduction and convection by treating the Earth as though you have no atmosphere. You cannot remove the Earths ability to radiate, since that is impossible, an object will always radiate based on its temperature and emissivity, but you could remove its ability to radiatively cool (radiative cooling being that situation where the object is radiating more than it receives). The situation where the object has no atmosphere, and is radiating out exactly as it receives, is calculated to be a maximum of 255 K, for the Earth.
But again, we are just repeating ourselves.
And if by suppressing radiation Gordon DOES mean somehow removing the ability of an object to radiate based on its temperature and emissivity, then I disagree with him on that point.
Hmmm.
“You cant remove its ability to radiate, since that is impossible, an object will always radiate based on its temperature and emissivity”
Try this experiment. I did.
Take a 60 W incandescent bulb. Wrap the glass in aluminum foil.
I claim this removes the ability of the bulb to radiate.
Result. After 10 minutes the bulb burned out, and in fact the glass broke and fell off. So be careful.
My last old fashioned bulb dead. Sad.
Oh dear, we are at the light bulb point. Yes, you cannot get the glass as hot as the bulbs filament, roughly 2,500 C, as it tends to break. But you would need to get your filament beyond that temperature to prove your point. And, of course, the filament does not stop radiating, as you claim, else the glass would not heat up.
Yes, it can mean temperature lowering.
But heat dissipation clearly can ALSO mean removing heat at the same rate it is generated.
Google search ‘Heat dissipation in electronic devices’
‘Heat generated by electronic devices of any kind must be dissipated quickly to improve reliability, performance and prevent premature failures. … Many techniques for heat dissipation already exist to produce components like heat sinks or heat spreaders.’
and here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermal_management_(electronics)
Whats next, a discussion of what is heat vs what is energy?
You will never stop, will you N8?
OMG DREMT.
The device, i.e. light bulb, failed. It failed because it got too hot. It got too hot because radiation from the device was suppressed by reflecting it back to the device with foil.
OMG Nate, http://www.drroyspencer.com/2018/09/my-tucker-carlson-interview-last-night-and-calling-out-bill-nye-james-hansen/#comment-322440
“You will never stop, will you N8?”
I show you examples of common usage of the terms “radiative cooling” and “heat dissipation”. I show you references to this usage of these terms.
Yet continue to maintain that this is wrong. Its not what you thought. Sorry but it is reality.
This behavior is about as far from honest debate as one can get.
And it is even more common usage to use those terms the way I do. So, straight back at you.
But let us just keep repeating ourselves indefinitely, that will be fun.
Reposting something you just posted is quite silly. The only other poster who did that was Halp.
In fact the phrase looking for “honest debate”, followed by thoroughly dishonest debate is the MO of Halp, Halp.
Actually I have seen a lot of people link to their previous comments to repeat a point. It makes more sense than what you do, after all, which is to just repeat yourself in full written text.
But suggesting I am this Halp character is what you tend to do when all else fails. Guess that is just part of your MO.
“And it is even more common usage to use those terms the way I do. So, straight back at you.”
I acknowledged that it is used the way you use it.
You have not reciprocated-though I showed you clear cut examples.
If you were truly interested in facilitating honest debate-you would do so.
Here is David Appell, of all people, giving it a go:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2018/09/my-tucker-carlson-interview-last-night-and-calling-out-bill-nye-james-hansen/#comment-322037
OK, Neight. I hereby acknowledge the usage of those terms in the manner you describe.
“But you would need to get your filament beyond that temperature to prove your point. And, of course, the filament does not stop radiating, as you claim, else the glass would not heat up.”
I defined the device to be the bulb, which got too hot and failed. I also noted that the radiation is reflected back to the device (bulb), thereby it is effectively suppressed, ie it is not emitted to the outside world and not dissipated
Repeating you post is pointless because it does in any way refute what I said.
And that is exactly the strategy used so often by Halp.
You can define the device to be whatever you want, but it is the filament that is receiving the current.
That refutes what you said, but you wont admit that, which is a trademark Neight tactic.
What David did there is not uncommon, he referred to his post on an entirely different thread.
Nayt, I think you may just be the most argumentative person in history.
” I hereby acknowledge the usage of those terms in the manner you describe.”
Thank you.
“That refutes what you said, but you wont admit that, which is a trademark Neight tactic.”
No this is you spinning and interpreting my intent to serve your narrative.
The experiment demonstrated exactly what I intended it to show, that if radiation is suppressed (by reflection), then temperature rises until the device fails. Did it not do that?
I see no reason why the filament couldnt fail by the same mechanism.
In fact the glass was not melted, just broken. It could be that it broke due to pressure rise produced by a melted filament.
But it doesnt matter for the main point of the experiment.
The experiment needed to either show the filament rising above the temperature fixed by the current, or it needed to show the filament ceasing to radiate (not ceasing to radiatively cool, but ceasing to radiate). It showed neither.
You will now repeat yourself some more.
” filament rising above the temperature fixed by the current”
You are repeating earlier confusions.
What does ‘temperature fixed by the current’ even mean?
The temperature of the filament rises until input = output power.
What determines output power? The environment-which includes the hot glass and reflective aluminum. No?
Neight, I think the idea here is for you to keep repeating yourself until I give up responding.
So you have no answer then? I won’t repeat because you already saw it.
Here’s another experiment for you to try, or not.
My toaster oven has ceramic rods with heating coils inside.
When fully hot they glow a dull red.
Now loosely wrap aluminum foil around a rod, covering half of it. Wait til rod reaches maximum temperature and glowing. Better with room lights off.
Now remove the foil.
Result: the half that was covered by foil is now glowing much more brightly orange then the uncovered half.
The heating element inside the half that was covered reached a higher temperature. Because its radiative heat dissipation is suppressed.
How do you account for this DREMT?
You are reducing its ability to radiatively cool, by adding radiative insulation (a surrounding of reflective material).
Very good.
But now i’m not sure why we’ve been disagreeing. The filament. The device. The Earth. The same logic applies to all of these.
That’s because you refuse to understand the difference between radiative cooling, and an object radiating based on its temperature and emissivity. Once again, we are repeating ourselves.
Let’s see if you can concede any points, in the interest of honest debate.
Do you concede, that an object cannot be prevented from radiating, based on its temperature and emissivity? You should realise, radiative insulation cannot work without that fact.
And I am not talking about when you completely surround an object with another object, or material, such that the method of heat transfer changes from radiation to conduction. It should go without saying, that this does not constitute what I mean by “prevented from radiating, based on its temperature and emissivity”.
I agree.
I find your messages very confusing, we are really not on the same wavelength.
I expect you have the same feeling, so proceed in very small steps and let’s avoid troublesome words like heating and cooling, say what the temperature does instead.
And I hope we are discussing physical reality and not the orthodox interpretation of GR’s gospel.
Sorry Svante, we are on a concede to proceed basis here.
“Do you concede, that an object cannot be prevented from radiating”
Exposed surfaces radiate based on their temperature and emissivity, yes. If surfaces are covered or blocked then no, of course.
“you refuse to understand the difference between radiative cooling, and an object radiating based on its temperature and emissivity.”
Perhaps I don’t.
But bear in mind, you used the term “reducing its ability to radiatively cool”
to describe a situation where an objects were not cooling at all, but simply reaching different steady state temperatures, because of different radiation rates.
What is the difference that you want to bring up?
As you know, I have already explained:
Removing the ability of an object to radiate (impossible) is not the same thing as removing (or limiting) the radiative cooling of an object (radiative cooling is where the object is radiating more than it receives).
As you concede that removing or limiting the ability of an object to radiate is not possible, yet as you point out the filament and heating coils in the toaster are not cooling, then I must have been wrong to use the term “reducing its ability to radiatively cool“ to apply to your analogies. I am glad you corrected me.
This is where Gordon’s analogy, and both your light bulb and toaster analogies, break down in comparison to the GHE. With the GHE, the energy supply is external to the device, and is supplied by radiative energy incident upon it. So it has been a waste of time trying to compare the light bulb or toaster analogies with the GHE.
For Gordon’s analogy, it works only up to the point of removal of conduction and convection (placing the device in vacuum; or for the Earth, not having an atmosphere). That removes those methods of heat dissipation. But when it comes to removing (or limiting) the ability of the device to radiatively cool, there is no analog to the Earth with a device that is receiving its principle energy supply internally, but which can also receive energy from its environment.
So, to apply Gordon’s analogy in a way that works all the way, we can say:
You can remove conduction and convection by treating the Earth as though you have no atmosphere. You cannot remove the Earths ability to radiate, since that is impossible, an object will always radiate based on its temperature and emissivity, but you could remove its ability to radiatively cool (radiative cooling being that situation where the object is radiating more than it receives). The situation where the object has no atmosphere, and is radiating out exactly as it receives, is calculated to be a maximum of 255 K, for the Earth.
” You cannot remove the Earths ability to radiate, since that is impossible, an object will always radiate based on its temperature and emissivity,”
You CAN block or impede radiation from the devices, as we did with foil. And therefore the device has to heat up, in order to radiate MORE (according to its temperature). It must radiate more in order to balance the input power AND the amount that is blocked or reflected back.
For the Earth surface, you CAN block or impede radiation from exiting to space with the atmosphere. Therefore the Earth surface must heat up, in order to radiate MORE (according to its temperature!). It must radiate more in order to balance the input power from the sun AND the amount that is blocked and radiated back from the atmosphere.
Nayt, I asked you to concede a point. You did, but you are now going back on it. That is not honest debating.
” I asked you to concede a point. You did, but you are now going back on it. That is not honest debating”
No, going back on what? With what specifically do you disagree, from my comment?
The part of my comment that you started your last response with, was what I had asked you to concede. You said you had, but then immediately started your comment by saying that you CAN block radiation from a device. You agreed that you cannot stop an object radiating based on its temperature and emissivity, then immediately seemed to contradict that. But its OK, I think I get what you were trying to say. I will give you the benefit of the doubt.
Gordon has always been talking about removing means of heat dissipation (means of cooling, basically), to get to a maximum temperature. I already told you several comments back that there is no mention of insulation in what he discusses, and that going on to discuss insulation would be bypassing his point. Still, you went there, and we have wasted time discussing further analogies that dont relate to the GHE in the ways I have already explained.
Regardless, radiative cooling is the situation where an object is emitting more than it receives. However, radiative insulation results in an objects input exceeding its output. That is not removing the means of radiative cooling (removing heat dissipation via radiation), it is actually going way beyond that and forcing a situation where the reverse happens! Which is why radiative insulation is not applicable to the concept Gordon is discussing. We only need removal of heat dissipation, which will be at the point where the object is emitting as it receives.
So, we can go on to discuss radiative insulation, as regards the GHE, if you like. But first you must concede, that at least as far as Gordons analogy is concerned, Svante was wrong to say that it is just like the enhanced GHE. The point that should have been conceded several comments ago. It also still needs to be conceded that Svantes 1) to 5) constitutes circular logic.
“Which is why radiative insulation is not applicable to the concept Gordon is discussing. We only need removal of heat dissipation, which will be at the point where the object is emitting as it receives.”
For me adding or removing insulation is simply a means of “removal of heat dissipation”. Fundamentally and practically, they are the same.
As far the analogy goes, as Svante said, no analogy is perfect. It is a question of emphasis.
He and I have emphasized the similarities between a device with power input that must be dissipated, and the Earth with solar input that must be dissipated. The fundamentals are similar. Suppressing a mechanism for heat removal results in warming in both cases.
While you emphasized the differences, which there are. One important difference is that removing the atmosphere of the Earth results in cooling of the surface. While if we put a vacuum around Gordon’s device it will get warmer.
Why is that different? Well for the device a big mechanism for heat dissipation is convection. So removing the air would remove this route of heat dissipation. So the device warms.
For the Earth, the ONLY ROUTE for heat to leave and dissipate into space is radiation. Therefore anything that restricts radiation at TOA will cause warming, in the troposphere and below at the surface via the lapse rate. GHG restrict radiation from reaching the TOA, therefore there is warming of the surface until equilibrium is restored.
For the device, restricting radiation ALSO causes warming until equilibrium is restored, as my experiments showed. This is a similarity.
Sorry Nayt, I am going to have to lock this down into a strict concede to proceed basis.
OK, first up. Svantes 1) to 5) is circular logic. Concede to proceed.
Arbitrary rules like that only serve to restrict honest debate, IMO.
I have conceded to things I believe are accurate or close enough, otherwise no. Why would you want anything else?
Personally i think progress is being made, more so if you go through my comments and point out specific issues.
Concede to proceed.
I see, you are not here for HONEST DEBATE or fact finding at all. You are here to play gotcha games. To score ‘points’.
a. No thanks, not interested.
b. Svante speaks for himself.
c. How old are you?
Sorry, herself.
Im not asking you to speak for Svante, his comment speaks for itself. You can read it, you can read my responses, and you can either be old enough, mature enough and honest enough to concede that it is circular logic, or not.
As for going through your comment and responding to points, why should I do that, when you did not go through mine? You partially quoted one comment out of its full context, and ignored all of the central points that I made.
That isnt honest debate.
So, concede to proceed.
My comment “For me adding or removing insulation is simply a means of removal of heat dissipation. Fundamentally and practically, they are the same.”
was intended to address all of the following from your post which repeats some things. I think it does address all of that.
“Gordon has always been talking about removing means of heat dissipation (means of cooling, basically), to get to a maximum temperature. I already told you several comments back that there is no mention of insulation in what he discusses, and that going on to discuss insulation would be bypassing his point. Still, you went there, and we have wasted time discussing further analogies that dont relate to the GHE in the ways I have already explained.
Regardless, radiative cooling is the situation where an object is emitting more than it receives. However, radiative insulation results in an objects input exceeding its output. That is not removing the means of radiative cooling (removing heat dissipation via radiation), it is actually going way beyond that and forcing a situation where the reverse happens! Which is why radiative insulation is not applicable to the concept Gordon is discussing. We only need removal of heat dissipation, which will be at the point where the object is emitting as it receives.”
But I will add the following to clarify:
“However, radiative insulation results in an objects input exceeding its output.”
Yes, until it heats up and again reaches equilibrium with heat input = heat output (dissipation).
“That is not removing the means of radiative cooling (removing heat dissipation via radiation), it is actually going way beyond that and forcing a situation where the reverse happens!”
Yes warming occurs. This is all the same general phenomena of reducing heat loss causing a temperature rise, or the reverse of that.
“old enough, mature enough and honest enough to concede that it is circular logic, or not.”
Reminds me of so many arguments with our teenagers. Eventually the main issues get lost in the weeds of debating who said what long before and who deserves blame.
Not mature at all.
N8, I dont know how you do it. You write it all out. You claim you are understanding it, following it, addressing it. And yet…you dont. You dont actually counter any of the points I am making. You dont even seem to acknowledge them, even as you write them out.
Nate, I am going to stop responding to you, because talking to you is futile. If you read through this discussion from beginning to end, you will see how you butted in (almost certainly because you were upset about the argument over Ingersoll) did everything you could to confuse the issue, obfuscate, misdirect, falsely accuse, distort, twist, spin, and use all the tricks at your disposal to deceive. And I am absolutely certain that if I kept replying to you, you would NEVER stop.
Now, if you concede those two points as I outlined earlier, I might continue. But we both know that there was never any chance of either of you being honest enough to do that.
So, I guess that is it.
I don’t mind Nate joining in, he expresses my thoughts very well, except I’m not female.
I think we have established that objects radiate according to their temperature and emissivity, and the net output power depends on temperature difference (T^4 diff for radiation).
When temperature is stable input and net output power are equal. When they differ temperature must change.
You say my argument is circular because I need the atmosphere to warm up. That is false because the atmosphere is already warm, I just need to obscure higher/colder layers and space itself. That reduces the T^4 difference, and that reduces the net output power, so temperature must change to restore equilibrium.
In the analogy the temperature difference is reduced by turning the cooling off. See the similarity?
And saying the atmosphere is already warm does nothing to reduce the circularity of the logic, it just repeats the flaw…
Here is your 1) to 5), Svante. This is your description of the enhanced GHE:
1) His device has a certain input power.
2) At equilibrium, input and output power must be equal,
3) Net output power depends on the T^4 difference between the device and the room.
4) If the room gets warmer, due to the enhanced GHE, the device runs an energy surplus and must warm until equilibrium is restored.
5) Earth must restore reduced radiative cooling in the same way.
You even directly contradicted yourself, when you said, I think we have established that objects radiate according to their temperature and emissivity, and the net output power depends on temperature difference (T^4 diff for radiation).
Since you agree objects radiate according to their temperature and emissivity, then you should agree that the net output power of the object is determined by the objects temperature and emissivity!
“You even directly contradicted yourself, when you said, I think we have established that objects radiate according to their temperature and emissivity, and the net output power depends on temperature difference (T^4 diff for radiation).
Since you agree objects radiate according to their temperature and emissivity, then you should agree that the net output power of the object is determined by the objects temperature and emissivity!”
Ohhhhh, OK.
This explains so many of the confusions in this thread, DREMT. And why we’ve been seemingly talking past each other for days.
Svante is saying something akin to: I paid for a $5 burger with a $20 bill. He gave me $15 change. My net payment was $5. You are saying, No it was $20!
Your statement completely disagrees with ordinary physics.
Specifically the heat transfer equation based on SB law.
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/thermo/stefan.html
So Svante, for your benefit, when you say:
I think we have established that objects radiate according to their temperature and emissivity, and the net output power depends on temperature difference (T^4 diff for radiation).
You actually mean to say:
I think we have established that objects radiate according to their temperature and emissivity, and the temperature of the object could vary based on the temperature of the surroundings.
That’s right!
I think those two statements are the same.
I might have been sloppy with the word ‘net’ as in net radiation, output minus input (heat really but that’s one of those words).
Yes, it was the phrase “net output power” which triggered my inner (or outer) pedant.
Now, about that circular logic…
“I think we have established that objects radiate according to their temperature and emissivity, and the net output power depends on temperature difference (T^4 diff for radiation).”
makes sense to me. Output implies the device is hotter than surroundings.
Net means Net, and DOES depend on temp difference.
The second statement “the temperature of the object could vary based on the temperature of the surroundings” is saying something quite different, IMO.
Now, Svante (and only Svante) about that circular logic
Yes, you say I need the atmosphere to warm up.
I say no, my trick is to hide the decline that occurs with altitude. I can change the IR temperature seen from the surface by having more or less GHGs in the atmosphere.
No no, Svante, YOU say the atmosphere (room) needs to warm up:
1) His device has a certain input power.
2) At equilibrium, input and output power must be equal,
3) Net output power depends on the T^4 difference between the device and the room.
4) If the room gets warmer, due to the enhanced GHE, the device runs an energy surplus and must warm until equilibrium is restored.
5) Earth must restore reduced radiative cooling in the same way.
That’s your number 4), see? I added in the “due to the enhanced GHE”, since that is the explanation for the warming of the room (atmosphere), that you keep giving me again and again, whilst pretending that you aren’t.
It would be really easy for you just to be honest, admit you made a mistake, and correct it to something else (non-circular).
Svante,
You, of course, speak for yourself.
But, what you have said is much more correct than what DREMT has said. His understanding of physics is quite limited.
Also, his demands for ‘concessions’ purely to stroke his ego are ridiculous. Please don’t give in to this sort of bullying.
I don’t *need* any part of the atmosphere to change it’s temperature.
I only need to create that impression by obscuring higher/colder layers.
That will reduce the T^4 radiation difference between the surface and the sky that it can see. Effectively a warmer room in IR.
Without the warming room, you dont have a reduced temperature difference between the device and the room. So you need another heat source, or warming mechanism, for the room. So far you have got the warming mechanism for the room as the enhanced GHE, so your logic is circular.
Dont be swayed by bullying trolls like Nate, whose only purpose has been to distract, distort, falsely accuse, lie, deceive, and completely derail this conversation, just because his ego was bruised from losing a previous argument.
Just FYI, the “T” in “T^4” stands for “Temperature”. So before you waffle on again about “reduc[ing] the T^4 radiation difference”, you are in fact talking about reducing a temperature difference. To have a reduction in temperature difference, you need the room to warm.
One last thing, just to pre-emptively counter any more ridiculous straw men that might pop up, yes I am familiar with the SB Law and the relationship between temperature and radiation.
“yes I am familiar with the SB Law and the relationship between temperature and radiation.”
If true, then there would be no need for you saying this to Svante:
“You even directly contradicted yourself, when you said, I think we have established that objects radiate according to their temperature and emissivity, and the net output power depends on temperature difference (T^4 diff for radiation).”
” bullying trolls like Nate”
I’m not the one demanding “Concede to Proceed”, DREMT/Halp.
If you were truly interested in discussion and HONEST DEBATE you would not be insisting on re-litigating in minute detail old old arguments, twisting words to create strawmen, until someone else says uncle.
Nate, as I said, I am not discussing this with you further. But I can still say to you, please stop trolling.
DREMT,
You accused Svante of contradicting himself. Clearly he did not.
Set an example for trolls of all stripes and apologize to him.
Nate, please STOP trolling.
DREMT,
Nate’s purpose is to “derail this conversation”
I point hypocrisy when I see it. And there is much to see here.
I believe originally you barged into and took over an argument between Svante and Gordon.
Since then, the thread has been one long attempt to troll Svante. Such as here:
“Svante, you cannot reason your way out of a paper bag. You dont understand the limitations of Gordons analogy, so you argue outside of that framework. Which automatically means that you can no longer claim Gordons analogy is just like the enhanced GHE. Yet you cant even concede that point! You are unable to be critical of yourself in any way. You choose to insult me. And you are, quite simply, a joke.”
Now after having most of your points debunked, and after being shown that you really don’t understand the basic science, you continue to persist in seeking some sort of humiliation of him.
It is quite ironic (and moronic) that you should turn out to be the epitome of a troll.
Either encourage truth finding and honest debate, or just go away.
I do feel bad for those earlier insults, and sincerely apologize to Svante for those. There was no need for that. As for the rest, Nate, please stop trolling. Me and Svante are trying to have a discussion.
Apology accepted.
We agree that a warmer room will raise device temperature.
Let’s look at the other case in isolation for a minute.
If you have no GHGs the surface LWIR balance is set against the coldness of space.
What do you think will happen if space is obscured by GHGs in a warmer layer of the atmosphere?
Svante, you need another heat source, or some mechanism for the room getting warmer.
End of story.
Not so fast.
Using your S-B skills, what will the net radiation loss rate be for:
a) No GHGs: surface radiates straight to space.
b) View limited to 7 km by GHGs.
You can assume:
Space: 3 K
Surface: 285 K
Lapse rate: 10 K per km.
Svante, you need another heat source, or some mechanism for the room getting warmer. Unless and until you can explain the reason that the room warms (remember, it has to be something other than the enhanced GHE), you are tacitly admitting that your logic is circular.
This message will be repeated until you either concede that your 1) to 5) is circular logic, or the discussion closes for comments, whichever happens first.
Convection can warm the atmosphere, with or without GHGs.
Sorry I keep assuming too much common ground in this discussion.
Suh-varn-tay (I like to know how to pronounce someone’s name, is that anything like right?), don’t worry. There’s plenty of common ground. Now that the obsessive weirdo has hopefully left us alone, finally, we can maybe talk rationally. Now, I don’t disagree with you that convection can warm the atmosphere. But, you have to remember, we are talking about the enhanced GHE here. We don’t just need a reason for the room to be warm. We need a reason for it to get warmER. I know I keep saying “need”. I know that we don’t literally “need” it. It’s just that for your 1) to 5) not to be circular logic, we need a reason for that room to get warmER, besides the enhanced GHE.
Compare the case of no GHE with the current GHE.
Can you not interpolate any intermediate value?
If you can interpolate, why can you not extrapolate?
Repetition #1:
Svante, you need another heat source, or some mechanism for the room getting warmer. Unless and until you can explain the reason that the room warms (remember, it has to be something other than the enhanced GHE), you are tacitly admitting that your logic is circular.
This message will be repeated until you either concede that your 1) to 5) is circular logic, or the discussion closes for comments, whichever happens first.
No, you do not need another heat source.
Remember the analogy, it was reduced cooling that increased the device temperature.
When you said I had to explain the enhanced GHE, did that mean that you understand the GHE, or shall I explain both?
Repetition #2:
Svante, you need another heat source, or some mechanism for the room getting warmer. Unless and until you can explain the reason that the room warms (remember, it has to be something other than the enhanced GHE), you are tacitly admitting that your logic is circular.
This message will be repeated until you either concede that your 1) to 5) is circular logic, or the discussion closes for comments, whichever happens first.
When you said I had to explain the enhanced GHE, did that mean that you understand the basic GHE, or shall I explain both?
Its your 1) to 5), Svante. Its your words, and your faulty logic, that you are running from. Do you need me to explain basic logic to you, again, Svante?
No, you do not need another heat source.
Remember the analogy, it was reduced cooling that increased the device temperature.
Can you accept that reduced cooling will do?
Reduced cooling affecting the device temperature is what you were trying to get to with the room warming! With a warmer room, the cooling of the device is reduced. You still need to explain the warming of the room.
Remember your 1) to 5), Svante. You need the room to warm for the temperature difference between the room and the device to decrease, As you are saying you need no additional heat source, then you need another mechanism besides the enhanced GHE to explain the warming of the room, or else your logic is circular.
If you wish to change your 1) to 5) to describe the enhanced GHE in a way that isnt logically flawed, then just admit you got it wrong, and rewrite it all out. Stop wasting time trying to wriggle your way out of your own words.
There is a feedback, but it is not needed to prove my point because convection can keep the atmosphere warm.
GHGs will assume the temperature of the layer they are in.
If the surface sees these GHGs instead of space it will have a lower T^4 difference, hence less cooling.
Where is the flaw in these three statements?
You need the room to get warmER, not just be warm.
That’s done by making the atmosphere more opaque in IR.
The surface sees a shorter distance, i.e lower altitude, i.e a warmer temperature, in IR.
The “room” seems warmer because it is smaller.
According to your 1) to 5), you need the room to get warmer, so that the temperature difference between the device and the room is reduced. You dont need the room to SEEM warmer, or smaller, or lower, etc. You need it to physically get warmer.
With the device losing energy to the room, some of it will radiate to the walls.
The air nearest the device will be warmer than the walls.
If you put up screens the surrounding air will make them warmer than the walls, so S-B will give you less cooling and the device must warm up.
Did the room get warmer?
Svante, these are your words:
1) His device has a certain input power.
2) At equilibrium, input and output power must be equal,
3) Net output power depends on the T^4 difference between the device and the room.
4) If the room gets warmer the device runs an energy surplus and must warm until equilibrium is restored.
5) Earth must restore reduced radiative cooling in the same way.
Nowhere is there any mention of putting up screens, the temperature of the walls, or any of the nonsense you are now bringing up.
If want to rewrite your 1) to 5), you first need to admit it was wrong.
Sorry the screens confused you. It’s good that you ask when you don’t understand!
You are OK with 1) to 4), aren’t you?
Do you know that energy loss rate depends on temperature difference, regardless of whether it’s conduction, convection or radiation?
In 5) you just need to apply your S-B skills like I mentioned before.
Your problem is that in order to reduce the temperature difference between the room and the device, you need the room to get warmer. Your number 4).
You can always ask if you dont understand basic logic, although I have explained it to you again and again. Perhaps logic just isnt your thing.
Fair enough, let’s define “the room” to be that part of the sky that you can see in IR.
Now we can agree!
You can define it to be whatever you want; but you need a reason for it to get warmer, other than the enhanced GHE, or your logic is circular.
Plus of course, it needs to be surrounding the device, if the temperature difference between the device and the room is to be reduced.
I assume to much from you again!
The atmosphere surrounds the earth.
Indeed. Now, for what reason does it get warmer, besides the enhanced GHE?
The “room” gets warmer because the optical thickness increases (and the “room” shrinks into warmer parts of the atmosphere).
There, no circular logic!
Hilarious. No, it is a perfect example of circular logic.
1) His device has a certain input power.
2) At equilibrium, input and output power must be equal,
3) Net output power depends on the T^4 difference between the device and the room.
4) If the room gets warmer, due to the enhanced GHE, the device runs an energy surplus and must warm until equilibrium is restored.
5) Earth must restore reduced radiative cooling in the same way.
One of your premises (4) involved in getting to your conclusion, is a result of your conclusion!
You changed 4).
The original 1) to 4) was about the device, did you agree on the original four?
The only thing I added to 4) was “due to the enhanced GHE”. Are you in denial Svante?
Can I ask you a question?
How do you think the GHE works?
Can I ask you a question?
Are you pathologically incapable of admitting you are wrong?
Not if you provide compelling answers to my questions.
I’ll take that as a “yes”.
Perhaps you’re just not very good at explaining, I really don’t know what your thoughts are, except that they are circular.
Gordo, Your deviant physics is great entertainment. For example, there’s this bit of nonsense:
Your so-called maximum temperature is the steady state temperature for which the energy leaving the body equals that entering it. In the usual situation involving the atmosphere, the the energy exits via conduction, convection and radiation all of which combined are your “dissipation” term. There is no such thing as a “maximum temperature” associated with a 100 watt input, since the temperature depends on the surroundings.
But, the said body also receives energy from the surroundings and it doesn’t matter whether the surroundings are hotter or colder than the body in question. Once a photon leaves a body with a discrete wavelength, it no longer has any connection to the source, so the body which it intercepts along it’s path will respond the same as it would to a similar photon from a warmer body.
Besides, tell us exactly how an intervening body can “interfere with the heat dissipation of the hotter body”. Use some accepted physics, if you can.
ES, that’s just another of your continuing attempts to deny physics.
You wrote –
“Besides, tell us exactly how an intervening body can interfere with the heat dissipation of the hotter body. Use some accepted physics, if you can.”
You are obviously too thick to think for yourself, so I’ll give an example for others.
A transistor junction (a body) will fail if it gets too hot. Agreed?
A transistor junction is sorrounded by material to support the junction physically, without affecting the junctions electronic characteristics. Agreed?
The external surface of the support material is colder than the junction at operational temperatures. Agreed?
The support material interferes with the heat dissipation of the hotter body. Agreed?
Using deep cryogenic methods will reduce the extent of the unwanted interference to the heat dissipation, but you probably wouldn’t believe that, I suppose.
Off you go then. Maybe you could describe the GHE sufficiently that someone could propose a testable GHE hypothesis, but I assume your delusional devotion to the impossible scrambles your ability to think clearly.
Cheers.
swannie…”Your so-called maximum temperature is the steady state temperature for which the energy leaving the body equals that entering it”.
I explained that my max. T is the temp a heated body would reach if it was prevented from dissipating any heat it had accumulated. The T you are describing is temp the body would FALL to depending on the degree of dissipation permitted. If you interfere with the dissipation, the body warms up.
It has been my experience in the electronics and electrical fields that if you suppress dissipation, heated bodies tend to burn up. If you apply cooler air, the bodies tend to cool. I have never seen a heated body warm from the application of cooler air.
Gordo wrote:
Yes, convection using a flow of cooler air may result in a lower temperature. However, your other claim about a “maximum temperature” ignores the other pathways for cooling, such as conduction and radiation. Those pathways are also “dissipation”, so-to-speak, and the highest temperature reached is the result of the energy flowing thru ALL THE PATHs to the surrounding environment.
Your “100 watt heater” might well be a halogen light bulb, which attains a temperature around 3000K and emits visible EM radiation as a result. That temperature is also a steady state temperature and is the result of a careful engineering design effort to balance the energy flowing thru the light bulb to the surroundings to achieve just that high value for temperature and no higher, else the filament would be destroyed. The filament is not “accumulating” thermal energy, it has reached steady state such that the energy flowing in is equal to that exiting, i.e., equilibrium.
Of course, your analogy uses convection cooling and says nothing about the effects of IR EM radiation, which is a different physical process.
ES, did you have a point, or just needed typing practice?
ES,
You wrote
“Besides, tell us exactly how an intervening body can interfere with the heat dissipation of the hotter body. Use some accepted physics, if you can.”
I responded –
“You are obviously too thick to think for yourself, so Ill give an example for others.”
And I did. I made some basic statements, and asked step by whether you agreed. You chose not to answer, as is your perfect right.
However, demanding an answer to a question, and implying you already know that the answer provided will be factually wrong, is the mark of the stupid and ignorant troll.
What is your next stupid gotcha? As witless as the last one?
Still no GHE. Still no heating of water using ice (or heating of anything by something colder). Still no CO2 heating.
Your religious conviction has overtaken your common sense.
Cheers.
swannie…”convection using a flow of cooler air may result in a lower temperature. However, your other claim about a maximum temperature ignores the other pathways for cooling, such as conduction and radiation”.
Once again, I stipulated that my Tmax is the temperature of the heated body with all radiation, conduction, and convection suppressed. It’s the temperature the body would reach based on its heat source alone if it was prevented from dissipating any of the heat.
Gordo wrote:
With your new definition, TMax is the temperature at which the body self destructs, such as would result from a phase change from solid to liquid. Your Tax is meaningless without specifying the material used. since the melting point would change accordingly, for example, aluminum vs. steel vs. titanium.
Be that as it may, your comments continue to ignore the fact that radiant heat transfer is a different physical process from conduction or convection. That being the case, your continued claims, which appear to be based on general concepts of conduction or convection, when applied to IR RM radiation, are false.
Gordon Robertson says:
Since you are referring to a cooler body it is IMPOSSIBLE for that body to increase the temperature of the hotter body via radiation or conduction.
Still wrong.
Blackbody A at temperature TA emits radiation in all directions. Now introduce another blackbody B, which, being a blackbody, absorbs all of the radiation it receives from A.
What happens to the temperature of B when it absorbs some of A’s energy?
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2018/09/my-tucker-carlson-interview-last-night-and-calling-out-bill-nye-james-hansen/#comment-321159
Mike,
“The peculiarities of Venus retrograde rotation, no moons, no apparent plate tectonics, and so on, combined with an atmosphere somewhat similar to that of the infant Earth, easily explain the high observed surface temperature.”
I know, right? Great point about “no moons” heating things up!
MF,
I assume you are trying to disagree with something I wrote, and not just trolling for no particular reason.
What are you trying to say? You don’t seem to be capable of producing any relevant facts, just a couple of meaningless and pointless comments.
Are you possibly a worshipper of the mysterious GHE, perchance? Luckily for its worshippers, the GHE cannot be explained, and is claimed to be responsible for floods, droughts, heating, cooling, hurricanes, massive boulders raining down on our heads, etc., all supposedly due to burning coal – at least according to the Prophet Hansen.
Complete nonsense, of course. Delusional fanaticism writ large. No testable GHE hypothesis, no AGW theory, no science at all!
Press on. Pray harder. Maybe you can stop Venus and the Earth from cooling, using the power of your devotion, but I have doubts. Let me know how you get on.
Cheers.
Mike
Why the hostile tone? I thought we were mates.
MF,
You may think whatever you wish. Nothing to do with me. I’m not sure what a presumed hostile tone (I assume it is a diversionary tactic of some sort) has to do with the fact that you are unable to express yourself clearly in any comprehensible fashion.
You can let me know how you get on with your prayerful attempts to stop Venus and the Earth cooling – or not, as you wish.
What difference does it make? You can imagine hostility from all directions if you like. You can imagine that someone you know nothing about, and probably care about even less, is your mate, to your heart’s desire, I suppose.
You can even imagine you can describe the GHE – good luck with that!
In the meantime, keep on gibbering. All part of the stupid and ignorant tactics of the GHE true believer – deny, divert, and confuse. I wish you well.
Cheers.
Mike Flynn has obviously figured out the phony “M. Flynnstone” is the phony Ms Snape. Her childish antics, and inability to enter comments correctly, are the tells.
DA…”The SB Law has nothing to do with any second object. It simply states the total energy radiated by a blackbody”.
Stefan’s Law deals with radiation from one body but S-B has two temperatures in it. One T is the T of the radiating body and T is a measure of heat. The other T is the temperature of the other body or the environment immediately surrounding the emitting body.
Essentially, S-B is measuring the heat difference between two bodies and determining the EM intensity from that difference.
It should be noted, however, than when S-B issued the law neither were aware of EM. They gave units to the EM intensity based on the belief that heat was flowing through space.
“Essentially, S-B is measuring the heat difference between two bodies and determining the EM intensity from that difference.
It should be noted, however, than when S-B issued the law neither were aware of EM. They gave units to the EM intensity based on the belief that heat was flowing through space.”
Assuming you are correct, in what way does belief that heat was flowing through space, make a difference?
gbaikie…”Assuming you are correct, in what way does belief that heat was flowing through space, make a difference?”
Good question. Not sure I have the correct answer. Basically, it comes down to the 2nd law. If heat was flowing through space it had to obey the 2nd law and could never flow from cold to hot as some modernists claim for EM.
Heat flow through space would require a movement of mass since heat in a gas is related to the mass of the gas. This seemed to confuse the lads at the time of Clausius, Stefan, Planck, etc. who presumed an aether through which heat could flow as rays. Clausius knew as early as 1850 that heat was related to atoms but he was vague about heat transfer via radiation, although he did maintain that it must obey the 2nd law..
No one explained how it got converted to rays. Then again, the process which involved electrons could not have been known since electrons were not discovered till the 1890s and Bohr did not provide the relationship till 1913.
However, they must have known heat was related to atoms, which left them scratching their heads as to how it could move through space without apparent atomic motion. I’m not laughing at the lads, I regard them with the deepest respect for what they managed to accomplish given the information they had.
Given that they regarded heat as flowing through space, as ‘rays’, enabled by an aether, they attached the units of heat to the rays, which later turned out to be EM.
EM is an entirely different form of energy than heat and you can’t really attach units like watts to it. It certainly has the ‘potential’ to induce heat in a body when converted to heat ‘in atoms’, but while in transit through space, it contains no heat as we understand it. EM is comprised only of an electric field perpendicular to a magnetic field and neither contains heat.
Today, some people are confusing the two and presuming EM is heat. They are trying to rewrite the 2nd law to make allowance for that mistaken analogy.
If heat was flowing through space there would be no problem with regard to the 2nd law. It simply would not flow cold to hot as Clausius stipulated for radiation. However, some modernists are claiming a net energy balance of EM and using that to justify the contradiction of the 2nd law.
“Gordon Robertson says:
September 21, 2018 at 6:38 PM
gbaikieAssuming you are correct, in what way does belief that heat was flowing through space, make a difference?
Good question. Not sure I have the correct answer. Basically, it comes down to the 2nd law. If heat was flowing through space it had to obey the 2nd law and could never flow from cold to hot as some modernists claim for EM.”
Some modernists are wrong.
Though if you insulate a heat source which cooling and thereby inhibt the loss of energy/heat, if heat source can increase in temperature, it will. Such a thing is applicable to the sun or a star. Also applicable to a lightbulb. But it is not vaguely a violation of 2nd law.
Things burn at certain temperature, like wood, and can’t get a higher temperature then it’s combustion temperature.
Or whole wacky conspiracy of jet fuel not able to melt steel is actually true, but obviously steel weakens if you get to say 1/2 it’s melting temperature [or the jet kerosene didn’t need to melt steel].
gbaikie…”Though if you insulate a heat source which cooling and thereby inhibt the loss of energy/heat, if heat source can increase in temperature, it will”.
You have to distinguish warming up from not as cool.
If I heat a device electrically with 100 watts of electrical power, the device will respond by warming. However, there is an immediate cooling due to heat dissipation via conduction to air, convection, and radiating to space as heat is converted to EM.
What we want to know is how hot would that device get if conduction, convection, and radiation were totally suppressed. That temperature would be the absolute maximum natural temperature of the device provided it was operating in a cooler environment.
If we operate it in a cooler environment, as we usually do, the temperature of the device is not its absolute maximum wrt the power supplied. That’s because conduction, convection, and radiation immediately cool the device below that maximum. Therefore, the temperature we measure for a device in a room at 25C is far from the maximum temperature of the device.
If we start messing with the ambient conditions, by warming the room, or stifling conduction, convection or radiation, the device will start warming toward its maximal temperature but it cannot exceed that temperature unless we increase the room temperature so it exceeds the temperature of the device due to it’s internal heating source.
I don’t call that warming due to external factors, I call it returning to its natural, maximal temperature. In other words, the device temperature can only be controlled by the internal heating source even though ambient conditions can cool it.
Presuming our body temperature is 37C, if we go out in a cool or cold day, our body temperature will begin to drop. If we feel chilled, we can put on a jacket. The jacket serves to slow conduction and remove convective effects, although it still allows radiation. Our body will warm up but only because the internal bodily processes produce calories to warm the body.
If we are already hypothermic and we are low on fuel, the jacket won’t help. It’s like Mike said, if you put clothes on a dead body it won’t warm up. Again, the body warms due to its internal heat engine, not because you add insulation in the way of a jacket.
If you have an electrically-heated device in a room and you cover it with insulation, it will warm as well. The insulation is not warming it, all the insulation does is reduce the devices ability to rid itself of heat. Therefore, the internal heating raises the temperature.
On the other hand, if you had such a device heated internally and you turned off the power, adding all the insulating in the world would not stop it from cooling. Neither would the insulation raise its temperature.
gbalkie: Would you please quote the 2nd law for us?
Wiki:
“The first law of thermodynamics provides the basic definition of internal energy, associated with all thermodynamic systems, and states the rule of conservation of energy.The second law is concerned with the direction of natural processes.
It asserts that a natural process runs only in one sense, and is
not reversible. For example, heat always flows spontaneously from hotter to colder bodies, and never the reverse, unless external work is performed on the system. The explanation of the phenomena was given in terms of entropy. Total entropy (S) can never decrease over time for an isolated system because the entropy of an isolated system spontaneously evolves toward thermodynamic equilibrium: the entropy should stay the same or increase.”
That seems good enough.
Gordo, You have again made reference to some mysterious Tmax or “maximum temperature” for a body if energy is added at a fixed rate and there’s no “dissipation” or loss of energy via conduction, convection or radiant heat transfer. As I noted above, in such a situation, there’s no theoretical maximum, except that of the limits imposed by the physical characteristics of the body such the temperature at which the material melts, thus destroying a solid body. Furthermore, given that in reality, there is always going to be energy lost to the surroundings, your theoretical Tmax is meaningless with regard to the issue at hand.
You then wrote;
Yes, increasing said insulation will result in an increase in the temperature of the body in question because the body is being supplied with energy from an external source. But, that’s the whole point of the discussion, isn’t it? Increasing the net insulating effect of the atmosphere by adding CO2 will cause the surface temperature of the Earth to increase, other things being equal.
–E. Swanson says:
September 23, 2018 at 12:36 PM
Gordo, You have again made reference to some mysterious Tmax or âmaximum temperatureâ for a body if energy is added at a fixed rate and thereâs no âdissipationâ or loss of energy via conduction, convection or radiant heat transfer. As I noted above, in such a situation, thereâs no theoretical maximum, except that of the limits imposed by the physical characteristics of the body such the temperature at which the material melts, thus destroying a solid body. Furthermore, given that in reality, there is always going to be energy lost to the surroundings, your theoretical Tmax is meaningless with regard to the issue at hand.–
This is basis of term blackbody. If have cavity which is insulated and allow sunlight in thru pinhole, it reach a blackbody temperature.
And at 1 AU it’s about 120 C.
Or it indicates the temperature of the sun at distance of 1 AU.
If at .5 AU it’s a higher blackbody temperature and if it’s at 2 AU it’s a cooler blackbody temperature.
Or the energy density of sunlight decreases with distance from the sun.
And of course if you magnify the sunlight [increase the energy density], could get the same temperature as surface of the sun: 5,778 K.
“EM is an entirely different form of energy than heat and you cant really attach units like watts to it. It certainly has the potential to induce heat in a body when converted to heat in atoms, but while in transit through space, it contains no heat as we understand it. EM is comprised only of an electric field perpendicular to a magnetic field and neither contains heat.”
watts can be applied to to any energy- humans are a 100 watt animal, sunlight is about 1360 watts at 1 AU. And sunlight has temperature at 1 AU, it’s about 120 C. In regards to blackbody- various material will reach different temperatures. But roughly something will only reach a certain temperature and no more, at a distance like 1 AU.
And this why we have this pseudo science of the greenhouse effect theory- Venus “seems” to violates this idea. But I think it is quite explainable and I have explained it.
Which is basically the sun does not heat gas to a higher temperature than it’s temperature at .723 AU.
gbaikie…”watts can be applied to to any energy- humans are a 100 watt animal, sunlight is about 1360 watts at 1 AU. And sunlight has temperature at 1 AU, its about 120 C”.
The watt is actually derived from mechanical energy, which was originally the horsepower. There are 746 watts in 1 hp. Of course, as Clausius pointed out, heat and work are equivalent. The first law equates heat and work both externally as Q and W and internally as U.
No mention of EM there. However, if EM is absorbed by an electron in an atom, it will affect the kinetic energy of the electron and produce heat and work.
Having worked with EM for decades in electronics and communications, it is a peculiar form of energy. It is nothing more than an electric field traveling with a perpendicular magnetic field. It carries no heat whatsoever, but it is an energy that can be absorbed by atoms and converted to heat.
When you talk about heat from the Sun you are talking about the conversion of EM to heat. Human skin converts EM to heat but Appell is stuck back in the 19th century, maybe the 18th, believing that heat is transmitted through space.
I think it’s a mistake referring to EM in watts/m^2 since it has no measurement in watts till it contacts mass. It’s a convenient way of thinking of EM but watts don’t represent the energy in EM, which is measured in electron volts.
Someone will throw an equation at me equating eV to watts, but until that eV does work, it can’t really be expressed in watts. Where in empty space is EM doing work? I mean real work, not fantasy work?
EM is obviously heat, as you will quickly discover if you put your hand in a laser beam.
balkie says:
And sunlight has temperature at 1 AU, its about 120 C
What calculation gave you that?
The Sun is a blackbody. It emits light of all wavelengths. One can deduce the temperature of the (corona of) the Sun from the spectrum of this wavelength, but the light itself does not have a temperature.
“One can deduce the temperature of the (corona of) the Sun from the spectrum of this wavelength, but the light itself does not have a temperature.”
Do you doubt that about 1000 watts per square meter of sunlight reaching earth surface when sun is near zenith can heat to about 80 C?
This of course is not talking about magnified sunlight which can lit paper on fire or melt brick.
gbaikie says:
Do you doubt that about 1000 watts per square meter of sunlight reaching earth surface when sun is near zenith can heat to about 80 C?
This doesn’t mean sunlight has a particular temperature.
Again, how are your calculating the “temperature of sunlight?”
3:20pm: “EM is obviously heat, as you will quickly discover if you put your hand in a laser beam.”
The incident EM energy is absorbed & reflected, that absorbed is converted to KE of your hand molecules (heat) David. EM energy itself is not heat.
Since it is possible to concentrate the solar rays at a focus by passing them through a converging lens of ice, the latter remaining at a constant temperature of 32F, and so to ignite a ďŹammable body EMR is obviously not heat contrary to David’s oft stated belief.
Ball4 says:
The incident EM energy is absorbed & reflected, that absorbed is converted to KE of your hand molecules (heat) David. EM energy itself is not heat.
It’s a distinction without a difference.
Heat is what warms you. That includes EM radiation. That includes IR given off by the Earth’s surface.
Then by your own heat definition, David, EMR is not heat shown by the test I described since the solar EMR does not warm the ice.
Yes, solar warms ice.
Let’s not devolve into the truly absurd here, OK? Thanks.
Ball wrote:
Since it is possible to concentrate the solar rays at a focus by passing them through a converging lens of ice, the latter remaining at a constant temperature of 32F
In a phase transition, like ice -> water, the added heat first goes into the phase change (melting), which takes place at a constant temperature. THEN the temperature decreases.
—
This is how absurd the deniers get — they’re left to claim that sunlight doesn’t melt ice.
No answers from gbalkie.
“Yes, solar warms ice.”
Incorrect for this test, David, as the ice lens focused the solar rays and remained at constant temperature 32F frozen water in the ignition test performed couple hundred years ago proving beyond doubt EMR is not heat. Again, the ice did not warm above 32F in the test while focusing the incident solar rays which ignited a fire. You demonstrate not understanding the most basic physics here despite your claims of advanced study in physics.
Better: “Yes, solar warms ice.”
Incorrect for this test, David, as the ice lens focused the solar rays and remained at constant temperature 32F frozen water in the ignition test performed couple hundred years ago proving beyond doubt EMR is not heat. Again, the ice did not warm above 32F in the test while focusing the incident solar rays which ignited a fire. You demonstrate not understanding the most basic physics here despite your claims of advanced study in physics.
Gordon Robertson says:
If heat was flowing through space it had to obey the 2nd law and could never flow from cold to hot as some modernists claim for EM.
Gordon lies again.
The Earth emits radiation in all directions. What happens to the fraction of that radiation that reaches the Sun. Are you actually claiming the Sun does not absorb it???
DA…”What happens to the fraction of that radiation that reaches the Sun. Are you actually claiming the Sun does not absorb it???”
Yes…the Sun does not absorb it.
Gordon, how do you know the Sun doesn’t absorb it?
Where does it go?
Gordon Robertson says:
Heat flow through space would require a movement of mass since heat in a gas is related to the mass of the gas.
Wrong.
This, right here, is your wrong, erroneous, backward understanding.
EM can do work just as well as any gas, liquid or solid. It can be converted into energies, just as can the heat of a gas or liquid or solid. It carries entropy, just like a gas or liquid or solid.
There simply is no reason not to call EM “heat,” except that you want to deny greenhouse warming. To do so you need to make all kind of unphysical arguments like this, which are in disagreement with the real world.
Gordon Robertson says:
If heat was flowing through space it had to obey the 2nd law and could never flow from cold to hot as some modernists claim for EM
A lie.
Gordon knows he’s lying.
He’s lying on purpose.
Gordon ignores, on purpose, the adiabacity clause of the 2nd law.
Because he knows it means he will have to admit there is a greenhouse effect.
Imagine lying, on purpose, because you can’t accept reality.
You dont have to imagine it David, that is your life. PST
“There simply is no reason not to call EM “heat,””
There is a reason if one understands the basic physics of heat found through test. The solar rays do not warm the ice lens while starting a fire after passing through. This reason confuses many trying to understand atm. thermo. & especially Gordon.
Ball4 says:
The solar rays do not warm the ice lens while starting a fire after passing through.
Oh please — even you can’t believe that.
BALL:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2018/09/my-tucker-carlson-interview-last-night-and-calling-out-bill-nye-james-hansen/#comment-321380
“This is how absurd the deniers get – they’re left to claim that sunlight doesn’t melt ice.”
It is not just a claim, the result is from test 1st performed over hundred years ago at least. A test you can do at home; try it. Basic physics is easy to verify.
Gordon, there have been discussions on this topic elsewhere, but basically there is only one of the two equations that has any validity. The correct equation has only one “T”. It is called “Stefan-Boltzmann equation”, from the Law.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/StefanBoltzmann_law
The S/B equation relates the EM emitted by a surface (mass) to the temperature of the surface.
The other equation (two “Ts”) has little value in the real world, and is often used in pseudoscience to justify bogus results, such as the blue/green plates nonsense. Misuse of that equation results in a violation of 2LoT.
JD…”there have been discussions on this topic elsewhere, but basically there is only one of the two equations that has any validity”.
I’m going on the history relating to how Stefan developed the shorter version of the law.
https://home.iitm.ac.in/arunn/stefan-and-the-t-to-the-fourth-power-law.html
“Stefan’s T4 model was not immediately accepted. Thankfully, his first Ph. D. student, Boltzmann was able to produce conclusive theoretical corroboration by deriving the T4 model using radiation pressure of light”.
More of Stefan…
https://home.iitm.ac.in/arunn/stefan-and-the-diathermometer.html
With regard to the extended formula, which has to be pertinent since radiation from a body is also dependent on it’s surrounding environment. One would not expect the straight Stefan equation to apply were the body surrounded by a hot gas with a temperature greater than the body.
Note at the following link that the radiation is referred to as a radiation loss, which is also a heat loss.
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/thermo/stefan.html
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/thermo/stefan.html#c2
All in all, JD, this treatment respects the 2nd law.
JD…”The other equation (two Ts) has little value in the real world, and is often used in pseudoscience to justify bogus results, such as the blue/green plates nonsense. Misuse of that equation results in a violation of 2LoT”.
I get your point and I agree the equation can be used to mess with the 2nd law. The way it is used in that context is when people mess with the equation and alter it so heat can allegedly be transferred both ways.
As written, with just T^4hot – T^4cold it respects the 2nd law because heat can only be transferred from the hotter emitting body to a cooler environment. At one link I provided, they explain the situation where the T cold term is greater than the Thot term. You get a negative result, which means heat is now being transferred from the hotter environment to the cooler body.
I think that equation serves to defeat the GHE and the AGW pseudo-science since it prevents a cooler atmosphere transferring heat to the warmer surface.
Gordon Robertson says:
I think that equation serves to defeat the GHE and the AGW pseudo-science since it prevents a cooler atmosphere transferring heat to the warmer surface.
This is clearly wrong, or else night time temperatures on Earth’s surface would *plummet*.
You keep lying about the 2nd law. Don’t you get tired of lying like this? I mean, really, don’t you want to stop and be honest for once?
Dont you tire of accusing people of lying? PST
Gordon Robertson says:
Stefans Law deals with radiation from one body but S-B has two temperatures in it.
Wrong.
j=epsilon*sigma*T^4
Where is any mention of a second body??
DA…”j=epsilon*sigma*T^4
Where is any mention of a second body??”
**********
You are one serious dumbass.
The equation above is Stefan’s equation if you remove the epsilon. It describes the intensity of radiation from a body with temperature T. The sigma is Stefan’s constant, not to be confused with the Boltzmann constant which relates the average kinetic energy of a gas to its temperature.
The Wikipedia article relating to this is dead wrong. Stefan developed that equation on his own based on Tyndall’s experiment in which he heated a platinum wire electrically and recorded the different colours it gave off as the current was increased.
Boltzmann was Stefan’s his first Ph.D student and Boltzmann began investigating the radiation statistically. He used the Stefan Equation and derived a different equation:
P = ebA(T^4hot – T^4 cold)
In this case, the b = the Stefan-Boltzmann constant which is actually the Stefan constant from the first equation.
This is the equation from which you got the epsilon, which is the emissivity. A = surface area, T = temperature of the emitting body, and Tcold is the temperature of its environment.
The original Stefan equation did not have an area specified or an emissivity.
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/thermo/stefan.html
sigma = Stefan-Boltzmann constant, not “Stefan’s constant.”
You still didn’t explain: where in the SB Law j=esT^4 any mention of a second body?????
The original Stefan equation did not have an area specified or an emissivity.
That’s because Stefan was considering an ideal case. The emissivity generalizes the equation.
NO, frankly I don’t know what case Stefan was considering.
Nor does it matter. The SB Law is true for blackbodies. Read all the history you want, just don’t tell me what I’m supposed to think based on it. Science is the process of repeatedly overcoming past claims. You are unable to understand that.
Arguing with yourself, David?
Gordon Robertson says:
Essentially, S-B is measuring the heat difference between two bodies and determining the EM intensity from that difference.
Wrong.
Gordon, the things you don’t understand could fill an encyclopedia.
David Appell’s modus operandi is to link barely relevant publications by corrupt climate scientists as if they were wisdom on a par with the stone tablets delivered by Moses.
Upthread he delivered this link which appears to be his own work:
https://davidappell.blogspot.com/2012/04/norfolk-constabulary-made-wrong-charges.html
IMHO the mathematics appears to be impeccable and the corresponding numerical results are in close agreement with observations made by the Diviner LRE (Lunar Radiation Experiment).
While the equations are elegant they apply to a static situation so I don’t see how they could help determine the effect of rotation rate on the average temperature of airless bodies.
David’s equations do not account for the non-Lambertian nature of the Moon’s surface. David assumes that the Bond Albedo for the Moon is 0.11. Observations show that the Albedo is ~0.110 at noon falling to 0.390 when the sun is setting or rising.
https://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2012/04/09/ashwin-vavasada-lunar-equatorial-surface-temperatures-and-regolith-properties-from-the-diviner-lunar-radiometer-experiment/
David assumes that the night side of the Moon is a Stefan-Boltzman “Black Body” (emittance = 1.00). This is almost right but a better assumption would have been 0.95.
gallopingcamel says:
David assumes that the night side of the Moon is a Stefan-Boltzman Black Body (emittance = 1.00).
Completely wrong.
gallopingcamel says:
David assumes that the night side of the Moon is a Stefan-Boltzman Black Body (emittance = 1.00).
Again, this is badly wrong.
I assumed the dark side is at a constant temperature, at what it’s measured to be.
gallopingcamel says:
David assumes that the Bond Albedo for the Moon is 0.11. Observations show that the Albedo is ~0.110 at noon falling to 0.390 when the sun is setting or rising.
You clearly do not understand the first thing about my calculation.
I assumed POINTWISE equilibrium. Which is the case. At that point, albedo=0.11. The albedo at the edges is a second-order effect.
You don’t like that very simple physics give the right answers, INCLUDING THE SHAPE OF THE EQUATORIAL TEMPERATURE CURVE.
No other model does that.
“No other model does that.”
False. Vasavada, Channon, “br” and this camel have models that reproduce the measured equatorial temperature with great precision.
You say that the night side temperature is constant. Please tell me that is a typo…..nobody believes that!
The nightside is close to constant — close enough to ignore for this exercise, which is really about the calculation of radiative transfer.
What equations is your model based on? (For the daylight side.)
Ooops! I meant to link the full Vasavada paper so yer tiz:
https://tallbloke.files.wordpress.com/2012/04/lunar-equatorial-surface-temperature_2012.pdf
You will find the 8th order Albedo polynomial on page 9 eq.(1).
There are now at least four independent models that are in close agreement with Vasavada including this one:
https://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2014/04/18/a-new-lunar-thermal-model-based-on-finite-element-analysis-of-regolith-physical-properties/
What equations of physics go into your model?
Low solar activity will not allow the development of El Nino.
https://www.tropicaltidbits.com/analysis/ocean/nino12.png
The strong decrease in the speed of the solar wind and wave of jet stream over Europe.
Low solar activity will not allow the development of El Nino.
Baloney. Solar has nothing to do with El Ninos.
DA…”Solar has nothing to do with El Ninos.”
Have you been reading Bill Nye again.
ENSO is about a difference in ocean temperature between Australia and South America. Where do you think the heat came from?
Drops index Nino 3.
https://www.tropicaltidbits.com/analysis/ocean/nino3.png
ren…what should we expect, El Nino, La Nina, or neutral?
Due to the meridional jetstream, ENSO is still neutral.
Sure Gordon, as if ren, a champion cut-and-paster, has any idea what ENSO will be.
DA…”Sure Gordon, as if ren, a champion cut-and-paster, has any idea what ENSO will be”.
I respect ren’s knowledge in meteorology and matters like ENSO. As a clown, you respect no one but cheating, lying alarmists.
Gordon Robertson says:
I respect rens knowledge in meteorology and matters like ENSO.
Based on what? His ability to cut and paste?
Or his ability to ignore the subject of a post?
The lack of coronal holes on the solar equator means a large decrease in geomagnetic activity.
https://files.tinypic.pl/i/00971/n5e0fr5q0ubc.png
The jet stream in the Pacific will fall south.
http://tropic.ssec.wisc.edu/real-time/mtpw2/product.php?color_type=tpw_nrl_colors&prod=epac×pan=24hrs&anim=html5
Gordon Robertson, for El Nino to be formed, the upper winds over the equator must be constant for a long period of time. Otherwise, the surface temperature of the ocean on the equator will change.
https://www.longpaddock.qld.gov.au/soi/
A cool area in the Eastern South Pacific shows the direction of cold winds along the coast of South America.
https://www.ospo.noaa.gov/data/sst/anomaly/2018/anomw.9.20.2018.gif
Gordon Robertson says:
ENSO is about a difference in ocean temperature between Australia and South America. Where do you think the heat came from?
By your argument, the ENSO state will always be El Nino, since the sun shines on a cycle every single day.
What’s the ENSO *oscillation* due to, Gordon?? What governs the oscillation (which isn’t periodic, despite the sun being so)?
DA,
From the IPCC –
“In climate research and modelling, we should recognise that we are dealing with a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore that the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible.”
If you don’t agree, prove that the IPCC’s statement is wrong.
Non-linear chaos – unpredictable.
Think about it – then shoot your mouth off again, and again, and . . .
Cheers.
gallopingcamel says:
David assumes that the Bond Albedo for the Moon is 0.11. Observations show that the Albedo is ~0.110 at noon falling to 0.390 when the sun is setting or rising.
You clearly do not understand the first thing about my calculation.
I assumed POINTWISE equilibrium. Which is the case. At that point, albedo=0.11. The albedo at the edges is a second-order effect.
You don’t like that very simple physics give the right answers, INCLUDING THE SHAPE OF THE EQUATORIAL TEMPERATURE CURVE.
No other model does that.
David Appell finds himself unable to describe the GHE, let alone alone propose a testable GHE hypothesis.
And so, as is the wont of the climatological pseudoscientific cultist, tries to deny, divert, and confuse, by arguing about something irrelevant, but sounding very sciency indeed.
Models versus other models, all of which are quite irrelevant. Why do I say this? The Moon has no atmosphere or CO2, David argues about which estimate is better, and then involves the magic of the “average” in his calculations.
Pseudoscientists love averages. Unfortunately, generally, averages are anything but helpful. A fair coin is said to produce 50% heads, 50% tails – on average. Impossible in 50% of cases – if the number of tosses is odd, the number of heads can never equal the number of tails. And then the weaselling out of the original statement starts. In any case, what good does your assumption do? Will the next toss result in a head or a tail?
Calculate PDFs until you are blue in the face, and collapsing from exhaustion – you have achieved nothing. The predictive power of the average is precisely zero.
As to temperatures, an average temperature of 25 may result from a maximum of 30, and a minimum of 20. Or a maximum of 50 and a minimum of 0. Ignoring this fairly obvious fact has resulted in the death of military personnel in a number of cases,
Still no GHE. No CO2 heating. So sad, too bad.
Cheers.
@David Appell,
“I assumed the dark side is at a constant temperature, at what its measured to be.”
The night side temperature of the Moon is not constant. Your post included a plot of the Diviner LRE measurements of the lunar equatorial temperature that shows a temperature of 115 Kelvin at lunar sunset and 94 Kelvin at sunrise.
My model tracks the night time temperature with great accuracy as does Vasavada’s one dimensional model, Tim Channon’s model and another model by “br”.
https://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2014/04/18/a-new-lunar-thermal-model-based-on-finite-element-analysis-of-regolith-physical-properties/
The Moon’s night side is close to a constant, esp compared to its bright side.
I don’t find anything about your link at Tallbloke to be understandable. You don’t explain any of the physics you’re using, just hint at some models that are completely unexplained.
The relevant question is about radiative transfer on the Moon. Why, therefore, are the details of the dark side relevant? The dark side is about heat conduction through the lunar regolith, which the darkside temperatures alone show is quite small.
@David Appell,
“Close to constant” does not cut it in real science. The measured difference between dusk and dawn at the lunar equator is 115 – 94 = 21 Kelvin. Just read the graph you included in your own post.
All four of the models I listed track the night side temperature with and RMS error of <0.1 Kelvin.
The tracking precision is not so good on the day side (RMS error <1 Kelvin) owing to the complex nature of the Moon's Albedo.
My lunar model is radiative-conductive. The conductive properties of the Moon were taken from Apollo program measurements that you can find in the Vasavada paper and the radiative constants were selected to minimize the "least square" difference between observations and model.
You still haven’t said a single word about your physics.
WHERE ARE YOUR EQUATIONS?
Does your model predict the Moon’s surface temperature all along the dayside equator? Viz, not just the average temperature?
Mine does.
Yes, and the RMS error relative to the Diviner LRE curve you included in your post is ~0.66 Kelvin.
The quality of the “fit” can be better appreciated by looking at “Figure i” in the link below. The green plot is the Diviner LRE data and the yellow plot is my model.
https://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2014/08/27/extending-a-new-lunar-thermal-model-part-ii-modelling-an-airless-earth/
Results were calculated for a total of 455 time intervals, each of 93.8 minutes. On the Moon that time interval corresponds to a 0.8 degree change in solar elevation.
WHERE ARE YOUR EQUATIONS? VIZ, YOUR MODEL?
Why are you hiding your physics??
Calm down, troll.
Soon there will be a strong impact of the northern jetstream in the northeast of the US.
Sorry.
https://images.tinypic.pl/i/00971/prsw7d752463.png
Upthread David Appell commented:
“GC wrote:
At last, under president Trump, things are starting to improve for the Little People
How so, specifically?”
This video clip is intended to give him a hint:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qc7HmhrgTuQ
I don’t see at all how that video clip was meant to answer my question.
I was serious. It’s unfortunate you weren’t.
Leftists have no sense of humor.
Trump will do as much for the “Little People” as the Romans did for the its subjects in what is now Israel.
He has been in office for less than two years but it is amazing how much positive change has already occurred.
Donald Trump has done many things to transform the USA in ways that create jobs rather than dependency. Here are just a few of the items that have helped to raise the wages of the lowest quartile of our population after decades of stagnation:
1. Reducing taxes
2. Eliminating thousands of job killing regulations
3. Negotiating fairer trade deals
4. Discouraging illegal immigration
Darn it! I let David sucker me into going Off Topic again. Bad Camel!
In fact, job gains are *declining* under Trump.
Job gains in Trump’s first 19 months: 3.59 M
During Obama’s last 19 months: 3.95 M
data sources:
FRED.org series USPRIV and USGOVT
1. Reducing taxes
Only for the wealthy.
2. Eliminating thousands of job killing regulations
Proof?
3. Negotiating fairer trade deals
“Fairer” how? Define “fairer?”
4. Discouraging illegal immigration
If true, why are job gains slowing down under Trump?
I hope Trump will help the homeless problem:
http://theweek.com/articles/759683/americas-homelessness-crisis
I’m sure big tax cuts for the wealthy will do exactly that.
The “Media” make a big deal about homelessness whenever a Republican occupies the White House.
Under Obama homelessness increased and home ownership decreased but the lying dishonest “Media” refused to report it.
Actually, home ownership started dropping under Bush Jr:
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/RHORUSQ156N
It continued after Bush’s Great Recession, and turned around under Obama.
US homelessness declined under Obama:
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-42248999
Gordon Robertson wrote:
Since you are referring to a cooler body it is IMPOSSIBLE for that body to increase the temperature of the hotter body via radiation or conduction.
Still wrong.
Blackbody A at temperature TA emits radiation in all directions. Now introduce another blackbody B, which, being a blackbody, absorbs all of the radiation it receives from A.
What happens to the temperature of B when it absorbs some of As energy?
DA,
About the same as what happens to the temperature of water when it absorbs energy from ice.
Nothing positive, that’s for sure. It doesn’t matter how much you attempt to deny, divert and confuse, you cannot raise the temperature of a warmer object by forcing it to to gain energy from a colder body.
You would wind up with the ridiculous situation where the warmer body would progressively suck all the energy from the cooler, which would keep dropping in temperature as its internal energy was reduced, all the way to absolute zero!
Are you still sure you can get water to get hotter by sucking the heat energy out of ice, or do you have to invoke the magic of the mythical GHE to assist?
Ignorant, stupid, foolish – and gullible.
Cheers.
DA…”Blackbody A at temperature TA emits radiation in all directions. Now introduce another blackbody B, which, being a blackbody, absorbs all of the radiation it receives from A.
What happens to the temperature of B when it absorbs some of As energy?”
Blackbody theory was proposed by Kircheoff circa 1850. All of his work was done at thermal equilibrium. I am afraid blackbody theory cannot be applied in general as K. described it for thermal equilibrium.
There is no such thing as a blackbody as described, whereby a BB absorbs all energy incident upon it. The closest we can come is black surfaces, but if you have a black surface radiating at 50C and another radiating at 0C, the 2nd law tells us there will be no heat transfer from the cooler body to the warmer body.
Quantum theory explains it. EM is emitted by electrons and represents an energy conversion from thermal energy to electromagnetic energy. EM is produced and heat disappears. That’s why a body cools as it radiates EM.
To emit EM, an electron must fall through one or more energy orbitals, where the difference between each energy orbital is E, in eV. The EM emitted is described by E = hf.
In order for the process to reverse, the incident EM must have energy E = hf that matches the frequency of the electron and the exact energy required to raise the electron by one or more energy levels.
EM from a cooler body lacks the frequency, hence the energy to raise the potential absorbing electron. If E = hf does not match the electron requirements it is ignored.
Resonance is a very important phenomenon in electronics and atomic processes. The incoming EM energy, in a sense, must resonate with the energy in the electron. If there is no resonance, nothing happens, just as with a narrow band filter in electronics.
Cam…fell free to butt in if you have anything to add or another POV.
Gordon, so many of your ideas are half-formed, ancient and not thought out at all.
Also, you choose not to learn. You choose not to even think about what’s presented to you.
You make deliberate decisions to lie. You aren’t just mistaken, you’re a liar.
To emit EM, an electron must fall through one or more energy orbitals, where the difference between each energy orbital is E, in eV.
So wrong.
EM radiation can emitted in transitions between any two energy molecular or quantum states. It hardly requires the transition of an election. Many examples suffice, but you’ll ignore the ones I give, just as you’ve ignored them in the past. Because you have no interest in learning.
EM is emitted by electrons and represents an energy conversion from thermal energy to electromagnetic energy. EM is produced and heat disappears.
One definition of heat is “the transfer of energy.” (See: heat equation.) That means EM is clearly heat while a box of gas at a constant temperature isn’t, unless some of the gas’s internal energy is being transferred by some means, like through the box’s walls.
GR says:
The incoming EM energy, in a sense, must resonate with the energy in the electron. If there is no resonance, nothing happens, just as with a narrow band filter in electronics.
Clearly you didn’t learn anything beyond electronics, and can’t think beyond it. What a shame.
David, please stop trolling.
@ David Appell,
This really hurts.
For once you are right and I am going to be in a bunch of trouble with Dr. Roy’s faithful for saying so.
DA says: “Blackbody A at temperature TA emits radiation in all directions. Now introduce another blackbody B, which, being a blackbody, absorbs all of the radiation it receives from A.”
DA, “black bodies” are imaginary concepts. We live in the real world. Embrace reality and learn some physics.
Many objects very closely approximate a blackbody. Like (esp) the Sun.
That’s why their emission spectra follow the Planck curve.
That’s why the concept is so useful.
“very closely approximate” does not mean you can violate 2LoT, clown.
.
❶①❶①❶①❶①
❶①❶①❶①❶①
❶①❶①❶①❶①
❶①❶①❶①❶①
.
Is Tamino a moron?
Tamino thinks that he has “proved” that my graph (which I call a global warming contour map), is wrong. And many of Tamino’s followers, believe him.
You can imagine, that I am not very happy about this situation. I have spent over 2 years developing my graph, gradually improving it, and thoroughly testing it. I consider it to be a fairly unique, accurate, and reliable graph. You might think that my claims are just bragging, by a conceited loser. But let me tell you about my expertise…
In this article, I use the same “logic” that Tamino used to “prove” that my graph is wrong, to “prove” that Tamino is a moron.
https://agree-to-disagree.com/is-tamino-a-moron
No, Tamino definitely is not a moron. He’s a very smart guy.
If you have a problem with something he wrote, then comment over there instead of here, because no one here has any idea what you’re on about. Thank you.
David,
Tamino refuses to publish any of my comments, on his website.
I would discuss the problem with him, but has not published an email address, and does not have a “Contact” button on his website.
Once, when I posted a comment on one of his threads, he accused me of trying to hijack his thread.
Did you read my article, before you jumped to Tamino’s defense?
If you don’t understand what I am on about, then you should read my article.
Does it sound like I am telling a lie?
When YOU try to defend the indefensible, it makes YOU and Tamino look like morons.
Sheldon Walker says:
Tamino refuses to publish any of my comments, on his website.
So what?
It’s his blog, he can do what he wants with it.
He has sometimes refused to publish my comment as well.
So what?
No, I didn’t read your link (which is not an “article”), nor am I going to. Your remarks are prima facie false.
That’s right David, if you don’t look at the evidence, then you can pretend that your fantasy is true.
How do you know that my link isn’t an article, if you didn’t look at it?
Because I’ve written hundreds of “articles.” I know the standards and the work involved. And your blog post is nothing whatsoever like an “article.”
http://www.davidappell.com/publications.html
So you did read the link.
Liars, damn liars and statisticians!
Tamino may be a moron but that probably matters less than the fact that he is a liar.
Tamino is also intolerant of dissident thought as you have discovered.
I have been banned from dozens of Alarmist group think blogs and consider those bans to be badges of honor.
DA…”Is Tamino a moron?”
Tamino, like other alarmists, deal in pseudo-science. Just ignore him.
Hilarious — Gordon thinks he gets to judge Tamino.
Dunning Kruger. It really should be named the Dunning-Kruger-Robertson effect. DKR.
David, please stop trolling.
Have you noticed that no one pays the slightest bit of attention to your commands?
You’re the biggest troller here.
Im not surprised that people dont seem to want to stop trolling, but politely asking them not to is the least disruptive method of attempting to prevent it that I could think of.
David Appell wrote –
“The Earth emits radiation in all directions. What happens to the fraction of that radiation that reaches the Sun. Are you actually claiming the Sun does not absorb it???”
Adding three question marks does not make David’s gotcha any less stupid.
If a photon emitted from the Earth is sufficiently energetic to interact with an electron contained within the Sun, it will do so. The chances of this happening are probably as likely as anyone being able to describe the GHE, Michael Mann getting a Nobel Prize, or David giving up stupid and ignorant gotchas.
In any event, he might try calculating the probability of the energy contained in all photons emitted by the Antarctic ice cap being capable of warming one microgram of water. It is possible, but I wouldn’t hold my breath waiting for it to happen.
No David, you cannot raise the temperature of an object, by expecting it to “absorb heat” from a colder object. Even your beloved insulators provide no heat, from themselves. Nor does CO2.
No GHE. No testable GHE hypothesis, nor any AGW theory based on the mythical GHE.
Carry on with the silliness. It will no doubt help to obscure the fact that you can’t even describe the mythical GHE.
Cheers.
It grieves me to agree with David Appell while annoying many of the fine folk here.
Thanks to Stefan-Boltzmann you can be assured that energy can be transferred from colder bodies to warmer ones. It blows my mind that this questions wastes so much time on this web site when the physics is so straightforward.
Imagine a really hairy laser putting out giga-Watt pulses of photons. It will cause significant heating of another body regardless of what the temperature of the receiving surface is.
What matters is the percentage of the incident photons that are absorbed and that will vary according to wavelength and the properties of the absorbing surface.
–gallopingcamel says:
September 22, 2018 at 9:55 PM
It grieves me to agree with David Appell while annoying many of the fine folk here.
Thanks to Stefan-Boltzmann you can be assured that energy can be transferred from colder bodies to warmer ones. It blows my mind that this questions wastes so much time on this web site when the physics is so straightforward.
Imagine a really hairy laser putting out giga-Watt pulses of photons. It will cause significant heating of another body regardless of what the temperature of the receiving surface is.–
I don’t find him annoying- wrong is different matter.
You can stir something with stick and heat anything.
What is significant of using a powerful laser in regard to cold warming something hot?
cam…”Thanks to Stefan-Boltzmann you can be assured that energy can be transferred from colder bodies to warmer ones. It blows my mind that this questions wastes so much time on this web site when the physics is so straightforward”.
Cam, you’re going to have to re-evaluate. S-B is based on a heat transfer from a hotter body to a cooler environment. It does not apply when the environment is hotter than the body.
Read the history of Stefan and how he developed his equation. It is based on Tyndall, who heated a platinum filament electrically and observed the colour changes as the current was increased. Another scientist attached temperatures to the colours and Stefan used those temperatures to derive the T^4 relationship between EM and heat.
There are modernists who have reversed the equation to claim a cold to hot heat transfer but they are wrong. Nowhere in S-B is a cold to hot heat transfer implied.
The 2nd law in words: heat can NEVER by its own means be transferred from a colder body to a warmer body. Even the entropy version states the same thing, basically because Clausius stated the 2nd law first then developed the mathematical version involving entropy.
There is a lot of bs circulating at universities these days.
Gordon Robertson says:
The 2nd law in words: heat can NEVER by its own means be transferred from a colder body to a warmer body.
What about by other than its “own means?”
Quote Clausius on the 2nd law. Quote him exactly.
Gordon Robertson says:
The 2nd law in words: heat can NEVER by its own means be transferred from a colder body to a warmer body.
Anyway this is a very poorly (i.e. wrong) quotation of the 2nd law.
What you want is “net heat.” As GC said, two blackbodies are both exchanging heat with the other.
“two blackbodies are both exchanging heat with the other.”
Not in a vacuum when they are not in contact.
They are then exchanging EMR which is not heat. Their heat content changes internally (and remains internal) when the EMR is absorbed/emitted if they are at different temperatures. If they are at the same temperature, they continue to exchange EMR but their thermodynamic internal energy is unchanged.
You need a lesson from Kristian, I’ve taken a few.
IF EM isn’t heat, how does it give you a sunburn?
Skin produces more pigment melanin in a toxic reaction and darkens. Nothing to do with heat.
What provides the energy for that reaction?
This is how absolutely ridiculous denial gets here — someone is reduced to stating that a sunburn doesn’t actually burn you.
“What provides the energy for that reaction?”
Sunlight exposure. Sunlight with sufficient EM energy. David, you really ought to be able to answer your own questions.
And that exposure isn’t to heat?
Heat just pops up out of nothing??
“And that exposure isn’t to heat?”
No. Exposure to sunlight.
“Heat just pops up out of nothing??”
Of course not, someone with advanced study of physics should know the energy in sunlight can’t be created (pop, David term) out of nothing.
gc,
Grieve away. You are wasting a good grieve.
Imagine a really hairy laser putting out giga-Watt pulses of photons with a wavelength equivalent to 270 K – the same wavelength emitted by ice.
Now imagine a really hairy and gigantic magnifying lens system and collimator concentrating the 300 W/m2 from 100 square kilometers of ice, into an area of 1 cm2 – over a gigawatt of energy focussed into 1 cm2.
How hot do you think you could make 1 gm of water with this gigaWatt of energy? You could not raise its temperature by anything at all!
Einstein received a Nobel Prize for explaining why you cannot use the photons emitted by ice to heat water – no matter how many you have, or how you concentrate them.
Imagining you can, does not it so.
On the other hand, a domestic microwave oven shows that a small amount of energy at a particular frequency can result in heating of substances of appropriate molecular structure. In particular, dipolar compunds will heat rapidly, while unipolar compunds don’t. Water will get hot, many other materials are unaffected.
So off you go with your imaginary really hairy giga-Watt laser putting out ice wavelengths, and heat lots of imaginary water. Have a lot of imaginary fun! You still can’t raise the temperature of a hotter object with the energy from a colder.
Maybe that is why nobody can describe the GHE – it would require something which is not possible, the heating of a hotter body by a colder. Perpetual motion of the second kind.
Cheers.
cam…”Imagine a really hairy laser putting out giga-Watt pulses of photons. It will cause significant heating of another body regardless of what the temperature of the receiving surface is”.
If your giga-watt laser is focused on a mass with a temperature lower than the temperature the laser can produce in the mass, then the laser will warm it. If the mass has a temperature greater than the temperature produced by the laser, it will not warm.
How would you test it?
gallopingcamel,
…the physics is so straightforward.
You are here in a thermal problem and thermodynamics is just as straightforward: heat is transferred spontaneously only from hot to cold.
The contradiction is apparent but it’s what feeds the discussions here. And it is not for nothing since the concept of radiative forcing is very precisely based on the non respect of the second law of thermodynamics: equivalence put by principle between energy flows from cold to hot and enery flow from hot to cold.
This quirk is based on a trick: the strange assumption of the invariance of the thermal gradient.
phi
What you state is correct: “heat is transferred spontaneously only from hot to cold.”
That is not the same as stating energy is transferred only from hot to cold. Radiant energy transfers from any body emitting it (cold or hot). The hot object will emit more.
If you have a hot body and a cold one, they both transfer IR to each other. This is very established physics. You can do your own research with an FLIR measuring device. I have done it.
Point the instrument at a hot object. It picks up the object’s IR and converts it to a temperature reading. Turn the sensor in the opposite direction facing a colder object, it will still pick up IR. The cold object is emitting IR toward the hot object.
Some question that the IR from the cold object will not be absorbed by the hot object. They do not understand statistical thermodynamics and come up with strange nonsense to try and explain what they do not comprehend.
You are a smart skeptic. Much smarter than JDHuffman or Gordon Robertson. You know actual physics. Try the test. You will see IR is emitted by both objects.
The reason a heated hot object (external energy supply) will increase in temperature with a colder object around is that the cold object is emitting IR toward the hot object. This energy is absorbed by the hot object so its temperature rises to the point it is emitting as much energy as it is receiving.
norman…”If you have a hot body and a cold one, they both transfer IR to each other. This is very established physics. You can do your own research with an FLIR measuring device. I have done it.
Point the instrument at a hot object. It picks up the objects IR and converts it to a temperature reading. Turn the sensor in the opposite direction facing a colder object, it will still pick up IR”.
********
You are mixing up heat with EM. IR is EM, not heat. Heat transfer must obey the 2nd law which does not apply to EM. Therefore, in order to respect the 2nd law, heat can NEVER be transferred by its own means from a cold body to a warm body.
You have tried to modify that statement by Clausius by adding your own interpretation. You have claimed there is net heat transfer between bodies of different temperature but Clausius said nothing about a net transfer.
He did mention when talking about compensation that heat can be transferred both ways but that was only when the cold body was compensated immediately for the heat it had lost. That requires a complex system using external power, a compressible gases, and devices to exchange heat to different mediums.
In an air conditioner, heat is transferred from a colder area to a gas, which is compressed to a liquid where it transfers the heat to the atmosphere via a radiator. The high pressure liquid cools, is atomized, and allowed to expand in an evapourator, where the cooled gas extract heat from the cooled area.
That process cannot occur naturally.
Clausius stipulated clearly that without such compensation heat can NEVER be transferred cold to hot. He applied that to heat transfer by radiation as well.
With regard to a FLIR, the devices are pre-programmed and pre-calibrated in a laboratory to convert IR they receive to an equivalent temperature. FLIRs do not sense heat, they sense EM in the IR band.
Remember, IR is not heat, it is electromagnetic energy. It does not become heat till it is absorbed by the electrons in atoms. However, there are rules for conversion and one of them is that IR from cooler bodies will not be absorbed by electrons in ‘hotter’ atoms.
Don’t blame me, it was Bohr who specified that.
Gordon Robertson
YOU: “You are mixing up heat with EM. IR is EM, not heat.”
No I am not doing this. You are inserting this in your post, not something I have said or concluded. EM transfers heat it is energy.
YOU: “You have claimed there is net heat transfer between bodies of different temperature but Clausius said nothing about a net transfer.”
David Appell is correct about you. You are lying intentionally!
This point has been gone over many times on other threads. barry pulled direct quotes from Clausius and he certainly mentions net transfer. I am not going to go back into that, it is already on other threads.
YOU: “Remember, IR is not heat, it is electromagnetic energy. It does not become heat till it is absorbed by the electrons in atoms. However, there are rules for conversion and one of them is that IR from cooler bodies will not be absorbed by electrons in hotter atoms.”
This is just something Claes Johnson made up and you blindly believe it to be true. Nothing in physics supports it. This is pseudoscience. You peddle unsupported made up ideas as if they were fact and act like Bohr stated this to be true. He never did All fantasy physics, pseudoscience.
Norman believes he can type out his own reality.
But, so far it is not working for him.
Maybe if he just types longer comments….
JDHuffman
Maybe if you would do some experiments or send your stupid idea of radiant heat transfer to a real scientist.
You won’t do either but you will continue to troll this blog hoping to get knee-jerk reactions from you insults and derogatory comments that have nothing at all to do with the content of my post.
Where is DREMT? Even once he could tell you to “please stop trolling”. It is odd he never does. You are a definite troll.
Norman, new deal: every time you rudely demand that I intervene in your ongoing dispute with JD Huffman, I am going to ask you to please stop trolling.
Norman, please stop trolling.
Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:
Nothing rude about it. JDHuffman is trolling and you don’t tell him to please stop. Why is that?
If you want to be a pretend moderator, you would have more value if you were an actual moderator. Keep the posts on topic of thread, prevent insulting or derogatory comments. Keep the debate on a rational scientific platform.
That you only tell some people to stop trolling while allowing others to troll means you are a worthless moderator. Why are you this worthless?
I saw your many troll posts below telling me to stop trolling whenever I prompt you to perform the duties you took upon yourself. Why do you have to be a troll?
Im afraid there is a zero tolerance policy on any criticism of the actions of the EMT. It results in immediate Norman, please stop trolling.
phi…”And it is not for nothing since the concept of radiative forcing is very precisely based on the non respect of the second law of thermodynamics: equivalence put by principle between energy flows from cold to hot and enery flow from hot to cold”.
Well said.
The concept of radiative forcing comes from climate modelers who introduced a concept that the 2nd law is satisfied if a mysterious net balance of energy is positive. The word forcing itself comes from the forcing functions used in the differential equations in climate models.
Gerlich and Tscheuschner, both experts in thermodynamics, pointed out the obvious error in that statement. The 2nd law is about heat and the mysterious net balance of energy is about electromagnetic energy. They seem to think they are one and the same.
With regard to the atmosphere, the modelers have applied their mysterious net energy balance to counter the 2nd law, which forbids the transfer of heat from a cooler atmosphere to a warmer surface that allegedly warmed it. That recirculation of heat to warm the surface by heat it lost to the atmosphere not only contradicts the 2nd law, it is perpetual motion.
The transfer of heat from hot to cold is intuitive, we experience it every day. Yet many people are willing to close their minds off to that reality and enable a metaphysical hypothesis regarding a net balance of energy. There is no such thing vis-a-vis EM and heat, it’s nothing more than a thought experiment, like the stupid blue plate/green plate pseudo-science initiated by Eli Rabbett.
AGW is nothing more than a thought experiment which has garnered no further proof since Arrhenius forwarded the experiment over a century ago.
…Gerlich and Tscheuschner…
Who has confirmed their claims?
GR says:
There is no such thing vis-a-vis EM and heat
Stick your hand in front of a laser beam.
What happens to it?
GR says:
AGW is nothing more than a thought experiment which has garnered no further proof since Arrhenius forwarded the experiment over a century ago.
Proof: the Earth is warming, with no natural factor in sight.
Plus all this evidence, which Gordon will keep ignoring because they don’t meet with his emotional needs:
“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
Comparison of spectrally resolved outgoing longwave data between 1970 and present, J.A. Griggs et al, Proc SPIE 164, 5543 (2004).
Spectral signatures of climate change in the Earth’s infrared spectrum between 1970 and 2006, Chen et al, (2007)
Measurements of the Radiative Surface Forcing of Climate, W.F.J. Evans, ams.confex.com, Jan 2006
“Satellite-Based Reconstruction of the Tropical Oceanic Clear-Sky Outgoing Longwave Radiation and Comparison with Climate Models,” Gastineau et al, J Climate, vol 27, 941957 (2014).
Links and more papers on this subject are listed here:
http://agwobserver.wordpress.com/2009/08/02/papers-on-changes-in-olr-due-to-ghgs/
“Stick your hand in front of a laser beam. What happens to it?”
No effect on your hand at low EM energy setting like my laser pointer. The EMR from the laser is absorbed & reflected. Increasing the laser EM energy though can result in so much absorp_tion the resultant thermodynamic internal energy increase to your hand causes severe burns and possibly a hole right through your hand.
You mean your hand gains heat and burns??
HOw can that possibly be?????
“You mean your hand gains heat and burns??”
Yes David, when sufficient magnitude hand incident laser EM energy is absorbed & transformed into KE of your hand molecules increasing their temperature for that to happen.
“HOw can that possibly be?????”
Anyone with advanced study in physics will know that answer. You shouldn’t have to ask.
So your hand gains heat out of thin air?
Not out of thin air David, the KE of the molecules in your hand is raised by the absorbed laser light when the light has sufficient EM energy. Someone with advanced study in physics would know this.
So heat pops up out of nothing?
“So heat pops up out of nothing?”
No. Even David should know energy can not pop (David term) out of nothing. The laser is presumably plugged in to the electric grid.
GC, you may need to review 2LoT. A “cold” object can not warm a “hotter” object, unless additional energy is added. That’s why your laser example is confusing you. The laser is “new” energy. Try warming something without the laser being plugged into a power source!
Also you appear confused by the “radiative heat transfer equation”. (The one with two “Ts”.) That equation should have a warning label!
JDHuffman
You are correct in your understanding of 2LOT when it comes to a non-heated object.
You lose all comprehension when an object is heated by an external source. New energy is constantly being added to the object and the object is constantly losing energy. It reaches a balance and that becomes its steady state temperature. If you alter either the amount of energy it loses or the amount of energy it gains, a new balance takes place.
The equation with the two “Ts” is not confusing. It makes complete sense to those who understand physics. When someone cannot comprehend science it would confuse them. You are confused because you have an incorrect understanding of radiant heat transfer.
You will never understand it. It has been explained, in detail, to you numerous times. You still show your false misleading diagram of how radiant heat flows between two plates.
Norman “No-Credibility” Grinvalds shows up to ramble pointlessly. He makes claims he can’t back up.
Norman, get some credibility, and learn some physics.
When Ger*an is lost, he says something banal like “learn some physics” and gives up completely on making rational points.
DA, here are some salient points for you:
* Norman and you are pseudoscience-loving clowns
* you both reject facts and logic
* Norman can’t even do what he says
* you can’t even spell your own name correctly
Ger*an:
You insult people when you can’t respond with science and rationality.
Just like here.
DA, if the truth hurts, maybe it’s time to change your evil ways?
JDHuffman
Again you are wrong and unable to comprehend easy to read posts.
I do support my claims with valid physics (which you can’t grasp).
I have actually learned considerable amounts of heat transfer physics. I am not getting it from the blogs as you do.
E. Swanson’s experiment is real physics. You complain about it but are a complete coward and will not perform your own or similar experiment. You know why you won’t. Then you will see you are wrong and you can’t stand the thought that you really are a stupid fellow.
When will you do some experiment?
I do waste time attempting to communicate with you. I do it once in a while to see how stupid you actually are. It is hard to comprehend until you post.
Norman, there you go again!
Another diatribe about the imaginary world you inhabit. Making false claims, and false accusations, is all you are capable of.
Seek reality and credibility, and learn some physics.
JDHuffman
Do an experiment. Your false notions of my understanding are annoying and really not important until you perform a real world test and prove you know what you are talking about.
I have credibility, you are the one who needs to establish some with actual testing. I have done my own you have done none but continue to pretend you are this “expert”. Do some real tests and become someone of value.
Norman, you have no credibility. You can’t even own up to your own words.
JDHuffman
You did that when you posted as g.e.r.a.n.
You avoid a direct point (DO AN EXPERIMENT TO PROVE YOUR POINTS) and go off on some unrelated attack on a poster and somehow avoid DREMT telling you to “please stop trolling”.
You fool some, most know you are a phony. When confronted you play stupid games and insult posters.
As always, you will avoid doing any tests. I have also asked you to send your BS radiant energy transfer link to a valid University Professor who teaches heat transfer. You also refuse to do this. It is because you are a pretend person, pretending to be what you are not. Pretending to understand what you don’t.
How long will you avoid doing an actual experiment? I am thinking a long long time and probably never!
Norman, please stop trolling (see above).
Norman, you have no credibility. You cant even own up to your own words.
You couldn’t do a credible experiment if someone paid you.
You cant even figure out a horse is not rotating on its own axis!
Norman is right.
The Moon is obviously — OBVIOUSLY — rotating about its axis.
left animation, here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Tidal_locking_of_the_Moon_with_the_Earth.gif
DA, learn some physics, or remain a clown.
Entirely your choice.
Address the argument, if you can.
(I don’t think you can. That’s why you fall back on insults.)
What argument?
Thermodynamics is one of the courses that caused me some trouble. I still have no real grasp of important concepts such as Entropy. The same goes for “Spherical Trigonometry”……I never got the hang of it.
Fortunately, Robert G. Brown, my esteemed ex-colleague at Duke has returned to Durham so I expect to meet with him once things in North Carolina return to normal following the hurricane.
Besides teaching Thermodynamics Dr. Brown has amazing computer skills which may help me quantify the effect that CO2 has on global temperatures. I am trying to improve on the Robinson & Catling model for planets with atmospheres using computationally intensive methods.
cam…”I still have no real grasp of important concepts such as Entropy”.
You are in good company, including me. Entropy is a difficult subject but from what I have read from Clausius, who created the term and the theory, it seems fairly basic.
In the works of Clausius, he develops the 2nd law before he mentioned entropy. He stated the 2nd law in words, along the lines of ‘Heat can never be transferred, by it’s own means, from a colder to a warmer object’. He went on to explain what he meant by compensation.
Then he described entropy in words as the sum of infinitesimal changes in heat in a process at the temperature T at which each change occurs. If you look at the formula it is S = integral dQ/T, that’s what it says.
He also mentioned that you could use a heat bath to keep T constant. That means to me that T can be pulled out of the integral if it is a constant, therefore S = T(integral dQ).
What does that say to you? It says to me that entropy is the total heat transferred over a process. But what does that mean physically, why do we need to know that?
Later, the term enthalpy came into use which is a measure of the total heat content of a system.
Again, according to Clausius, entropy can never be negative, which upholds the 2nd law. It can be zero if the process is reversible.
Clausius inferred that most processes are irreversible and he postulated that the universe is moving toward disorder.
As far as I know, different processes have different degrees of entropy and the relative scales can be used to predict chemical reactions.
If you look at definitions on the Net, however, you get a miasma of pseudo-scientific explanations re entropy. It’s no wonder the idea of entropy has become so challenging.
GC, learning Thermodynamics is hard because, in many textbooks the example problems are so complicated, the concepts are overlooked. A student can’t grasp the concepts when he is spending all his time converting units!
Fortunately, I had a great professor (you know who you are, Dr. T!). He taught concepts, and how to work the difficult homework problems in an organized manner.
Later, when I studied Information Theory, it was easy to understand the advancements to 2LoT provided by Claude Shannon. Entropy rules!
My understanding of 2LoT helped me immensely in my career. Faced with technical problems that had been deemed “unsolvable”, merely following the energy and information flows led to the “fix”. When a system is not working, 2LoT will always lead you to the problem.
It’s too bad more people don’t understand 2LoT, but we would miss the humor….
JDHuffman
Pretending you took University Level Thermodynamics will only impress some ignorant people.
It is quite clear that you have never taken a University level thermodynamics course. You have not even read a text book on heat transfer.
Every textbook on radiant heat transfer has problems that include view factors in the calculations. Without using view factors correctly you would not be able to get a correct answer to the problem.
In previous discussions with you, you indicate zero understanding of view factors and even made fun of me for bringing it up. There is no Dr. T that would teach the subject and not include view factors.
Sell your pretend story to a fiction magazine. Write it up that you were able to fool lots of people on blogs with pretend fake science. It would be an interesting story. No you are the one who needs to study physics and quit pretending you took actual courses on the subject.
More imaginative output from my favorite typist!
Norman, I see you are still fascinated with “view factors”. As has been explained to you before, all of the radiation from one plate impinges on the other plate. You just can’t understand physics.
But you can type well.
JDHuffman
You are missing the point of my post (that is normal for you).
I was not making a claim about plates in my point. The point was that you would not have taken a University level Thermodynamics and worked on problems and not been very familiar with view factors, when, why and how they are used to determine accurate heat transfer.
YOU: “Norman, I see you are still fascinated with âview factorsâ.
Norman, clowns with ZERO credibility never have a meaningful “point”.
But, I enjoy the humor.
JDHuffman
Trolling again. You got caught pretending and now you are in wiggle room hoping to divert attention away from the reality you have zero University Thermodynamics study.
Where is Dr. Roy’s Emergency Moderation Team when he/she would be valuable?
The lack of any response to your troll comments is telling.
Norman, please stop trolling (see above).
As previously stated, clowns with ZERO credibility never have a meaningful “point”.
(I suppose it falls on me to bring this to an end, again. Norman just doesn’t have the maturity.)
Gordon Robertson says:
In the works of Clausius, he develops the 2nd law before he mentioned entropy. He stated the 2nd law in words, along the lines of Heat can never be transferred, by its own means, from a colder to a warmer object
Here is Clausius’s formulation of the 2nd law:
“Heat can never pass from a colder to a warmer body without some other change, connected therewith, occurring at the same time.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_law_of_thermodynamics#Clausius_statement
See the “without some other change?” Your “by its own means.”
That’s the part you always ignore. That you choose to ignore.
norman…”Every textbook on radiant heat transfer has problems that include view factors in the calculations. Without using view factors correctly you would not be able to get a correct answer to the problem”.
You lifted the term view factor from a text book but I doubt if you know what it means. It’s nothing more than the portion of a body that another body ‘sees’.
In engineering we went into that deeply with concepts like true length and true angle. What you see is not always what you get. If a surface appears to the eye as so many square metres, it may be on an angle and be much larger than it is. If a surface is convex, or parabolic, it may reflect EM in various directions, or collect it and reflect it to a focal point.
Much of this is theoretical hogwash applied to black bodies in thermal equilibrium. Give me an example in real life of a view factor meaning anything.
Engineers need specific examples to understand what “view factor” means??
It obvious. And you’re bragging about this??????
And notice Gordon ignoring what his friend Clausius actually said…
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2018/09/my-tucker-carlson-interview-last-night-and-calling-out-bill-nye-james-hansen/#comment-321210
Mike…”If a photon emitted from the Earth is sufficiently energetic to interact with an electron contained within the Sun, it will do so”.
Highly unlikely, unless we build a device to operate near the temperature of the Sun so the energy of the EM will match the electron energies in the Sun.
Maybe if we could drill a hole to the reactor at the centre of the Earth and direct the EM from it through a lens, we might approach those conditions.
It’s so hot in the Sun that electrons are boiled off hydrogen and helium atoms, some of the electrons and nucleii (protons) of hydrogen being emitted as the solar wind.
Electrons with that kind of energy will totally ignore EM generated by our surface.
Gordon thinks Earth’s infrared radiation goes directly though the sun.
Looney toon physics.
Mind-reading again?
David Appell wrote –
“Because he knows it means he will have to admit there is a greenhouse effect.”
David can’t actually describe this “greenhouse effect”. His belief is religious rather than scientific.
Believe Him, and Ye shall be Saved from the evil effects of burning Coal (transported in Death Trains, according to the Prophet Hansen).
Oh, what fun.
Cheers.
–Exploring Ryugu is important. Classified as a potentially hazardous asteroid, this 900-meter wide space rock can theoretically come closer to our planet than the Moon. This makes it a potential target for asteroid mining. Hayabasa2 will discover what valuable metals may be waiting there. Ryugu is also a very primitive body, possibly containing a chemical history of the formation of our solar system billions of years ago.
Launched in December 2014, Hayabusa2 reached asteroid Ryuga in June of this year. It is scheduled to orbit the asteroid for about a year and a half before returning to Earth in late 2020, carrying samples of Ryugu for analysis by researchers
via NASA Spaceweather.com —
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/09/22/twin-japanese-robotic-rovers-land-on-asteroid-ryugu/
Because it has not cooled as quickly as the Earth… That should be obvious…
I tried to respond to Gordon Robertson and others but the moderator bot rejected my comments. I have appealed to Dr. Roy by email.
cam…”I tried to respond to Gordon Robertson and others but the moderator bot rejected my comments. I have appealed to Dr. Roy by email”.
Post it in smaller parts. Keep going till one section does not post then troubleshoot it till it does. Look for issues in URLs as well.
Remember, d-c does not work without the hyphen. At one point I could not post refrigeration.
another word is absorp-tion. Also, Had-crut, NCD-C, etc. If NCD-C is in a URL, you have to insert a hyphen and inform the reader to remove the hyphen.
It’s blocking my usual name/email/web addr tonight too.
Just change them slightly.
WordPress sucks.
Maybe WordPress has a filter that cuts in when somebody trolls too much.
GR
“Since you are referring to a cooler body it is IMPOSSIBLE for that body to increase the temperature of the hotter body via radiation or conduction.”
You’ve forgotten our little experiment, right? Here’s a reminder:
1) a thermometer reads 20 C., same as ambient air and thermostat setting.
2) a candle is placed next to the thermometer, so that it reaches a temperature of 30 C.
3) the thermostat setting is raised to 25 C.
*****
The 25 C. ambient air (cooler body) will increase the temperature of the thermometer (hotter body). Don’t believe me? Try it yourself.
Sounds like one you have tried already. Time to stop that trolling, please.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2018/08/uah-global-temperature-update-for-july-2018-0-32-deg-c/#comment-315612
snape…”2) a candle is placed next to the thermometer, so that it reaches a temperature of 30 C.
3) the thermostat setting is raised to 25 C.
*****
The 25 C. ambient air (cooler body) will increase the temperature of the thermometer (hotter body). Dont believe me?”
………..
Why have you ignored the heat in the candle flame? If the room temperature is increased to 25C, one would expect the thermometer to read 25C eventually.
You noted that the thermometer read 30C when you brought the candle near to it. If you increase the room temp to 25C the thermometer body and glass warm more and you have a candle warming it as well.
Without the candle, the thermometer should read 25C. If it reads a higher temp do you not think the candle is making it read higher?
Dr Roys EMT…thanks for link, gbaikie explains it much better.
“A 100 F object [thermometer] will have more convectional heat loss in air at 70 F as compared to air at 80 F.
So if you warm air, the heated object will have less convectional heat and will get warmer as result”.
You are welcome. The good thing about linking to a past comment is that it also makes clear these people keep raising points that have been refuted a hundred times before.
Have Australian academics and scientists become mentally unhinged, because of global warming?
I could not believe what I read, in an article called, “The divisive issue Australia can no longer ignore”.
https://www.news.com.au/technology/environment/climate-change/the-divisive-issue-australia-can-no-longer-ignore/news-story/1915f694320e540444c03aff3ccd3a41
~ ~ ~ begin quote ~ ~ ~
But Professor Greg Skilbecks words were even more sharp.
The academic from the University of Technology, Sydney, said if we believed in science as part of the function of our everyday lives, we should believe in climate change.
You cannot pick and choose if you dont accept climate change, you should not be given penicillin or painkillers or even visit a doctor, he said.
You should not be allowed to fly or drive a car either. But I guess that as most climate deniers also pick and choose the bits of the Bible they subscribe to as well, I should not be surprised.
~ ~ ~ end quote ~ ~ ~
Professor Greg Skilbeck wants to deny people their fundamental human rights, if they don’t believe in the global warming religion.
He wants “heretics” to get no medical treatment, including penicillin and painkillers.
He wants “heretics” to be stopped from going to the doctor.
What will happen to “heretics” children, and babies?
==========
I would like to suggest to the University of Technology, Sydney, that Professor Greg Skilbeck should be dismissed from his position.
If the University of Technology, Sydney, is unwilling to do that, then I suggest that the Australian government should cut funding to the University of Technology, Sydney.
We can not allow unreasonable people to set the agenda, for dealing with global warming. Professor Greg Skilbecks words will make the climate change situation even worse than it is already.
Professor Greg Skilbeck appears to believe that he owns science, and can stop other people from using it. This is an arrogant and stupid belief. I have no confidence that Professor Greg Skilbeck can contribute positively to the global warming debate.
You make academics from “Down Under” sound pretty loony. Let’s hope Greg Skilbeck does not represent the majority.
There are plenty of academics “Down Under” who impress me. Ian Plimer is a geologist and I strongly recommend his book “Heaven & Earth”.
Then there is Murrray Salby:
http://joannenova.com.au/2013/07/macquarie-university-sabotages-exiles-blackbans-strands-and-abandons-murry-salby/
The Greenies in Australia seem to have overplayed their hand by making electricity in Australia expensive and unreliable. There has been a political backlash that brought down the government. It remains to be seen whether the new regime will be any better than the one it replaced.
cam…”There are plenty of academics Down Under who impress me. Ian Plimer is a geologist and I strongly recommend his book Heaven & Earth”.
Agreed. Ian Plimer is good.
Australia is getting a raw deal from extremists and knee jerk reactors.
Murray Salby is not a good scientist. How many universities by now have run him out of town?
David, please stop smearing.
How many universities by now have run him out of town?
No David, please STOP smearing.
So even you’ve lost count, huh?
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2018/09/my-tucker-carlson-interview-last-night-and-calling-out-bill-nye-james-hansen/#comment-321716
You cannot pick and choose if you dont accept climate change, you should not be given penicillin or painkillers or even visit a doctor, he said.
That’s a dumb thing for any scientist to say.
His point, however poorly communicated, is that people should not pick and choose what science they believe based on their feelings, politics and ideology.
David,
But people should be allowed to choose what science they believe, based on their knowledge of science.
I have a good science education. I have the academic record to prove it.
Why won’t alarmists let me choose what I believe, based on the science that I know?
Are alarmists any better qualified than me?
Who do you think is stopping you from believing whatever you want???
Alarmists TRY to tell me what to believe, all the time.
I ignore them most of the time. But they get very nasty, sometimes.
They are good at insulting people, and they are often hypocrites.
Alarmists don’t like people thinking for themselves.
You do realize, I hope, that you’re free to believe whatever in the he!! you want, whether someone tells you to or not?
Well, keep at it David, Im sure one day you lot will find a way to stop freedom of thought, like you try to with freedom of speech (calling for certain commenters to be banned).
Team Huffy,
“Sounds like one you have tried already.”
Well, why do you suppose I wrote, “here’s a reminder”?
Well, why do you suppose I linked to the debunk?
Strong rainfall continues to threaten North and South Carolina.
http://tropic.ssec.wisc.edu/real-time/mtpw2/product.php?color_type=tpw_nrl_colors&prod=namer×pan=24hrs&anim=html5
Wow! Here in Alamance county Forence turned out to be wet but not very windy. We dodged a bullet. The power never went off but all that stuff out in the Atlantic looks a little scary.
cam…”all that stuff out in the Atlantic looks a little scary”.
There’s likely some looney wind surfing in it. Read a book by a female who tried to row a boat from Japan to the US. She got caught in a typhoon and it scared her straight.
Typhoon is slowly approaching Taiwan.
NW Pacific ACE is, today, 30% above normal:
http://tropical.atmos.colostate.edu/Realtime/
Team Huffy
Debunked? So the colder body (ambient air) won’t make the thermometer hotter?
Clicking on a link is a useful way to bring up the contents and read them.
S,
You are obviously dim. Starting a gotcha with “So . . . ” and ending it with a question mark is a sure sign of dimness.
The answer to your question is no, of course. Remove the 1400 C heat source, and the colder body allows the thermometer to cool – no heating to be seen. Your nonsense is pseudoscientific deny, divert, and confuse. Learn some physics. Learn some science.
No GHE. No CO2 heating. So sad, too bad.
Carry on – that’s something you can do, at least.
Cheers.
snape…”Debunked? So the colder body (ambient air) wont make the thermometer hotter?”
You did not explain how much the thermometer warmed by raising the room temp from 20C to 25C. All you said was that the candle raised the temperature to 30C.
The mercury in the thermometer, presuming it is a mercury thermometer, will respond like any other mass. It will read the resultant temperature between the ambient room temperature and the temperature after it dissipates heat via convection, as gbaikie pointed out.
Try pointing a fan at the thermometer with the room temp at 25C and see if it still reads 25C. I bet it will show a lower temperature even though a thermometer located away from the fan wind still reads 25C.
I don’t know if thermometers are compensated to allow for heat dissipation. If the device warms by raising room temperature, then gbaikie’s explanation should explain it. However, I imagine the warming will be very low, maybe tenths of a degree.
Gordo wrote:
I’ll take your bet. I’ll bet $10 that you are wrong. If you will take the other side of the bet, please e-mail me with your acceptance, including your real name and address at the e-mail address given in my paper HERE. If I’m wrong, my payment will be sent via money order delivered by mail to your stated name and address. This looks like it’s going to be fun.
No room is going to be isothermal at 25C unless it is specifically constructed to be. But, if such a setup were possible, the fan would change the rate at which the thermometer reached steady state, but the steady state would be the same.
In general, a room would have a thermal gradient from floor to ceiling. So, if the thermometer is placed at the height where the temperature is the average for the room, and the convective exchange induced by the fan reduced the gradient without changing the mean energy content, then the temperature above the thermometer location would be lowered, and below it would be raised.
Bart…”the fan would change the rate at which the thermometer reached steady state, but the steady state would be the same”.
Agreed, But if the thermometer read 25C before applying the fan, it would reach a steady state temp lower than 25C.
Bart and Swannie….
I have a desktop located on the floor and I keep the side off the case because I am always working on it. Using the app Speccy, free from Piriform, I can monitor the CPU temperature.
One a hot summer’s day, I noted the CPU was running 80C+, so I pointed a 12″ desk fan at the CPU from a foot away and its temperature dropped to under 50C in a few minutes.
That’s why meteorologists mount a thermometer in a box (Stevenson screen), to shade it from the sun, rain, and high winds. The box allows normal convection but not high winds that would cool it.
https://www.weatheronline.co.uk/reports/wxfacts/The-Stevenson-Screen.htm
My desktop is a perfect example of what Norman and Swannie have been arguing about. The CPU in my desktop will heat commensurate with the current through it. On a cooler day, the CPU heat sink and CPU fan are enough to dissipate heat and drop its temperature. On a hot day, however, the CPU cannot dissipate heat as well due to the narrower difference in temperature between it and its environment.
If I blow a fan on it, the air from the fan carries off the heated air faster and allows the CPU to cool. With a thermometer, it would cause the thermometer to read lower with the fan air blowing on it.
As Bart pointed out, the thermometer reading is a simple average of room temperature and it depends where it is located. The fan air will help circulate the air and cool it in the vicinity. However, as the room temperature increases toward the CPU temperature, the CPU heat up because it cannot get rid of its heat as easily.
On a really hot night in summer, I blow air from a 12″ pedestal fan directly onto my face from a few feet away. It serves to cool my entire body even though the room temp may be in excess of 30C.
Gordo, Your example of a CPU is not the same as the situation which you described above. In the first place, the CPU is being heated by an external source of energy, so it’s temperature is going to be above the surrounding air. Secondly, your CPU already has a heat sink/fan which is removing thermal energy, but that energy must also be further removed from the immediate vicinity, so computer cases are designed with exhaust fans.
Your previous idiotic claim comparing two thermometers at room temperature, one exposed to the air and the other exposed to moving air, displayed your basic lack of understanding of heat transfer. The air exiting the fan will be nearly the same as the air in the room and thus the two thermometers will indicate the same temperature. The air leaving the fan might even be slightly warmer than room temperature because the small amount of energy used to power the fan will be added to the air. As for a fan cooling your face during a hot night, remember that evaporation is the main path of cooling the human body.
You have just demonstrated, yet again, that you don’t know what your are talking about.
I know, tough question to answer all by yourself.
I know it is tough for you, but the link is there to help.
S,
“So the colder body (ambient air) wont make the thermometer hotter?”
You don’t learn, do you?
Leaving aside your silly semantic tricks, energy will not spontaneously transfer from a colder to a hotter body.
Try it. Either you will fail (likely), or the Laws of Thermodynamics will need to be renamed Snape’s Laws (unlikely). In the meantime, is your stupidity exceeded by your ignorance, or vice versa?
You can’t even describe the wondrous GHE, can you? How sad, eh?
Cheers.
Team Huffy
Ok, so I checked out your appeal to authority:
“So if you warm air, the heated object will have less convectional heat and will get warmer as result.” – gbaikie
*****
Not sure why “less convectional heat” results in warming…….lol!
Still, he comes to the correct conclusion: a colder body (80 degree air) will make the warmer object even warmer.
So you hadnt read the comment until now, you dont know what an appeal to authority is, you failed to understand from context that gbaikie meant less convectional heat loss, you have taken one sentence and separated it from its full context, and you apparently do not understand gbaikies point.
snape…”Not sure why less convectional heat results in warming.lol!
Still, he comes to the correct conclusion: a colder body (80 degree air) will make the warmer object even warmer”.
……
That’s not my interpretation of gbaikie’s comment. He claimed colder air will cool it and making the air warmer will interfere with it’s heat dissipation and allow it to warm.
Team Huffy
Instead of crying, maybe next time you could articulate your own argument?
Bye bye
S,
You might have noticed that if you reduce the ambient temperature, the the temperature drops. Therefore, a warmer object can also be cooled by a cooler one, according to you. Rather like the magician who blew on his porridge to cool it, and blew on his hands to warm them!
What could you learn from this?
Thermo-meters respond to heat. When you introduce more, the thermo-meter often shows the increase. If you reduce a heat source, the thermo-meter often shows the decrease.
You may have also noticed that removing the insulation from a working refrigerator, makes the temperature of the contents rise. This obviously mean that cooler insulation makes warmer things colder!
All your blather is completely meaningless and irrelevant as regards the non-existent GHE, doesn’t it?
You have not managed to overturn the Laws of thermodynamics just yet. Playing with multiple heat sources, and practising semantic misdirection changes no facts at all. Observers may continue to believe that heat moves from hotter to colder. The GHE has never been properly described, and Michael Mann did not win a Nobel Orize.
You’ll have to pray harder, young Snape. No miraculous overturning of conventional physics just yet.
Cheers.
Talking of the great Mann:
“Michael Mann, distinguished professor of atmospheric sciences and director of Penn State’s Earth System Science Center, is the 2018 recipient of the American Geophysical Union’s Climate Communication Prize.
The prize was established in 2011 to highlight the importance of promoting scientific literacy, clarity of message, and efforts to foster respect and understanding of science-based values as they relate to the implications of climate change.”
https://news.psu.edu/story/534583/2018/09/04/research/mann-receives-2018-agu-climate-communication-prize
Mykey…”Michael Mann…is the 2018 recipient of the American Geophysical Unionâs Climate Communication Prize”.
Gee…who would have figured that. A load of alarmists awarding one of their own. Listed in the book of ‘fellows’ of the AGU are uber-alarmists like Kevin Trenberth, Phil Jones of Had-crut, and Mikey himself.
Say…you’re not Michael Mann are you?
The core of the Climategate email scandal are all fellows of the AGU.
Sorry. No. I am not in his class.
But I am several classes above you knuckleheads.
If you could stop trolling, that would be great.
Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:
If only you would once tell JDHuffman to “please stop trolling” that would be even greater.
I doubt I will see this take place, but it certainly would be a great post from you. No doubt the best ever for you.
Norman, what is wrong with you?
Mann has been racking up a lot of awards lately from a lot of different groups.
M,
Yes indeed. A pointless and meaningless accolade from an organisation which cannot even describe the GHE, but claims that “greenhouse gases” cause the average of weather (climate) to change over time. I suppose greenhouse gas sounds a lot more sciency than pixie dust.
Gee, after four and a half billion years of continuously changing weather, Michael Mann finally wakes up to the fact!
An average is a result, not a cause. Climate communication? A prize?
What next? A prize for figuring out how to spell his name correctly?
Oh well.
Cheers.
“Oh Well (Parts 1 and 2)” is a song first recorded by Fleetwood Mac in 1969, composed by vocalist and lead guitarist Peter Green.
IMO, one of the greatest tracks of that era
The link was fine, the unthick will have understood.
I have wiped away my tears of laughter.
Meanwhile…
Salvatore ! Salvatore ! are you still there?
The SOI is falling!
The SSTs off Peru have started rapidly warming!
The chances of an El Nino have increased to 65-70% for winter 2018-19 !
The global average temperatures are still rising (+0.252 today) !
How is that cooling prediction for this year going?
Winter is coming.
The polar ice is re-freezing.
Couple days ago, sun crossed equator and heading south.
But we also getting closer to the Sun- closest being Jan 3 to 4
gbaikie…”Couple days ago, sun crossed equator and heading south.
But we also getting closer to the Sun- closest being Jan 3 to 4″
The Sun’s apparent path does move south in winter but why does the Moon’s orbit do the same?
During summer, when Venus was setting slightly north of west, the Moon was rising north of west and moving slightly south of east. The other night it was rising quite south of west and taking a southerly orbit across the sky.
It was neat to see Mars slight east of the Moon and slightly below it in the southern sky, no more than 20 degrees above the southern horizon.
I have a feeling it might be related to the tilt of the Earth and our changed position wrt the Sun. Don’t know.
“The Suns apparent path does move south in winter but why does the Moons orbit do the same?”
Moon orbits the sun?
I am not sure if that answers question, but I am sure the Moon orbits the sun.
“I have a feeling it might be related to the tilt of the Earth and our changed position wrt the Sun. Dont know.”
Well our spin is fixed relative to north star.
Hold naval orange in front of you, tilt it so see naval part of orange and hold in that position.
Sun in middle of room, it’s not shining on naval, walk across room and have sun at your back- sun would shine on navel of orange if you were not shading the light.
If instead move side ways then move on one side sun, you are at equinox.
It might help to draw the equator on orange.
Let’s try this again, you at north pole of Moon at high elevation. North star isn’t north- but some star is.
Sun circle you every every lunar day [29.5 days] and Earth is fixed and bobs up and down.
That does not seem to help anything. hmm.
Oh every 365 days the sun slightly goes up and down- it’s got 1.5 degree tilt. Or that’s it’s insignificant season. Hmm.
Well could say it another way, the moon ellipse the sun, but it misses a lot of the time, but it fairly close every time. And same applies to Earth eclipsing the Moon- always fairly close.
So why does the Moons orbit do the same, it’s not the same, but rather it’s fairly close.
gbaikie says:
I am not sure if that answers question, but I am sure the Moon orbits the sun.
OMG.
gbaikie…”The polar ice is re-freezing”.
This is a modeled sea ice thickness but it shows 2.5 metres at North Pole and over much of Arctic Ocean.
http://polarportal.dk/en/sea-ice-and-icebergs/sea-ice-thickness-and-volume/
Doesn’t take long for ice to build up.
Suddenly Gordon believes a model, because it agrees with his emotional needs.
What a hypocrite.
Suddenly David trolls, because it agrees with his emotional needs.
What a troll.
The El Nino 3.4 index is still neutral. Changes are temporary.
https://tropicaltidbits.com/analysis/ocean/nino34.png
Sorry.
https://climatereanalyzer.org/wx_frames/gfs/ds/gfs_nh-sat5_sstanom_1-day.png
N.O.A.A. puts the Nino34 anomaly at +0.3 C, as of just a few days ago:
https://tinyurl.com/yc52hmls
let’s try defining Earth’s greenhouse effect.
We separated it.
The “greenhouse effect theory” is of course pseudo science and
is vague, but one could say it’s about radiant effect of greenhouse gases.
And it’s generally about greenhouse gases absorbing the IR radiation
causes sunlight warming a surface and surface radiating sunlight energy convert in to IR radiation.
But greenhouse gases also absorb sunlight and Ozone only absorbs sunlight- yet ozone counted as greenhouse gas.
So we could have greenhouse effect of sunlight and/or Earth emitted IR being absorbed by greenhouse gases.
Call that greenhouse effect 1
And greenhouse effect 2 the transfer of heat via convection, evaporational convection, heat conduction. Or non radiant means of heat transfer which involved with the atmosphere.
What mean by being lukewarmer is I think there is some warming effect of greenhouse effect 1- or radiant effect involving greenhouse gases, and specifically, CO2. And I think the larger radiant warming effect is from water vapor. But I don’t think this effect causes 33 K of warming.
The greenhouse effect 2- the non radient warming effects is not really argued about, or in doubt, except some say it’s the only warming effect and there is no warming effect from the radiant effect involving greenhouse gases.
And then in addition an atmospheric greenhouse effects, I think there greenhouse effect of the ocean. Of course this is not like greenhouse effect 1- though the water absorbs the energy of sunlight- obviously there is no IR being absorbed within the water. But the IR radiant interaction of ocean surface and atmosphere must be significant, else: since ocean cover 70% of planet, the lack of it, would relegate greenhouse effect 1 as insignificant [or immeasurable in terms of global average temperature- and one has more water vapor above the global ocean surface].
And ocean works as greenhouse effect because it inhibts convectional heat loss- so, like an actual greenhouse.
Of course ocean other elements like high specific heat- it absorbs lots of energy from the sun and does warm up much. And since surface is not hot like say, the sand of desert being 70 C, it radiate less energy to space.
And in terms increasing global temperature, you have movement of surface waters poleward, and these regions to be warmer.
Other than high specific heat, the ocean also kept cooler due to evaporation, which warms the air via molecular kinetic exhange and and have the warming of latent heat which warms the rest of the world.
What a load of rubbish. Which comic book did you get that out of?
A case of a little bit of education being a bad thing.
gbaikie says: “But I don’t think this effect causes 33 K of warming.”
Correct gbaikie. The bogus 33K is part of the pseudoscience that continues to entertain us.
It is the difference between 288 K and 255 K. But, the difference is meaningless because the two temperatures are from two different areas. 288 K is the average surface temperature of Earth. The 255 K is the calculated temperature of a black body radiating 240 Watts/m^2!
“The 255 K is the calculated temperature of a black body radiating 240 Watts/m^2!”
A ideal thermally conductive black body which is also reflecting 30% of the sunlight at distance of Earth from the sun which is uniformly emitting 240 Watts/m^2!
I wonder what people imagine what this thing looks like.
Is something like zebra? Or is spotted?
Or it can be assume the 30% is reflected prior to reaching the blackbody surface.
Let’s put ideal thermally conductive blackbody under an atmosphere.
But first we have realize, it’s meant to be in vacuum. And in vacuum it is very weird thing- a strange alien artifact. And most people might imagine it is some kind of refrigerator or alien art piece [and it seems sort of useless, expensive, and nature will destroy it].
And putting an atmosphere over it could have unintended consequences. But we could also assume the aliens also design it to work in an atmosphere.
Another option is put it under the surface of the ocean. Or under surface of ocean and atmosphere.
But I suppose the whole purpose is to make simpler- and problem is can’t figure out what atmosphere or ocean does- otherwise you just discard that ideal thermally conductive blackbody model.
But putting under an atmosphere isn’t the simplest thing to do and you could keep it in vacuum and instead orbit a bunch reflectors around this planet in vacuum. But then you wrecked the model, because it’s all about distance from the sun. So simplest is just not have it at earth distance, but you want to know a planet’s average temperature at Earth distance from the sun.
So going back to adding atmosphere.
Most people should imagine that adding atmosphere should increase the average temperature of a planet- a normal planet.
But with our weird planet covered with alien technology, the purpose is to cool it.
Now what kind of atmosphere- Earth atmosphere with clouds and all it’s complication?
Now what should be known, is that the tropics [40% of surface area] has more sunlight reaching it than the 60% of the rest of the planet. You could remove all clouds from atmosphere and put less area of reflectors in the tropical zone.
Leaving the reflector issue on side line, if had earth atmosphere above the surface with ideal thermally conductive blackbody surface. And didn’t have clouds and greenhouse gases, how much would the earth reflect sunlight, then we will add the reflectors to equal 30%?
Does anyone know how much?
So from space a planet covered with ideal thermal conductive blackbody [from now on, ITCB as I tire of typing it]. Is black as space itself- except it radiates a uniform 340 watts of IR light.
Now by adding 1 atm of atmosphere, you can see it- it’s shiny black or remains black and it is reflective- your eyes are getting light you can see.
And down on the surface, one is getting less sunlight reaching the surface- how much less?
If at a place where sun is near zenith- you get the most sunlight, and at dawn the least [unless at night when sun not in sky].
Once you add an atmosphere, you get both direct and indirect sunlight, and we should assume ITCB can absorbs both- and watt is a watt. With our present atmosphere we get 1120 watts of direct and indirect sunlight in clear day and sun near zenith, and some of it is “blocked” by greenhouse gases or the greenhouse gas remove a part of spectrum of light of the direct sunlight.
So roughly we can say that ITCB would recieve more sunlight if the atmosphere doesn’t have greenhouse gases- +1020 watts per square when sun near zenith.
Or in summary, without going further, things getting complicated.
With our present atmosphere we get 1120 watts of direct and indirect sunlight in clear day and sun near zenith, and some of it is blocked by greenhouse gases or the greenhouse gas remove a part of spectrum of light of the direct sunlight.
How much?
–How much?–
In terms of direct light:
“This figure shows the solar radiation spectrum for direct light at both the top of the Earth’s atmosphere (represented by yellow area) and at sea level (red area).”:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunlight#/media/File:Solar_spectrum_en.svg
from:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunlight
Again, how much, as a %.
What do you mean: Again, how much, as a %? You never specified that it had to be a percentage in the first place, so it is not Again, is it?
gbaikie says:
The greenhouse effect theory is of course pseudo science and
is vague,…”
Do you think GHGs don’t absorb infrared radiation, or to you think the Earth doesn’t emit it?
DA, Do you think GHGs don’t emit infrared radiation?
Of course they do. That’s what keeps the GHE going….
Exactly, “back-radiation” heats its own original source!
The corruption of physics is what keeps the pseudoscience going
Ger*an: “Back radiation” is just radiation from the atmosphere.
Or do you think the atmosphere doesn’t radiate?
The atmosphere does not heat the surface.
DA,
What a stupid attempt at a gotcha!
Name anything with a temperature above absolute zero which doesn’t radiate. Can’t think of anything? Not a single thing?
Keep on pretending you can describe the GHE, and that CO2 between the Sun and a thermometer makes the thermometer hotter! You are obviously deluded.
I understand. Many climatological pseudoscientific GHE believers share the same delusion. Sad but true.
Cheers.
JDHuffman
You would be correct to say “The atmosphere does not heat the surface.”
This is not what the GHE is. The IR emitted by the atmosphere towards the surface (which can absorb about 95% of the IR that reaches it) will be absorbed. This is energy.
The combination of this IR and the solar input will lead the surface to a higher average temperature than if no DWIR were present.
E. Swanson showed how this works.
https://app.box.com/s/5wxidf87li5bo588q2xhcfxhtfy52oba
An actual experiment. Something you will not do.
norman…” The IR emitted by the atmosphere towards the surface (which can absorb about 95% of the IR that reaches it) will be absorbed”.
2nd law says heat cannot be transferred from a colder atmosphere to a warmer surface.
Perpetual motion would occur if the atmosphere could recycle heat transferred from the warmer surface, thus raising the temperature of the surface.
Of course, you and Swannie believe in perpetual motion, along with Eli Rabbett.
Gordon Robertson
I already linked to Clausius. He does firmly believe in a two way exchange of energy (he even calls it heat). In his view the hot object transfers heat to the cold and the cold transfers heat to the hot. In the overall exchange more heat transfers from the hot object to the cold than heat transfer from the cold to hot.
I like to just keep it as energy exchange.
It would not result in perpetual motion. I do not know why you keep bringing up that debunked idea. I have explained it to you already. Why do people have to explain the same ideas to you over an over?
Please understand that the surface will not warm if there is not an energy input (for the Earth it is the Sun).
If you had a perfect mirror the surface temperature (unheated) would not go up or down. The mirror would return all the energy the surface emits keeping the overall energy the same. If you heated the surface the returning energy would raise the temperature to a higher level.
Norman claims: “The IR emitted by the atmosphere towards the surface (which can absorb about 95% of the IR that reaches it) will be absorbed.”
FALSE.
Norman claims: “The combination of this IR and the solar input will lead the surface to a higher average temperature than if no DWIR were present.”
FALSE.
JDHuffman
False based upon what? You make unsupported declarations. Why?
Support your claims. What is your evidence? None, you never have any. You proclaim things with zero facts. You are a classic practitioner of pseudoscience. Making claims with no support.
Great!
Gordon Robertson says:
Perpetual motion would occur if the atmosphere could recycle heat transferred from the warmer surface, thus raising the temperature of the surface.
This site is never stupider than when gordon writes asinine things like this and doesn’t have a clue what he’s writing about.
David, please stop trolling.
Norman asks: “False based upon what?”
Norman, this has been explained to you numerous times. And, you never learn.
Photons are not always absorbed.
Now, avoid reality some more.
–gbaikie says:
The greenhouse effect theory is of course pseudo science and
is vague,
“Do you think GHGs dont absorb infrared radiation, or to you think the Earth doesnt emit it?” —
I think O3, water vapor, and CO2 absorb [and re-emit] the SW light of sunlight.
And I think water vapor and CO2 absorb [and re-emit] light in IR spectrum:
So, re: Do you think GHGs dont absorb infrared radiation?
The answer is yes.
Regarding the part of question:
“, or to you think the Earth doesnt emit it?”
What is “it”? Earth doesn’t emit IR light?
If so, Earth is warm and anything as warm as Earth emits Infrared light.
Earth glows in infrared light and reflected sunlight.
Guessing, it’s a throw away question as seems to me unrelated to greenhouse effect theory or that this pseudo science is vague.
But, it brings back what I was talking about:
Do you think greenhouse gases absorbing sunlight are part of radiant greenhouse or aka, the greenhouse effect theory?
Or is the greenhouse effect theory only concerning the aspect of gases absorbing IR?
Or more specifically, concerning only the absorbing IR which is first emitted by a warmed surface.
It seems to me, that Greenhouse effect theory is about gases or liquid/particle [ie, clouds] within an atmosphere that absorb any kind light- so, both sunlight and infrared light.
But as I say, it’s vague and seems to focus a lot on the IR emitted by surface and this IR absorbed by greenhouse gases.
How much of the ab.sorp.ion is re-emitted, and in what direction?
gbalkie wrote:
It seems to me, that Greenhouse effect theory is about gases or liquid/particle [ie, clouds] within an atmosphere that absorb any kind light- so, both sunlight and infrared light.
1) How much sunlight is in the IR, by absolute amount and by percentage?
2) How much of the radiation from the Earth’s surface is in the IR, by absolute amount and by percentage?
Work it out for yourself, stop being so lazy.
Flynn
“Thermo-meters respond to heat. When you introduce more, the thermo-meter often shows the increase.”
Of course. That’s why in the scenario I presented, the 30 C. thermometer will show warming when the ambient air temperature is raised from 20 C. to 25 C.
It doesn’t matter that the air is colder than the thermometer, right?
At this point you should look at how station temperatures were measured.
In a Stephenson screen a dry bulb thermometer measures the temperature of the air around it. Wind or humidity makes no difference once the thermometer and the air around it are in equilibrium.If you start blowing air at the same temperature over the thermometer you see no change.
A wet bulb reads a temperature lower than the air temperature because of evaporation. The difference between dry and wet bulb temperature is greatest in dry air and decreases with increasing humidity, allowing you to calculate relative humidity.
The screen is necessary because wind increases evaporation. Blow air from a fan over a wet bulb thermometer and you get an extra cooling effect.
Think of your own experience of temperature. You feel colder on a windy day, not because the air is cooler, but because it is stripping heat away from your body faster.
S,
You wrote –
“It doesnt matter that the air is colder than the thermometer, right?”
Generally, if a stupid and ignorant person ends a question with “right?”, it is not a question posed in good faith – a gotcha, in other words. Or are you making a poorly expressed statement of supposed fact?
You are still apparently claiming that adding an additional heat source should not be detected by a thermometer, under the silly scenario you have posited. It is, quite obviously. Why do you imagine that the Laws of Thermodynamics are not operating as usual?
It is fairly obvious to anyone other than a fanatical believer in climatological pseudoscience, that heat cannot flow spontaneously from a cooler to a warmer object. Don’t blame me if you cannot understand the theory behind this, nor the bizarre logical consequences which would ensue, if a colder object could spontaneously raise the temperature of a hotter.
Just imagine a ship which could extract the energy from the water through which it sailed, power its engines, and leave a trail of ice cubes (due to the heat removed from the water) in its wake! Your semantic attempts to overcome physics, to support a GHE (which cannot even be properly described), are typical of the fanatical quasi-religious cultist.
Time for another gotcha, do you think?
Cheers.
snape…”the 30 C. thermometer will show warming when the ambient air temperature is raised from 20 C. to 25 C”.
You seem to have forgotten that you warmed the thermometer to 30C using a candle flame. Are you still holding it there while you raise the room temperature?
EM
“Wind or humidity makes no difference once the thermometer and the air around it are in equilibrium.If you start blowing air at the same temperature over the thermometer you see no change.”
I’m not sure if you saw my original post, but the thermometer is heated locally by a candle, so is not in thermal equilibrium with the surrounding air. Therefore, if you were to point a fan at it, it would definitely show a decrease in temperature. Heat would be “stripped away” as you put it.
S,
You did not mention your second heat source.
So that makes you a fool or a fraud, right?
Cheers.
Its simple as this. The sun comes up and warms the earth. Depending on how much clouds are in the air the temperature can go up and down from high to low temperature from a couple to 20-30 degrees on a clear day and night. Co2 is continuously spewed into the atmosphere yet we still have these temperatures fluctuations. If co2 goes up everyday then why are we still getting these cycles of seasons and day and night? The climate has always been cyclical just like the weather when you wake up and go to sleep each day and night. Co2 has nothing to do with this.
CC4realz, please stop trolling.
ClimateChange4realz says:
If co2 goes up everyday then why are we still getting these cycles of seasons and day and night?
Because CO2 isn’t the only factor that determines temperature, nor the strongest one.
Stop asking questions you know the answers to.
David, Im afraid thats the pot calling the kettle black to such an extent that its instigated a race war.
Because CO2 isnt the only factor that determines temperature, nor the strongest one.
Ha! Silly silly David! I knew you would say that! Of course its not the only factor or the strongest one! Way to go! There are many factors that dwarf the impact of co2! You get a pat on the back for such an obvious statement. But you continue to dance around me by not focusing on the fact that climate unlike co2 does not evolve linearly and it never will! In order to get a better understanding of how climate evolves we would have to assume its linear and when we do that prussuming the average temperature increases by 20 degrees or so from low to high temperature recorded. 20 daily! Thats more then the whopping 10 degrees Fahrenheit rise over the century that the iPCC howls over is going to kill us all yet the forget to mention that temperature fluctuates on average from low to high recorded temperature at any given location on average by 20 degrees each day! Problem is we cant measure the impact co2 and other poisonous greenhouse gases have on the climate because the temperature doesnt go up linearly 20 degrees each day. Its a made up fantasy assuming the climate evolves linearly not cyclically
In order to get a better understanding of how climate evolves we would have to assume its linear and when we do that prussuming the average temperature increases by 20 degrees or so from low to high temperature recorded. 20 daily!
No.
The diurnal variation isn’t very relevant to climate.
The equations of climate change relate the different forcings on climate to the dynamical variables of climate.
This is pretty old, boring stuff, and you haven’t found anything new or surprising.
Thats more then the whopping 10 degrees Fahrenheit rise over the century that the iPCC howls over is going to kill us all yet the forget to mention that temperature fluctuates on average from low to high recorded temperature at any given location on average by 20 degrees each day!
So you think the temperature change that goes on in your backyard every night is more meaningful than from 5 C GMST difference from the top of an ice age to the bottom, with its 2 miles of ice over Chicago.
Is that really your position?
DA,
So you think that increasing the amount of CO2 between the Sun and a thermometer makes the thermometer hotter?
Is that really your position? LOL!
Cheers.
Me trolling? Ha! I havent been on this comment board for months? Whats the matter dr Spencer? Cant handle the truth? Come on buddy I thought you were better then this.
Dr Spencer uses his full name: Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D.
He has not made any posts on this thread.
Should the effect of increasing CO2 effect the range of temperature change which occurs during a day?
Well it should not increase the hotest that a day could get, and if increases global temperature it should make days get less cool.
So if CO2 had large effect, it should do this. Anything which causes increase in global temperature should do.
Or we live in an ice age or in world with lower global temperature than most of time in last few hundreds of million years.
Your swings in daily temperature should more extreme due to the lower average global temperature.
Part of our Ice Age is the glacial periods, which have much lower average temperature, and should therefore have wider swings in daily temperatures, then presently.
In the cooler glacial periods a lower global average temperature will have less water vapor in the atmosphere and less water vapor in the atmosphere will cause wider swings of temperature.
Yes, Roy uses his real name here.
So do I. Why don’t you?
I have been on the internet for very long time- it’s always been my handle. Though I noticed a while back someone in UK was using, I assume it was some other Baikie.
David says:
Stop asking questions you know the answers to.
Well Ill be! Looks like someone cant answer a simple answer to a simple question! It wont hurt to type a few words to answer a poor lads question now would it?
I just answered.
But I’ll stop know that I know you aren’t being serious.
Mike says,
“You did not mention your second heat source.”
1) a thermometer reads 20 C., same as ambient air and thermostat setting.
2) a candle is placed next to the thermometer, so that it reaches a temperature of 30 C.
3) the thermostat setting is raised to 25 C.
S,
You wrote –
“Im not sure if you saw my original post, but the thermometer is heated locally by a candle,”
And anyone who, as you say, may not have seen your original post, may also not have known about your unstated (at this point) secondary heat source.
Are you stupid? Do you really expect that introducing additional heat to a system will not cause a thermometer to indicate such?
Even Trenberth, assuming that additional heat existed, said that it was a travesty that thermometers weren’t indicating its existence! Maybe you introduce magical climatological heat which has no effect on thermometers – all the while claiming any increased temperatures are due to energy flowing spontaneously from colder to hotter. Nope – not going to happen.
Maybe you could claim that CO2 produced by the candle makes the thermometer hotter? Or are you now claiming that CO2 does not affect thermometers?
Maybe you could give thought to describing the GHE, or even take a stab at explaining how putting more CO2 between a heat source and a thermometer makes the thermometer hotter! Or not, as you wish.
Cheers.
David Appell the liar says: The diurnal variation isnt very relevant to climate.
The equations of climate change relate the different forcings on climate to the dynamical variables of climate.
Ah ha! Boom! There you go falling into that same trap all alarmists do. Silly old David I was referring to these daily fluctuations over a period of decades. You continue to try to doge my question when I said nothing about any forcings which are irrelevant to everything Im saying. I guess I will have to restate my self. Regardless of what silly forcing mechanism co2 has on the climate we have now for Billions of years and still do today see daytime highs on average when conditions are right fluctuate by 20 degrees. For example in Birmingham Alabama today it was 70 at night by during the day it was 90. Back in the good old days when co2 wasnt around we didnt have those fluctuations in temperature. Nope! Co2 was the evening Villan that caused it all when lineraly speaking just like co2 if weather over a time scale of decades evolves just like co2 each day compared to the worst estimates of the iPCC 10 degrees we are all going to die by 2100 scenario yet I can name you 90% of locations all around the globe that saw temperatures go up by jusy 10 degrees in one day and down 10 degrees. UP DOWN UP DOWN UP DOWN. Get it???? But co2 doesnt evolve like that. It evolves: UP UP UP Up UP and UP!!! What about all the downs that global temperature has done despite all that co2 in the air on the increase each and everyday yet we are given the same thing. Sun rises earth warms sun sets earth cools but one day co2 became so dominant that it didnt cool down at night anymore instead it got warmer and warmer by the minute!! Literally!!! Understand David old buddy?
“daily fluctuations over a period of decades” can or cannot be caused by AGW.
What is you actual question? Don’t write an essay about it, just give the question.
Who says we will die by 2100?
You made that up. It’s a lie.
So you think the temperature change that goes on in your backyard every night is more meaningful than from 5 C GMST difference from the top of an ice age to the bottom, with its 2 miles of ice over Chicago.
That is one of the stupidest claims I ever heard someone said! You are forgetting ONCE AGAIN that the climate does not evolve linear never has never will. Co2 does evolve linear since 1958 since this whole silly global warming nonsense was blamed on our cars and factories. I will say this again. In order to get a better understanding of how the climate evolves we would have to presume that the climate does evolve linearly and compare the two. I do a YouTube video on this. My YouTube account is ClimateChange4realz. Thats right! In fact Ill give you the link! There are multiple parts! Enjoy being debunked!
https://youtu.be/-c5vrCI0T9M
My question to you has nothing whatsoever to do with linearity or nonlinearity.
My simple question is this: Do you think the 20 deg temperature change that takes place in your backyard every night is more significant than the 5 C difference in GMST between the bottom of the last glacial maximum and the Holocene?
CO2 is increasing exponentially (since the economy is).
That makes temperature increase linearly (without feedbacks).
I’m not going to watch any of your videos. If you have a point, make it here.
DA,
Does climate change increase linearly? How would you measure it?
The IPCC says –
“The climate system is a coupled non-linear chaotic system, . . . ”
You obviously think the IPCC is delusional. I might even agree in some respects. On the other hand I agree that the atmosphere behaves chaotically.
Maybe you could try to deny, divert, and confuse by tossing in some irrelevant gotchas at this point?
Cheers.
Did David Appell put his foot in it again?
He wrote –
“Gordon Robertson says:
I think that equation serves to defeat the GHE and the AGW pseudo-science since it prevents a cooler atmosphere transferring heat to the warmer surface.”
This is clearly wrong, or else night time temperatures on Earths surface would *plummet*.”
If David trotted himself out to an arid tropical desert, he would find that the temperature did plummet after sundown – compared with an atmosphere containing lots of the most important so-called GHG, H2O. He could warm himself up by keeping his foot in his mouth, I suppose.
More GHGs, lower maximum temperatures.
Reverse GHE due to the magic of climatological pseudoscience, possibly. Hard to say – David can’t actually describe the GHE. Nor can anybody else.
Too bad, so sad.
Cheers.
Gordo claims:
The major deserts are located outside of the tropics. Gordo needs to learn some meteorology and geography, in addition to heat transfer…
Wrong person.
ES,
Yet again, you refer to something I didn’t say.
You may disagree with yourself all you like. You haven’t managed to disagree with anything I said.
Maybe you need reading lessons.
Cheers.
MF, My mistake to call you Gordo as he appears much more interested in physics than you. But, I did cut and paste verbatim from your post. Are you living in an alternate world, or are you viewing a web page hacked by the Russians?
Perhaps Mike was simply not referring to one of the major deserts.
ES,
What portion of the verbatim quote mentioned major deserts outside the tropics?
Disagree with something you thought I said (but didn’t, of course) all you like.
You can’t find anything wrong with anything I do say, can you?
Go on, try really, really, hard! Maybe you could just make something up, or erect an easily demolished strawman. How are you going locating a description of the GHE?
Not well, I assume.
Cheers.
David says: Im not going to watch any of your videos. If you have a point, make it here
Ah! It all makes sense now! So from what Im hearing either:
A) your too lazy to click on the link and watch each of my videos which should only take up maybe an hour or two of your day. Or even better you can watch one each day and get back to me when your done! It aint going anywhere!
B) the truth scares you and your just to chicken.
Which one can it possibly be. Hmmmm…
You think I”m going to spend an “hour or two” on your BS?
Get your work published in a decent peer reviewed journal, and I’ll have a look.
CO2 is increasing exponentially (since the economy is).
That makes temperature increase linearly (without feedbacks).
I never mentioned anything about feedbacks I was talking about the relationship between co2 and temperature. You may want to read my previous post twice and rethink it. But knowing you you would say Nope its the feedbacks forget about it it has nothing to do with the fact that the climate evolves cyclically and co2 evolves linearly theres nothing wrong with that because we have our wonderful feedbacks of co2 causing these daily fluctuations. Right…… You cant hide behind a rock forever Davie boy.
At some point CO2 causes enough warming that positive feedbacks happen.
FALSE!
Wrong. It’s already happening.
1) water vapor feedback
2) ice-albedo feedback
Only in your imagination, DA.
JDH,
Who knows? Maybe climatological pseudoscientific CO2 forcing supplemented by climatological pseudoscientific feedback (they had to call it feedback after someone pointed out that H20 also absorbed and emitted IR), and pseudoscientific climatological ice-albedo feedback, (whatever that is!), might confuse real scientists so hopelessly they would give up.
On the other hand, maybe David Appell is just hopelessly deluded.
He worships the deity GHE, which cannot be described, is all powerful, and is so mysterious that all communication with the god have to go through climatological pseudoscientists.
Facts have little impact on delusional psychotics – they may believe they have secret knowledge, or that they have been rewarded with Nobel Prizes, for example.
At least it makes the rest of us look sane and rational by comparison, I support David’s continued comments, even if confused and irrational, if only for their laughter inducing content.
Cheers.
Mike Flynn states: “Facts have little impact on delusional psychotics…”
Exactly, Mike.
The observational evidence for the ice-albedo feedback:
“We find that the Arctic planetary albedo has decreased from 0.52 to 0.48 between 1979 and 2011, corresponding to an additional 6.4 0.9 W/m2 of solar energy input into the Arctic Ocean region since 1979. Averaged over the globe, this albedo decrease corresponds to a forcing that is 25% as large as that due to the change in CO2 during this period, considerably larger than expectations from models and other less direct recent estimates. Changes in cloudiness appear to play a negligible role in observed Arctic darkening, thus reducing the possibility of Arctic cloud albedo feedbacks mitigating future Arctic warming.”
— K. Pistone, I. Eisenman, and V. Ramanathan (2014). Observational determination of albedo decrease caused by vanishing Arctic sea ice. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 111, 3322-3326.
http://eisenman.ucsd.edu/papers/Pistone-Eisenman-Ramanathan-2014.pdf
Here’s the evidence for an increase in atmospheric water vapor:
IPCC 5AR WG1 Ch2 Figs 2.30 & 2.31 documents positive trends in water vapor in multiple datasets.
http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-
“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
“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
I love it when the evidence shuts them down.
I love it when your imagination runs away with you.
Gordon Robertson
Since you insist on stating Clausius incorrectly I will again link to his own writings.
Chapter 12 of this link. First paragraph. You are wrong in your false belief that Clausius did not understand two-way IR exchange.
https://archive.org/details/mechanicaltheor03claugoog
Here are his own words: ”
The principle assumed by the author as the ground of
the second main principle, viz. that heat cannot of itself, or
without compensation, pass from a colder to a hotter body,
corresponds to everyday experience in certain very simple
cases of the exchange of heat. To this class belongs the
conduction of heat, which always takes place in such a way
that heat passes from hotter bodies or parts of bodies to
colder bodies or parts of bodies. Again as regards the ordi-
nary radiation of heat, it is of course well known that not only
do hot bodies radiate to cold, but also cold bodies conversely
to hot ; nevertheless the general result of this simultaneous
double exchange of heat always consists, as is established by
experience, in an increase of the heat in the colder body
at the expense of the hotter.”
Gordon Robertson
If you really read what Clausius is saying then David Appell has the idea correct and you do not.
Clausius: “nevertheless the general result of this simultaneous
double exchange of heat always consists,”
He actually states double exchange of heat (based upon his definition of the term).
N,
I believe Clausius said –
“Heat can never pass from a colder to a warmer body without some other change, connected therewith, occurring at the same time.l
He said a lot of other things which were wrong, but he seems to have been correct in his expression of the Second Law of Thermodynmics.
It really matters not, does it?
You can’t propose a testable GHE hypothesis, because you cannot even describe the GHE, can you? Irrelevant appeals to authority are about as stupid as believing the Earth has not cooled over the last four and a half billion years, or that you can make a thermometer hotter using CO2!
Are you really delusional, or just pretending?
Cheers.
Norman…”Clausius: nevertheless the general result of this simultaneous
double exchange of heat always consists,
He actually states double exchange of heat (based upon his definition of the term)”.
************
Again!!! Clausius was not aware of the mechanism of heat transfer via radiation between bodies of different temperatures. Cut the guy some slack, will you?
If you want to cherry pick what he said, which is incorrect according to Bohr, Schrodinger, and quantum theory, your delusions will only lead you further into the dark woods of pseudo-science.
Once, in his work, he made that statement with regard to radiation only. He did not at any time imply that about conduction. In fact he was very clear about it, claiming that heat can NEVER be transferred by its own means from cold to hot.
Why then would he suddenly make such a claim with regard to radiation. BECAUSE…HE DID NOT KNOW HOW RADIATION WORKED!!!
HE THOUGHT HEAT WAS FLOWING EITHER WAY AND IT WAS NOT!!!
Even at that, he stipulated that radiation must obey the 2nd principle.
Earlier in his work he inferred something about a two way transfer of heat. However, he was trying to clarify what he meant by compensation, the only means by which heat can be transferred cold to hot. In that discussion he mentioned that heat extracted from a colder object must be immediately compensated by replacing it with heat from another source.
So, if you have a gas like air, you cannot transfer heat from it to a hotter area of air. However, in an air conditioner, you can run another type of gas through a compressor and compress it to a high pressure liquid. When you compress the gas it becomes hotter and you run the liquid through a condenser coil and exhaust the heat to the atmosphere.
The cooled liquid is then converted to an aerosol and allowed to expand back to a low pressure gas in an evaporator coil where it cools and sucks heat from an area to be cooled.
You are not only heating and cooling the gas, you are doing work on it, which requires external power. You cannot transfer heat at any anytime by normal means from a cooler body to a warmer body.
That’s what Clausius meant by a two way transfer of heat and with reference to radiation, he simply did not have the knowledge in his day to understand that heat was not being exchanged between bodies.
I think what he intended was that ‘something’ was flowing two ways but he knew enough, based on experience, as he claimed, that the colder body always warmed at the expense of the hotter body.
That is correct. The hotter body gives up heat when heat is converted to EM and that EM can be converted back to heat in a cooler body. The same is not true in the opposite direction.
Gordo wrote:
Your deviant physics is showing again. All bodies emit IR EM radiation all the time. With solid bodies, the emissions tend to exhibit a continuous range of wavelengths and both warmer and cooler bodies spectral emission profiles overlap. There’s no doubt that some of the emissions from the cooler body will be intercepted by the warmer one, depending on geometry.
Your deviant theory claims that the cooler emissions won’t be absorbed by the warmer one, which has been demonstrated to be incorrect. The energy represented by the photons from the cooler body can’t simply vanish, which would violate the First Law of thermo. Those photons can only be absorbed or reflected, depending on the details of the body’s surface. When those photons are absorbed, the so-called “back radiation”, the resulting energy is added to that of the warmer body, increasing the warmer body’s kinetic energy, i.e., it’s temperature.
ES believes: “The energy represented by the photons from the cooler body can’t simply vanish, which would violate the First Law of thermo.”
ES, you have tried that before. No one is saying anything of the kind. Photons that are reflected do not just “vanish”. Just trying your worn-out “logic”, over and over, makes you appear vapid and unoriginal.
Either learn some physics, or get some new pseudoscience.
What’s the evidence for such reflection?
DA, look around your basement apartment. What you see is your evidence.
Learn some physics!
Again, you deflected and didn’t answer.
What’s the evidence for such reflection?
swannie…Your deviant physics is showing again. All bodies emit IR EM radiation all the time”.
I am not arguing that point, I am claiming IR from a cooler body cannot be absorbed by electrons residing at a higher atomic energy level.
Gordo wrote:
I am not arguing that point, I am claiming IR from a cooler body cannot be absorbed by electrons residing at a higher atomic energy level.
If a solid body can emit IR EM at a particular wavelength, it can also absorb IR EM at that same wavelength. The temperature of the source of those photons does not matter, IMHO.
E. Swanson, you have to be careful with Gordon’s limited knowledge, limited accomplishment in optics.
Electrons can not be kicked to a higher energy level by light unless the photon energy matches. So that is basically true in what Gordon writes. Gordon has never demonstrated an understanding that lower energy photons can kick a molecule up a quantum energy level in rotational (gas) and vibrational (solid, gas, plasma) modes. Thus Gordon appears here comfortable in his incorrect assessment of photons from a cooler body not being absorbed at all in a warmer solid or gaseous object which is clearly wrong.
Gordon is also wrong that the electron alone quantum absorbs a matching photon when it is actually the entire structure of the atom/molecule that absorbs the light.
Gordon Robertson says:
Again!!! Clausius was not aware of the mechanism of heat transfer via radiation between bodies of different temperatures
Then why do you hold him up as the oracle of all things 2LOT?
And for clowns that can not understand thermo, “cold” can not warm “hot”.
Wrong. Learn some physics.
DA, obviously you haven’t opened a book yet.
Still having too much fun being a clown, huh?
Your insults are very easy to see through. They mean you have no response based in physics. That you’re in over your head. Happens every time.
Yup, you’re still wanting to be a clown.
You can’t even quote the 2nd law correctly.
Sorry DA, not taking the bait.
Learn to do your own work–that’s the best way to learn.
Just wanted to again point out your incompetence. Thanks for the assist.
JDHuffman
The temperature of the cold surroundings will determine the steady state temperature of the hot heated object.
You can alter the temperature of the heated hot object by changing the temperature of the colder surroundings.
I could argue this point with you. Do an experiment and you too can see you have been wrong for a very long time. Never too late to accept you have been wrong and change.
Put an object inside a vacuum. Heat it with a constant source of input energy (you could use a heat lamp or use some electrical heater). Measure the steady state temperature. Measure the temperature of the surrounding walls. Now change the temperature of the surrounding walls and the temperature of the object changes with your changes. Increase the temperature of the surroundings (but still much colder than the heated object) and the object temperature goes up. Decrease the surrounding temperature and the hot object temperature goes down. You will not accept this reality until you do the experiment yourself. You are not capable of accepting other people doing this experiment.
Norman, you have no clue what a clown you are. Adding heat to a system tends to raise the system temperature!
All you’ve proved is that you don’t understand thermo.
But we already knew that.
JDHuffman
Clown, you are adding the energy to the colder surroundings. This energy from the colder surrounding is being added to the hotter object and raising its temperature. Careful who you call clown, you are the one who can’t comprehend thermo. You pretend you studied it but don’t know what view factors are. You are quite the comedian.
You claim that the cold cannot warm the hotter object. Why does adding energy to the cold matter? It means that this energy added to the cold somehow makes it to the hot. You are so wrong it is funny to read. You don’t know what you are talking about at all! I am laughing at your posts. You are one funny poster.
N,
Try heating some water by surrounding it with ice. Or just increase the energy of your water, by adding some ice.
Do you think photon energy might need to be taken into account?
By talking about raising the temperature of the surroundings, you are stating that the temperature of your additional heat source is greater than that of the surroundings. Otherwise you would be breaking the Second Law of Thermodynamics, wouldn’t you?
Or do you really believe you can heat water using lots and lots of high intensity concentrated radiation form ice? Maybe a kilowatt or so?
Now if you claim you can raise the temperature of the surroundings with a colder object, then you have achieved something new.
But even you wouldn’t make such a ridiculous claim. Still no GHE. No CO2 heating, either. Carry on wasting oxygen.
Cheers.
JDHuffman
Your understanding of radiant energy:
https://postlmg.cc/HrxkJyBB
You and Gordon Robertson both believe (not sure why since it is not based upon any valid evidence) that energy from a cold object cannot be absorbed by a hotter one. You show it to be reflecting 100% off the hotter object (in this case you have the two at the same temperature but you have the energy bouncing off…not sure why).
So based upon your belief, it would not matter how much energy you add to the cold surroundings as long as the temperature of the surroundings are colder than your heated object. You show all the energy from the colder surroundings being totally reflected.
However how does your idea explain that the heated object will get hotter when you increase the temperature of the surroundings?
Norman, the plates graphic you linked to is correct. At least you got something right!
The plates are in a perfect vacuum, so raising the ambient temperature is not an option. But even with an atmosphere, the laws of physics still apply.
Norman…”you are adding the energy to the colder surroundings. This energy from the colder surrounding is being added to the hotter object and raising its temperature”.
Absolute pseudo-science.
Norman…”You and Gordon Robertson both believe (not sure why since it is not based upon any valid evidence) that energy from a cold object cannot be absorbed by a hotter one….”
Water cannot by it’s own means flow uphill. A boulder cannot by it’s own means lift itself up a cliff.
Why??? Because you cannot move against a potential energy hill without using some external means. Same in an electrical circuit.
A higher temperature and a lower temperature represent such a potential energy hill. Heat cannot be transferred from a lower potential energy to a higher potential energy.
Gordon Robertson
With EMR there is no potential energy hill that has to be climbed.
EMR is bosons. They move through each other with little interaction.
The EM field does not extend from the surface to the other surface to create a potential field with the other surface. The EM fields are small and do not extend much past the surface atom/molecules. You have to create a charge imbalance to create an electric field that can go some distance from the surface. On a neutral surface there is not potential EM field extending outward to the other plate.
Each surface emits and absorbs independent of the other surface, they do not have direct interaction of fields. This is wrong and bad physics. I have been visiting Principia Scientific blog to find out where you get you ideas. On that blog they just make up whatever they want and declare it true. You do the same here.
It’s always funny when Norman gets tangled in his pseudoscience! He states: “EMR is bosons. They move through each other with little interaction.”
Norman gets this much correct. But also makes himself wrong when he previously claimed that radiative fluxes add/subtract. Norman likes to argue with himself!
By pointing out that photons don’t generally interact, Norman was trying to prove that “cold” could warm “hot”. And, he’s wrong again!
Photons are NOT always absorbed, as Norman fails to remember. Whether or not photons are absorbed depends on wavelengths. Norman cannot understand basic physics.
It’s called a “learning disability”.
JDHuffman
YOU: “Norman gets this much correct. But also makes himself wrong when he previously claimed that radiative fluxes add/subtract. Norman likes to argue with himself!”
I was not wrong about that. Radiative fluxes definitely add and subtract. You don’t know what you are talking about!
I already told you to go in your room. Turn on one light and observe the view. Turn on more lights and see what happens. I think your lack of any physics is so far gone nothing will ever help you. You will be the clown on this blog as long as you post. You have entertainment value only. You do not know any physics.
Norman, your example (of turning lights in a room) clearly indicates you do not understand the issue. More light brightens the room, but that is not relevant. An additional light just helps to make up for the inverse square reductions. Adding enough lights would bring a surface to a maximum temperature, but no higher, because radiative fluxes do not add.
JDHuffman
Radiative fluxes do add. Saying they don’t does not make you seem very bright. You need to turn on more lights in your head, they are getting dim.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2018/09/my-tucker-carlson-interview-last-night-and-calling-out-bill-nye-james-hansen/#comment-321345
A radiative flux j1 in the direction n-hat and a radiative flux j2 in the direction n-hat combine to give a total radiative flux of (j1+j2) in the direction of n-hat.
Conservation of eneregy.
norman…”With EMR there is no potential energy hill that has to be climbed.
EMR is bosons. They move through each other with little interaction”.
Bosons, muons, quarks….whatever, EM is a form of energy and it is produced by electrons in atoms. As such, it must abide by the rules governing electrons, which flit back and forth between energy levels with different potential energies.
When I talked about potential hills, I was talking about the difference in energy levels between electrons in a cooler body versus those in a hotter body. EM is measured by its frequency, which is related to temperature. Hotter body electrons don’t care to mingle with cooler body EM.
Gordon Robertson says:
EM is a form of energy and it is produced by electrons in atoms.
EM is produced by many kinds of changes in quantum states, not just those involving electrons.
But apparently solderers don’t learn this.
N,
And if you can manage to change the temperature of the surroundings without heat, maybe you can say how to achieve this miracle! Are you using some form of climatological pseudoscientific magic, perhaps?
Maybe you could use CO2? That provides no heat. Does your thermometer get hotter? No? What a surprise!
Why do you disbelieve Clausius, who apparently said –
“Heat can never pass from a colder to a warmer body without some other change, connected therewith, occurring at the same time.”?
Have you considered getting together with others of your ilk, and indulging in a spot of mass debating?
Cheers.
norman…”The temperature of the cold surroundings will determine the steady state temperature of the hot heated object.
You can alter the temperature of the heated hot object by changing the temperature of the colder surroundings”.
********
Thing to note, the steady state temperature of the object is not due to radiation alone. It involves direct conduction to the environment, convection of air in the environment, and radiation. At terrestrial temperatures, radiation is a minor layer. It will take hours for a thermos of hot coffee to cool via radiation.
The steady state temperature is not created by the cold surroundings, it is created by the heating source. If you turn off the heating heated source, the body will cool till it is in thermal equilibrium with the cooler environment. In that case, the cooler air cannot affect an increase in the object temperature.
The steady state temp is the sum of the heat created in the object by the heated source and the loss of heat (dissipation) from the body to the environment. If you alter the rate of dissipation, you alter the object’s temperature.
Heat can be dissipated through direct conduction to air, by convection of that heated air, and by direct radiation. You can increase the rate of conduction and radiation by increasing the surface area over which the body can dissipate heat.
That is the underlying principle of a heat sink. The device is attached to a good conductor like copper or aluminum, which allows the heat from the object to flow away from it more easily and in grater quantity. By making the surface area of the heat sink larger, the heat has more area over which it can flow and the surface area gives a larger area for radiation and direct conduction.
Convection can be increased using forced air. The more you apply these tools, the cooler the object will get to a degree.
Let’s change one of them by making the room air hotter. That affects radiation, conduction, and convection by reducing the thermal gradient between the object and the air and the thermal gradient between the heated air around the object and the area where it is convected.
The closer you bring room T to the object T the less heat it can dissipate for reasons just given, and the object will warm.
Without the heat source it would only warm to the temperature of the room air. However, an internal electrical heater will try warming the object to many times the room air temp. The warming you observe in the object comes from the heat in the object due to the heating source being less able to move away from the body.
The warming is not caused by the cooler environment warming the object. It is caused by the cooler air warming and interfering with the heat dissipation in the object.
Gordon Robertson
I have been doing some reading. Dissipation is used mainly with conduction and convection. It is not used with radiant energy.
The warming of a heated object in a vacuum is directly related to the amount of EMR it is absorbing from its surroundings. The surroundings are not removing more energy from the heated object by being colder. The heated object is emitting only based upon its own temperature (keep it in a vacuum, no air). You can get an FLIR device to monitor this. As you increase the surrounding temperature the amount of IR reaching your FLIR device does not go up until the temperature of the hot object goes up. It goes up because it is receiving more IR from the surroundings than before. You can also see this by pointing the IR device at the surroundings. The device is receiving more IR. You are really wrong. I hope you can adjust the bad ideas you are thinking are correct. Any experiment will show you are wrong. You can do some of them yourself.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2018/09/my-tucker-carlson-interview-last-night-and-calling-out-bill-nye-james-hansen/#comment-321480
norman…”I have been doing some reading. Dissipation is used mainly with conduction and convection. It is not used with radiant energy”.
Dissipation is related to heat. When a body emits EM it cools, that is, it dissipates heat.
Norman…”Again as regards the ordi-
nary radiation of heat, it is of course well known that not only
do hot bodies radiate to cold, but also cold bodies conversely
to hot ; nevertheless the general result of this simultaneous
double exchange of heat always consists, as is established by
experience, in an increase of the heat in the colder body
at the expense of the hotter.”
***********
I have been over this before. In the day of Clausius it was believed that heat could be transferred from a hotter body to a colder body through air, as rays. He believed that, Stefan believed it, Bolzmann believed it, Kircheoff believed it, and Planck believed, it prior to 1900.
Even at that, Clausius concludes that an increase in heat occurs in the colder body at the expense of the hotter body. I have claimed that in past posts, that no heat is transferred, the hotter body cools by radiating EM and a cooler body warms by absorbing that radiated EM and warming.
Clausius had it right, he just did not understand that it is not heat flowing through space as rays. He knew a hotter and a colder body radiated a portion of their isotropic radiation toward each other, he just did not know what Bohr pointed out circa 1913, that radiation involves electrons in atoms and that certain rules apply.
Had Clausius know about those rules I am sure it would have made him very happy to understand how the 2nd law works wrt radiation and that it works exactly as he specified, hot to cold only.
Gordon Robertson
YOU: “I have been over this before. In the day of Clausius it was believed that heat could be transferred from a hotter body to a colder body through air, as rays. He believed that, Stefan believed it, Bolzmann believed it, Kircheoff believed it, and Planck believed, it prior to 1900.
Even at that, Clausius concludes that an increase in heat occurs in the colder body at the expense of the hotter body. I have claimed that in past posts, that no heat is transferred, the hotter body cools by radiating EM and a cooler body warms by absorbing that radiated EM and warming.”
All the scientists you list were correct. You are the one who is wrong!
Heat IS transferred by IR. You may be correct that EMR is not heat but you are completely wrong to believe EMR does not transfer heat. It does. There are three heat transfer mechanisms.
https://www.engr.colostate.edu/~allan/heat_trans/page4/page4f.html
norman…”Heat IS transferred by IR”.
It just appears that way. Heat is converted at the source to EM (IR). That heat is gone, it is no longer anywhere to be found, it exists in another energy form as EM. Therefore it cannot be transferred through the air.
The EM from a hotter body, however, can flow to a cooler body and be converted back to heat. The heat in the cooler body increases. In other words, heat is lost in the hotter body and created in the cooler body.
It’s all done locally as it should be. Heat is a property of mass and if no mass passes through the air, no heat passes through the air.
The mass making up the hotter body loses heat by converting it to EM. It can also lose heat by direct conduction to the air and have that heat swept away by convection. It’s an entirely local action, the loss of heat.
At the other end, at the cooler body, there is local action as well. The mass comprising the cooler body converts EM to heat and warms.
There is no actual transfer of heat between bodies of different temperature via radiation. heat just appears to flow from one body to another. The 2nd law says that action is invalid from cold to hot.
Gordon Robertson
YOU: “It just appears that way. Heat is converted at the source to EM (IR). That heat is gone, it is no longer anywhere to be found, it exists in another energy form as EM. Therefore it cannot be transferred through the air.
The EM from a hotter body, however, can flow to a cooler body and be converted back to heat. The heat in the cooler body increases. In other words, heat is lost in the hotter body and created in the cooler body.”
This is your made up version of science. There is no support for it anywhere to be found and it even goes against Clausius. So you cherry pick the parts of Clausius you think agree with you and reject (based upon no evidence) the parts that disagree with you.
In the real world, not your made up version, the hot object converts vibrational atomic/molecular energy to EMR at the surface and it is emitted in all directions away from the surface. At the same time the cold object surface is doing the same.
The EMR from the hot object reaches the cold object and a percentage of this energy is absorbed and becomes part of the internal vibrational energy. At the same time the EMR from the cold object reaches the hot object and it is absorbed and becomes part of the internal vibrational energy. The actual reason the hotter object cools and the colder one warms (with no external energy inputs) is because the hotter object is emitting away more energy than it is gaining from the cold object. Both are emitting EMR and both absorb it. The cold object warms because it is emitting less energy than it absorbs. You don’t have your science right and it seems no one will be able to change you distorted view. You will not even accept Clausius own words on this. I posted them, you should read them again.
Norman says: “At the same time the EMR from the cold object reaches the hot object and it is absorbed and becomes part of the internal vibrational energy.”
FALSE! Photons are not always absorbed.
Norman just doesnt have his science right and it seems no one will be able to change him.
JDHuffman
Careful when you launch an attack on a poster. It might do you well to actually read the post before making a bold statement.
It is implied (unless specifically stated otherwise) that a percentage of the energy will be absorbed.
I put it in the first condition. It is implied in the second condition. I am not posting to make sure your limited reading comprehension can figure things out. Most can figure it out. You complain about too many words already. If I have to specify everything for you in each sentence because you can’t seem to reason, the posts would be even longer.
For any who might think you have a valid point. What I stated: “The EMR from the hot object reaches the cold object and a percentage of this energy is absorbed and becomes part of the internal vibrational energy. At the same time the EMR from the cold object reaches the hot object and it is absorbed and becomes part of the internal vibrational energy.”
I implied a percentage and it would be assumed that if it is so in the first case it would also be so in the second case. I can’t help your limited reasoning ability.
Norman, thanks for admitting you can not agree with your own words.
Kind of happens a lot, huh?
JDHuffman
You are just a dork.
Norman, flagrant immaturity will not gain you any credibility.
But, each to his own, as they say.
You do realize that you can debunk claims that arent always in the form of questions right? Nope. Didnt think so.
If you have a question then ask it, without 500 useless words coming along with it.
That reply was to one of Davids comments.
The EMR from the laser is absorbed
= heat, the transfer of energy.
I’m not too lazy to click on links. I’m just not going to waste my time on people like you.
David Appell says:
At some point CO2 causes enough warming that positive feedbacks happen.
That is absolute nonsense! If co2 was that much of a driver to cause a noticible change in the climate then those feedbacks should have shown themselves already causing the climate to go up in phase with co2 but once again There you go again with the feedbacks bull dust. I guess I have to repeat myself once again from my last response:
I never mentioned anything about feedbacks I was talking about the relationship between co2 and temperature. You may want to read my previous post twice and rethink it. But knowing you you would say Nope its the feedbacks forget about it it has nothing to do with the fact that the climate evolves cyclically and co2 evolves linearly theres nothing wrong with that because we have our wonderful feedbacks of co2 causing these daily fluctuations. Right You cant hide behind a rock forever Davie boy.
CC4R…”That is absolute nonsense! If co2 was that much of a driver to cause a noticible change in the climate then those feedbacks should have shown themselves already causing the climate to go up in phase with co2 but once again There you go again with the feedbacks bull dust”.
***********
Plus the fact that positive feedback requires an amplifier. Even Gavin Schmidt of GISS is confused on that one.
Positive feedback is due to the output of an amplifier being fed back to the input of the amplifier, where the signals are combined in phase. Without amplification, however, there would be no increase in the resultant output signal as required in a PF system.
With PF, the signal must increase each cycle and that requires an amplifier. There is no amplifier in the atmosphere and I know of no amplifier that amplifies heat anyway.
With AGW, they think they can transfer heat to GHGs in the atmosphere, which make up no more than 1% of the atmosphere in the lower troposphere, and expect that back-radiated signal to increase the surface temperature.
That is kindergarten level pseudo-science. It’s no different than believing in the tooth fairy or Santa Claus.
For one, heat cannot be transferred from a cooler atmosphere to a warmer surface that supplied the heat in the first place. For another, heat cannot be recycled to cause an increase in temperature of the body that emitted it.
For another, there are losses in the system. The surface has massive losses when it conducts heat to the atmosphere and radiates it away after conversion to EM. How do you make up those losses from a solid surface with bazillions of atoms with back-radiation from a small fraction of atoms in air molecules?
You would need a amplifier to make up the losses and to increase the surface temperature AFTER the losses were made up.
Whoever dreamed up this cockamamey theory was a high priest in the Tabernacle of Pseudo-Science.
Gordon Robertson says:
Plus the fact that positive feedback requires an amplifier. Even Gavin Schmidt of GISS is confused on that one.
water vapor increase
ice-albedo feedback
cloud feedback
These aren’t difficult to understand. And there is evidence for all of them.
Gordon Robertson wrote:
For one, heat cannot be transferred from a cooler atmosphere to a warmer surface that supplied the heat in the first place.
WRONG.
When are you going to *ever* learn the 2LOT???
I think Gordon is afraid to quote the 2LOT, because it will upset his feelings.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2018/09/my-tucker-carlson-interview-last-night-and-calling-out-bill-nye-james-hansen/#comment-321210
ClimateChange4realz says:
If co2 was that much of a driver to cause a noticible change in the climate then those feedbacks should have shown themselves already
Here’s the evidence for an increase in atmospheric water vapor:
IPCC 5AR WG1 Ch2 Figs 2.30 & 2.31 documents positive trends in water vapor in multiple datasets.
http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-
“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
“How much more rain will global warming bring?” F.J. Wentz, Science (2007), 317, 233â235.
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, 491â504.
http://www.atmos-chem-phys.net/8/491/2008/acp-8-491-2008.html
Another feedback:
“Observational determination of albedo decrease caused by vanishing Arctic sea ice,”
Kristina Pistone, Ian Eisenman, and V. Ramanathan, PNAS v111 n9 pp 3322-3326 (2014).
http://www.pnas.org/content/111/9/3322.abstract
David the lying buffoon says: Im not too lazy to click on links. Im just not going to waste my time on people like you.
Oh thats ok you go right ahead and continue to be a good chicken little. Who knows Maybe you will get lucky and the sky will fall one day.
Insult me all you want. I’m not going to waste time on your links — you above all of the people here.
No rational response, as usual.
It happens every time you get in choppy water.
David says: If you have a question then ask it, without 500 useless words coming along with it.
500 what you call useless words yet you continue to try to grasp straws and rip out nonsense from your bottom like positive feedbacks as a cover up because you dont know how to debate facts that are thrown at you. Here let me spell it out for you 500 useless words and then some:
Ah ha! Boom! There you go falling into that same trap all alarmists do. Silly old David I was referring to these daily fluctuations over a period of decades. You continue to try to doge my question when I said nothing about any forcings which are irrelevant to everything Im saying. I guess I will have to restate my self. Regardless of what silly forcing mechanism co2 has on the climate we have now for Billions of years and still do today see daytime highs on average when conditions are right fluctuate by 20 degrees. For example in Birmingham Alabama today it was 70 at night by during the day it was 90. Back in the good old days when co2 wasnt around we didnt have those fluctuations in temperature. Nope! Co2 was the evening Villan that caused it all when lineraly speaking just like co2 if weather over a time scale of decades evolves just like co2 each day compared to the worst estimates of the iPCC 10 degrees we are all going to die by 2100 scenario yet I can name you 90% of locations all around the globe that saw temperatures go up by jusy 10 degrees in one day and down 10 degrees. UP DOWN UP DOWN UP DOWN. Get it???? But co2 doesnt evolve like that. It evolves: UP UP UP Up UP and UP!!! What about all the downs that global temperature has done despite all that co2 in the air on the increase each and everyday yet we are given the same thing. Sun rises earth warms sun sets earth cools but one day co2 became so dominant that it didnt cool down at night anymore instead it got warmer and warmer by the minute!! Literally!!! Understand David old buddy?
I don’t think David believes that higher levels of CO2 on Earth will make Earth resemble Venus.
I don’t think anyone who posts here, thinks this.
Or said differently I don’t anyone believes Earth will warm by 10 C within the next hundred years.
And this is not vaguely like Venus.
There might be some alarmists who think it’s possible Earth’s average temperature could increase by, say 6 C within a hundred years, and they probably think the world would end because global temperature was 21 C.
I don’t think it will increase by 1 C within a hundred years, though I don’t think, Earth with average temperature of 21 C would be a particularly bad world to live in- rather it’s just not possible- not in 100 or 500 or 1000 years.
Ice ages don’t get this warm- and there is not any sign that we are going to leave our ice age which we been in for more than a million years.
gbaikie says:
I donât think it will increase by 1 C within a hundred years, though I donât think
Earth’s GMST has *already* increased by 1 C.
Learn the data.
Yes, during LIA it was at least 1 C cooler than the present time.
And I am talking about from present time to 100 years into future.
If warms by 1 C within the next hundreds, that should be due to greenhouse gases causing global warming. And not mostly due recovering from LIA.
I don’t think it’s likely we warm as much as 1 C in next hundred years, but I think it is possible to be near this amount. And if don’t get say more than .5 C over next century then that should indicate that warming effect from CO2 is likely to be quite close to zero.
What is this “recovery” from the LIA, when temperature is already one degree higher than at the beginning of the LIA?
How can something recover to higher than its starting value?
David says: It happens every time you get in choppy water.
David old buddy no offense but you seem to be the one in choppy water which you are drowning in as we speak.
Flynn
“Are you stupid? Do you really expect that introducing additional heat to a system will not cause a thermometer to indicate such?”
What are you blabbering about now? The candle causes the thermometer to move from 20 C. to 30 C. Turning up the thermostat will warm it even more.
S,
Yes. Add yet another heat source of sufficiently high temperature and capacity, and it would not surprise anyone that the temperature rose even further!
As Clausius wrote –
“Heat can never pass from a colder to a warmer body without some other change, connected therewith, occurring at the same time.”
You believe you have found a way around the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. You haven’t. Repeatedly pointing out that adding an additional heat source will likely result in a temperature rise in a system now containing additional energy is not evidence of genius – rather just emphasising the ignorance and stupidity of the pointer. That would be you.
Maybe you can relate all your “new physics” to the non-existent GHE, but I doubt it. Try if you wish.
Cheers.
Snapes experiment has been thoroughly debunked, but it will never stop. Most likely it will bring the exact same thing up under the next article.
1) With higher room temperatures, there is less convectional heat loss from the heated object (gbaikie).
2) To get higher room temperatures requires an additional heat source, adding additional energy to the system (M Flynn).
Snape, please stop trolling.
Gordon,
“You seem to have forgotten that you warmed the thermometer to 30C using a candle flame. Are you still holding it there while you raise the room temperature?”
Of course!
S,
Do you really expect that the thermometer will not show an increase in response to the extra heat that you provide?
That’s what thermometers are built to do. Maybe you expect that if you raise the room temperature to 50 C or so, the thermometer will stay at 30 C? Or maybe if you put another candle (about 1400 C) at the same distance as the first, the the thermometer won’t get hotter?
Clausius said –
“Heat can never pass from a colder to a warmer body without some other change, connected therewith, occurring at the same time.”
Maybe you can use a spot of sophistry to make this inconvenient fact vanish. It’s not my fault if you don’t have a clue about thermodynamics, is it? You obviously prefer climatological pseudoscience.
Cheers.
Meanwhile:
Breaking. Global bank Standard Chartered: âWe will not directly finance any new coal-fired power plant projects, including expansions, in any location.â
Sorry dinosaurs, the world is moving on.
M,
August, 2018 –
“Analysis by CoalSwarm estimates that 46.7 gigawatts of new and restarted coal-fired power construction is visible based on satellite imagery supplied by Planet Labs. The coal-fired power plants are either generating power or will soon be operational. ”
Or –
“. . . 13 of the top 20 countries building new coal capacity are Asian, led by China, India, Vietnam, Indonesia and Bangladesh, a new study has found.”
Japan is restarting nuclear reactors, but that is not coal fired – not solar or wind, either.
There might even be other countries who don’t give a rats’ about what Standard Chartered does or doesn’t do. Maybe the Asian countries have banks of their own. Money, even. Lots.
Your imitation sorrow is good for a laugh.
Just keep moving on. Keep exhaling that CO2. The world’s plants need more.
Cheers.
Mykey: the world is certainly moving on.
Here’s an interesting link to a 54-page document on the subject of clean coal technology:
https://www.iea.org/ciab/papers/clean_coal_ciab_2008.pdf
Just for Norman.
Light comprises all frequencies.
As to your apparent confusion about photons being absorbed, reflected, or going straight through, consider glass and visible light.
Some photons go through glass like it isn’t there. Some are reflected. Some are absorbed.
Glass is merely one form of solid. However, even gases behave the same, in general. For example, chlorine reflects green wavelengths, other gases are opaque to certain wavelegths, and some are almost completely transparent.
You have no clue whatever. You cannot even explain the readily observable phenomenon of reflection from a mirror, can you? Go on, look it up on Google. How does an electron figure out what angle to emit a photon it has absorbed? Or does the photon magically “bounce” off electrons which may or not be where you expect them to be? Does Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle stop working?
You can find all the formulae you want. Finding physical explanations is not quite so easy. Try it – you might be sadly disappointed. By the way, don’t forget that light comes in wavelengths from the infinitely long to the infinitesimally short, with energies to suit.
Cheers.
Why is liquid oxygen blue?
Does O2 have a color in the gas phase?
https://chemistry.stackexchange.com/questions/15035/does-o2-have-a-color-in-the-gas-phase
“I have noticed that liquid O2 (I clarify it as O2 because oxygen exists in several other forms which have different colors in the liquid state than O2) has a light blue color to it.
In the solid state it has a light blue color like it does in the liquid state and then finally a red color if enough pressure is applied. It can also be pink, black, or metallic again depending on the pressure and temperature.
Does it also have a light blue color in the gas phase?”
Gordon says the same as the GHG theory.
Svante,
This would be the non-existent climatological pseudoscientific GHG theory, I assume.
There is no real GHG theory, because there is no testable GHE hypothesis, because nobody can actually describe the GHE.
It doesn’t matter what anybody says, increasing the amount of CO2 between the Sun and a thermometer does not make the thermometer hotter. That’s supported by real theory – not climatological pseudoscientific cultism.
Carry on dreaming.
Cheers.
Svante, I think I know where you had intended this post to go, and in context I get what you are trying to say, but you are forgetting:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2018/09/my-tucker-carlson-interview-last-night-and-calling-out-bill-nye-james-hansen/#comment-321004
and
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2018/09/my-tucker-carlson-interview-last-night-and-calling-out-bill-nye-james-hansen/#comment-321040
Actually the second link is not quite correct, as the -18 C figure is only reached by taking into account a value for albedo that would be different were there no oceans or atmosphere.
Thanks again, it was meant to go here:
https://tinyurl.com/y85vlsgu
Yes, thats where I thought you meant to put it.
David says: No rational response, as usual.
David calling my responses irrational and not expanding on the reason and logic rather behind why they arent rational rather then just giving Im trapped in a corner so Im just going to reach for the nearest barrier type responses makes your responses seem 100x more irrational I hope you realize that.
CC: Honestly, nothing I’ve read from you warrants a serious response. You’re just another boring denier repeating the same crap that’s been around for at least a few decades.
David says: No rational response, as usual.
David calling my responses irrational and not expanding on the reason and logic behind why they arent rational rather then just giving Im trapped in a corner so Im just going to reach for the nearest barrier type responses makes your responses seem 100x more irrational I hope you realize that.
4 real,
Please don’t be too hard on DA. You might scare him off and then a large part of the humor of this blog would be gone.
Lewis, in all the time I’ve been here, you have yet to post a single comment with any scientific thought whatsoever.
Why is that, Lewis?
Oh dear me your right! What have I done??!!
Team Huffy
1) With higher room temperatures, there is less convectional heat loss from the heated object (gbaikie).
2) To get higher room temperatures requires an additional heat source, adding additional energy to the system (M Flynn).”
*******
Oh dear, I see we’ve left out the key finding. An oversight?
– The “higher room temperature” was colder than the body it caused to warm.
Snape is on a permanent mission to miss the point. He does amuse, but I would rather he stopped trolling.
When you sunlight which about 1000 watts per square meter- clear skies and the sun near zenith. The sun can warm sand or the ground to about 70 C.
If sand or ground is wet, it can’t as long as it’s wet- but evaporation loss will prevent the ground from reaching this temperature.
And is why ocean surface water only get to about 35 C.
If ground is dry and the air above is cool, this will also prevent the ground from reaching 70 C.
So dry ground, warm air temperature, say 40 C , and sun near zenith on a clear day, will allow the ground surface to warm near 70 C.
Though if have moderate winds, that would reduce the temperature that ground can reach, but if air temperature is around 50 C, wind will have less effect upon ground temperature- could reach around 70 C.
If you use an insulated box which prevents convectional loss- or have parked car with window rolled up.
The outside air could be 10 C [or less] and sunlight [1000 watts per square] will heat a surface to about 80 C.
g,
Here’s something you might want to consider, just for fun.
At night, the surface of the ocean loses heat to the sink of outer space, plus a little evaporation and so on. The water cools, and being denser, sinks. To sink, it must displace water beneath it, which replaces it at the surface, and the cycle repeats.
The Sun comes up, and the surface starts heating. This does not reverse the previous cooling, because the heated surface water stubbornly refuses to sink – it is hotter and less dense!
And so it goes, on and on.
Eventually, the ocean depths have the densest and coldest water at the bottom – around 3 C or so. Considering the oceans sit on a big blob of molten rock, with a very thin congealed skin, its a good thing that sea water doesn’t get cold enough to freeze where it contacts the lithosphere.
Nothing to do with water flowing from the poles to the Equator. Enclosed bodies like Lake Baikal work the same way.
All the brightly coloured graphics in the world showing warmer water ignoring the laws of physics, and plunging into the depths, are delusional. Deep currents caused by surface winds are delusional. Try and explain deep currents vertically separated, flowing in opposite directions, in terms of surface winds.
The scientists at the NSF for years refused to believe that Archimedes’ principle applied to floating ice. Scientists can be mistaken – even delusional!
Cheers.
–Mike Flynn says:
September 25, 2018 at 5:25 PM
g,
Hereâs something you might want to consider, just for fun.
At night, the surface of the ocean loses heat to the sink of outer space, plus a little evaporation and so on. The water cools, and being denser, sinks. To sink, it must displace water beneath it, which replaces it at the surface, and the cycle repeats.
The Sun comes up, and the surface starts heating. This does not reverse the previous cooling, because the heated surface water stubbornly refuses to sink â it is hotter and less dense!–
When sun comes up, during the time the sun is low on horizon, the sunlight does heat near the surface. But the intensity of the direct sunlight is quite weak when near the horizon. An hour after dawn the sun at equator is 15 degrees above the horizon and still quite weak, but at that angle penetrating to deeper depth- say down a foot or more. And 15 degree or lower also has significant amount reflection of sunlight. But hour later at 30 degree above horizon, the sunlight is heating water 1 meter or deeper in depth, and gets deeper as approaching noon, then reverses until at sunset.
In tropics sunlight warm ocean most during “peak solar hours” 3 hours before and after noon. But in tropics when noon has sun close to zenith [or at zenith] 3 hours before and after noon still has sun at 45 degree above the horizon. And depending your latitude the sun might ever as high 45 degrees above horizon or get that high during summer.
In terms of sunlight mostly heating near the surface, it’s mostly relevant in ocean waters, say 50 degree or higher in latitude.
S,
What part of “Heat can never pass from a colder to a warmer body without some other change, connected therewith, occurring at the same time.” do you not understand?
You haven’t got the faintest idea of the energy inputs of your two heat sources. All you know is that the thermometer has reacted to the integrated value of the energy which interacted with the matter of which the thermometer was composed.
Pseudoscientific cultist stupidity and ignorance at work. The same witless assumptions made by fools who are convinced that they have overcome the limitations of conventional physics, and invented perpetual motion machines involving extracting heat from colder objects, or using gravity or magnetic forces to generate free energy.
You may worship any god you wish. If you can’t actually describe the GHE (being far too mysterious, and all), it’s no concern of mine. As Thomas Jefferson said, as long as you neither break my leg, norbpick my pocket, what’s the impact on me?
Believe away. Still no GHE, still no CO2 warming. Fantasy all.
Cheers.
MF continues his disinformation campaign, refusing to properly consider the physics of the GHE. The GHE results from the placement of the thermometer between the heated surface of the Earth and the near absolute zero of deep space. It’s involves infrared wavelengths, not visible light.
ES: “It’s [sic] involves infrared wavelengths, not visible light.”
More specifically, the bogus GHE involves the 14.7 micron photon, which corresponds to the Wien’s peak of about -76 C (-105 F)!
Keep believing, ES.
Maybe you could do an experiment, like boiling water with such enormous heat energy….
JDHuffman
Maybe it is you who need to experiment. E. Swanson already did confirming Eli Rabbet thought experiment. You have yet to do any type of actual testing of any type. You gab a lot but you are afraid to do real testing.
Also why would it matter that Wien’s peak for a 14.7 micron photon is -76 C, Seems like a pointless statement as it concerns GHE.
Norman, how funny!
You have no awareness of how -76 C upsets the GHE bandwagon–denial to the point of fanaticism!
And coupled with your goo-goo-ga-ga fascination with Swanson’s meaningless “experiment”, you have set new records for science avoidance.
You keep mentioning that phony “experiment”, like you’re in love with it. And we know how much you love typing. So this should be a blast for you.
State, in your own words, what you believe the “experiment” validates. No need for your usual wandering-rambling, just what you believe was “proved”.
Simply answer the question: “What did the experiment verify?”
Good luck!
JDHuffman
Like I stated you are a dork. Your comment is complete dork behavior.
A sampling of how dorky you are: “You keep mentioning that phony âexperimentâ, like youâre in love with it. And we know how much you love typing. So this should be a blast for you.”
Only a real dork would post this. Why do you have to be so incredibly stupid? What does it do for you.
E. Swanson did an experiment. I think that is a good thing. You do nothing at all except waste people’s time with dork comments.
You pretend you know some physics. Your ideas are that of a dork. You will do not experiments, you will not support your stupid made up physics. Why do you enjoy being a dork? What do you get for you efforts?
Norman trapped himself, again!
He’s been raving about the bogus “experiment” for months. He was clearly infatuated with it. But he never really understood it. He was just pretending, again.
Now, he’s caught!
JDHuffman
No I am not caught at anything. You are just making a dumb pointless comment. I am not sure why you do this.
So what don’t I understand about E. Swanson’s experiment.
He heats a plate with an energy source on one side. The test is performed in a vacuum to eliminate convection and conduction heat transfer. He waits until a steady state temperature is reached for the plate. Then he moves another plate up on the side opposite the side receiving energy.
The test shows the green plate warming as it absorbs energy emitted by the blue plate. It starts to radiate toward the blue plate, the blue plate now has the same input energy from his light on one side and the emitted energy from the green plate on the other. Now the blue plate increased temperature of 10 C which is the point where it is radiating the same amount of energy it is gaining from the light and the green plate. Not sure what you don’t understand about this or think is bogus.
You are still a complete coward and phony. You complain about someone doing an actual experiment, but you will never do you own. A true phony coward! Why don’t you do your own tests and prove this is incorrect. If you don’t then please shut up, you waste my time!
Norman, see why you have ZERO credibility?
There’s no need for all the immature name-calling and false accusations, if you have anything of value to offer.
Simply answer the question: “What did the experiment verify?”
JDHuffman
First your dork comment: “Norman trapped himself, again!
Hes been raving about the bogus experiment for months. He was clearly infatuated with it. But he never really understood it. He was just pretending, again.
Now, hes caught!a’
Then you pretend as if I am the instigator with your next comment:
YOU: “Norman, see why you have ZERO credibility?
Theres no need for all the immature name-calling and false accusations, if you have anything of value to offer.”
So you lazy coward, when are you going to do your own experiment and prove E. Swanson wrong. You are making a dork claim that his experiment is bogus. What is your proof of that? You just make stupid accusations all the time and will not support any of them. Why?
Norman, I don’t know which is funnier: When you’re in complete meltdown, as here; or when you’re peddling your pseudoscience?
But, as long as you’re making a fool of yourself, it’s all great entertainment.
N,
Try from another angle. The stated “back radiation” is around 333 W/m2. This is equivalent to the emission of a BB temperature of around 3 C.
How hot can you make a body with a measured temperature of 15 C, using a 3 C heat source? Claiming you can make it hotter at all, is about as stupid as claiming you can increase its temperature by using a 0 C, (ice), heat source.
Eli Rabbett is deluded if he believes he can. Maybe he can only do it in his fantasy.
JDF has been extremely polite in not pointing out that CO2 has a measured emissivity of around 0.002. Ensure you include that in your pointless calculations supporting your mythical GHE.
Carry on, Norman. Dream up another bilious, pointless, and irrelevant as hom. Maybe a description of the GHE will be revealed to you in a vision, if you get angry enough. What do you think?
Cheers.
ES,
You still can’t describe your fictional GHE, can you? You claim you know what it involves, but you can’t actually describe it, or bring yourself to claim it makes the world hotter! I don’t blame you. The fact that the Earth has managed to cool for four and a half billion years might cause a few problems for your non-existent GHE description.
Your waffle explains nothing, does it? Even you are not stupid enough to claim that increasing the amount of CO2 between the Sun and a thermometer makes the thermometer hotter, I assume?
Temperatures drop at night – when the thermometer is placed in accordance with your specifications. No heating, the temperature drops, doesn’t it?
Light is light – wavelengths from the infinitely long, to the infinitesimally small. Pretending that uttering words like “infrared wavelengths” will convince anybody that you actually know what you are talking about, won’t make wishful thinking become reality.
Surface temperatures vary roughly between +90 C, and -90 C. Maximum temperatures occur where the atmosphere contains the least amount of your bizarre “greenhouse gases”.
No GHE. No testable GHE hypothesis. No AGW theory. Just more fantasy piled on delusion.
Cheers.
Dangerous tropical storm can reach the Caribbean.
https://tropicaltidbits.com/sat/satlooper.php?region=12L&product=wv-mid
The surface temperature of the Caribbean Sea has increased.
And why is this random observation relevant here, ren?
David, please stop trolling.
Uh-oh, almost off the chart:
https://tropicaltidbits.com/analysis/ocean/global.png
Another “westerly wind burst” (red patch near bottom of screen, line running through it):
http://www.atmos.albany.edu/student/ventrice/real_time/timeLon/u.anom.30.5S-5N.gif
Small, but should help with the development of an el nino.
******
Curiously, most WWB’s are not westerly winds at all, just a weakening of east winds.
https://www.climate.gov/news-features/blogs/enso/september-2018-enso-update-back-school
A cyclone is formed in the western south Pacific.
http://tropic.ssec.wisc.edu/real-time/mtpw2/product.php?color_type=tpw_nrl_colors&prod=ausf×pan=24hrs&anim=html5
ren, do you think this storm was formed by AGW?
How do you know (or not know)?
DA,
It’s impossible for a storm to be affected by something which doesn’t exist, surely?
What is this AGW you mention?
Is it a sacred Manntra perhaps, which if repeated often enough, will heat the world until we are all boiled, fried, roasted or toasted? That’s a bit genocidal, don’t you think?
What’s wrong with four and a half billion years of cooling being allowed to continue? Worship the AGW all you like, but leave me out of it. I prefer science.
Cheers.
“In 2014, the surface did warm, mostly hovering right around the El Nio threshold of 0.5C above average through the winter. But, the El Nio atmospheric response didnt kick in until the following spring, at the start of the mammoth 2015-16 event.”
In 2014, geomagnetic activity was low.
https://services.swpc.noaa.gov/images/solar-cycle-planetary-a-index.gif?time=1535943002000
The temperature in northern Canada drops quickly.
https://files.tinypic.pl/i/00971/ioedllhjj9cj.png
In 2014?
Lime green is 2014
ren you dummy, that is not a plot of temperature.
DA doesn’t understand the connection between dropping temperatures and increasing ice.
Maybe when he learns some physics….
Wind also affects SIE.
So do storms.
So do clouds.
So do ocean currents.
Anytime ren cites a graph, you can be sure the graph says no such thing. He does this time and time and time again.
JDH,
I wouldn’t be surprised to learn that David is thick enough to believe that tree rings can be correlated to temperature, just like the deluded tree whisperer Michael Mann.
What a Wally, eh?
Cheers.
DA needs to stop whining so much, and learn some physics.
(Good one: “…just like the deluded tree whisperer Michael Mann.”)
Ger*an: Stop whining and start answering question
Well, that explains DA’s moodiness. He misses his hero, Ger*an.
DA, when you get lonely, curl up with a good physics book.
Depression is not healthy.
Ger*an — back into the ignorable bin you go.
“But you’ll never hear me complain…”
The stupid it burns
Any two number series can be correlated, as I recall there was a website devoted to spurious correlations.
Norman wrote –
“At the same time the EMR from the cold object reaches the hot object and it is absorbed and becomes part of the internal vibrational energy.”
Well no, it doesn’t – not in any practical sense. The most obvious example of Norman’s assertion being wrong, is claiming that you can increase the temperature of water using ice.
At this point, Norman and the rest of the delusional crew will probably come up with weasel words to get out of their initial misleading statement, and wind up admitting that a warmer object cannot have its temperature raised by exposing it to the radiation of a colder object.
Maybe Norman can devise a fantasy experiment involving many multicoloured plates, vacuums, 46 separate uncalibrated heat sources of indeterminate types, and then proclaim that he has disproved the current laws of thermodynamics, and accidentally invented a perpetual motion machine in the process.
Yeah. Right.
Cheers.
Mike Flynn
When you quote someone you should put it into proper context.
You took out a clip of a larger concept: “The EMR from the hot object reaches the cold object and a percentage of this energy is absorbed and becomes part of the internal vibrational energy. At the same time the EMR from the cold object reaches the hot object and it is absorbed and becomes part of the internal vibrational energy. The actual reason the hotter object cools and the colder one warms (with no external energy inputs) is because the hotter object is emitting away more energy than it is gaining from the cold object. Both are emitting EMR and both absorb it. The cold object warms because it is emitting less energy than it absorbs.”
Okay Mike, I know the coward JDHuffman will puff but never perform any experiment. He will ridicule those who do actual experiments, even call them “phony”. But the dork coward will not do any of his own.
Do you also want to be a coward? Or will you do some actual experiments?
Get a heater of some type that will produce a constant and consistent energy input in a container of water. Surround the water with dry ice first. Let the water reach some steady state temperature. Now remove the dry ice and replace it with much warmer water ice. Tell me what happens to the water temperature.
My prediction is the temperature will go up. The ice will have caused the water temperature to rise. That is the only change you made. Do the experiment or just shut up!
Norman,
I’ll quote what I wish, and do what I wish,
You still haven’t managed to actually disagree with anything I said, have you?
You obviously don’t believe –
“Heat can never pass from a colder to a warmer body without some other change, connected therewith, occurring at the same time.” – Clausius
I reject your demands that I waste my time dancing to your tune. You have no intention of doing what you insist I do. If you do, it would pointless for me to bother, wouldn’t it?
You express surprise that adding heat to system results in temperature increases! Heaters, hot water, dry ice, cold water, raving looniness of the climatological pseudoscientific kind – try heating water using something colder, such as ice. I won’t bother. It’s a waste of time.
Cheers.
“Mike Flynn
YOU: “You express surprise that adding heat to system results in temperature increases! Heaters, hot water, dry ice, cold water, raving looniness of the climatological pseudoscientific kind try heating water using something colder, such as ice. I wont bother. Its a waste of time.”
Hard to discuss anything with you when you do not understand what a person is saying.
Read my post again and when you understand the point, get back to me. Otherwise I need to check out. You still sound more like a bot than a person. When you link to a website (anything) I might consider there is an actual flesh and blood person behind the posts. At this time I am thinking you are a program.
“…I am thinking you…”
n0rman, with 0 credibility, “believes” he is thinking!
Humorous.
JDHuffman
How many dork posts do you have? I am hoping they do run out soon and you can actually learn to post some useful information. Posts like that are just from a dork.
You did better below with Gordon Robertson. More of those and less of your dork posts. I really don’t see why you feel you need to make a fool of yourself. Are you trying to impress a particular poster on this blog with these types of comments?
Does Mike Flynn email you when you post your dork comments and praise you?
Norman ZERO Grinvalds, please stop whining.
You can’t handle reality.
Top 3 rainiest storms in last 3 years.
https://phys.org/news/2018-09-florence-nation-wettest-storm-harvey.html
David Appell wrote –
“Earths GMST has *already* increased by 1 C.
Learn the data.”
Since the Earth had a molten crust, the GMST has decreased by several thousand degrees.
Understand the data. The data shows that nobody can even describe the GHE. No testable GHE hypothesis, no AGW theory.
The data shows that Gavin Schmidt is a self proclaimed scientist, and that Michael Mann never won a Nobel Prize.
The data shows that all matter above absolute zero emits infrared light.
The data shows that all matter absorbs infrared light. All. The only truly transparent medium is the medium in which there is no matter – a vacuum.
Does David deny the data? Of course he does!
Cheers.
“The data shows that all matter absorbs infrared light.”
Great description of earth atm. GHE Mike.
Ball4,
Thank you for acknowledging my immense intellectual superiority. Before I rush off to nominate myself for a Nobel Prize, maybe you could point out where I acknowledge the existence of the GHE?
I appreciate you and the rest of the motley crew are unable to describe the GHE, and I am humbled by your recognition.
However, you might do better to choose someone other than an unbeliever, as the smartest person in the room, true though that may be.
When do the delusional pseudoscientific climate cultists intend to use the description that you claim to be so great? How much do I get paid for doing something that nobody in the history of science has been able to achieve? I don’t intend to give my brilliant insights away for nothing, you know!
Would you?
Thanks a heap. I await payment.
Cheers.
“maybe you could point out where I acknowledge the existence of the GHE?”
Sure, I already did.
“When do the delusional pseudoscientific climate cultists intend to use the description that you claim to be so great?”
Not to disappoint Mike, but there is no pay out as Mike isn’t the first to come up a great description of the atm. GHE complete with the acknowledgment that “the data shows” it.
Ball4,
You say you already did, but you can’t quite find it at the moment.
I understand.
You say that you want to steal my intellectual property, and claim that the GHE has already been described as I supposedly did.
You can’t quite find the other GHE explanation at the moment, because the dog ate it, I suppose.
I understand.
GHE worshippers live in Fantasy Land. I wish you well.
Cheers.
Any reader can easily find your GHE acknowledgement Mike, there is no need for me to re-find it again, I already did. You have no GHE intellectual property for anyone to steal since your GHE explanation is what “the data shows”.
Ball4,
You can’t actually produce anything where I acknowledge the existence of the non-existent GHE, can you?
That’s because it doesn’t exist! You can’t even describe this invisible deity you worship. Not even a good attempt at a bluff. The usual desperate stupidity of the climatological pseudoscientific GHE believer.
If you could actually describe the GHE, then you could propose a testable GHE hypothesis, couldn’t you? But you couldn’t, because you can’t!
No GHE. No CO2 heating. No Nobel for Michael Mann, and Gavin Schmidt is an undistinguished mathematician. Notwithstanding the foregoing, are you sure you don’t suffer from delusional psychosis?
You seem quite convinced that the non-existent GHE exists. You just can’t seem to describe it, can you?
Life as a pseudoscientific cultist must be nice. Reality doesn’t seem to intrude into your fantasy. I wish you well.
Cheers.
“You can’t actually produce anything where I acknowledge the existence of the non-existent GHE, can you?”
Yes I can and I already did nearby & any interested reader can do so Mike. Denying what you wrote nearby is a fail for you as is easily verified.
“If you could actually describe the GHE, then you could propose a testable GHE hypothesis, couldn’t you?”
Sure I could, but you did so well nearby Mike that I don’t need to do it any better or repeat what you already wrote again. You even made sure the GHE was based on a testable hypothesis in your own written words as “the data shows”. Good job.
“You just can’t seem to describe (the GHE), can you?”
Again, I could but there is no need for me to do so as Mike Flynn repeatedly does a good job of describing the existent testable GHE hypothesis as “the data shows” the GHE in Mike’s own words.
Cheers.
Thanks Snape.
To recap MF’s position:
“The atmosphere is an insulator. CO2 is around 90 to 750 times as opaque to some wavelengths of light as N2 or O2.”
– Mike Flynn, June 18, 2017 at 3:34 AM
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/06/a-global-warming-red-team-warning-do-not-strive-for-consensus-with-the-blue-team/#comment-251624
Mike Flynn says:
May 23, 2017 at 5:16 PM
“I hate to bore you the real science, but the transmittance of the atmosphere increases as the amount of GHGs in it drops.”
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/05/uah-global-temperature-update-for-april-2017-0-27-deg-c/#comment-247988
“Less GHGs less impediment to radiation reaching the surface from the Sun, or being emitted by the surface to outer space.”
– Mike Flynn, May 5, 2017 at 9:22 PM
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/05/uah-global-temperature-update-for-april-2017-0-27-deg-c/#comment-245860
Snape?
DA,
Once again, thank you for saving me the trouble of pointing out a few truths.
When there is less impediment to the amount of energy reaching the surface, the surface becomes hotter.
Maybe you could add some of my previous comments, to back up my oft repeated statement that increasing the amount of CO2 between the Sun and a thermometer, doesn’t make the thermometer hotter.
Rather, the complete opposite!
Off you go, David, post some more of my factual comments. It all helps to point out the impossibility of a GHE.
By the way, do you deny that bananas absorb and emit IR? Still no GHE, is there? You can’t even describe it. Thick, thick, thick.
Cheers.
Mike pointed out that ALL MATTER absorbs and emits IR radiation, Ball 4., then you go and narrow that down to an atmospheric “gotcha moment” of a GHE. Great stuff, Ball 4 ..so there’s a GHE in the seas, on the land…everywhere…in all matter. You whacko believers have infinite stupidity.
From the depths of his cave, Mikey pontificates about ocean currents:
“All the brightly coloured graphics in the world showing warmer water ignoring the laws of physics, and plunging into the depths, are delusional. Deep currents caused by surface winds are delusional. Try and explain deep currents vertically separated, flowing in opposite directions, in terms of surface winds.”
**********
The real world is.a little more complicated:
https://slideplayer.com/slide/4516261/15/images/16/Cross+Section+of+Ocean+Temperature+and+Circulation.jpg
*******
And here is a cross section of the nino region (absolute values at top). Surface winds blowing from east to west drive warm water to depths, yet nowhere do we see cold water on top of warm:
https://www.pmel.noaa.gov/tao/drupal/assorted_plots/images/TAO_5Day_EQ_xz.gif
AD,
Are you disagreeing with something I wrote, or just avoiding my comments?
Neither your assertion nor your brightly coloured graph contradict anything I wrote, do they?
Do you believe in the GHE? Have you ever seen a testable GHE hypothesis? No?
Away with ye, laddie! Contradict something I said by all means. Arguing with something I didn’t say won’t achieve much, will it?
Cheers.
At the risk of becoming a prolific commenter . . .
David Appell wrote –
“Whats the evidence for such reflection?” after a commenter said that light can be reflected.
Poor David. Some people claim to see things that don’t exist, such as a testable GHE hypothesis. David claims he cannot see reflections, and demands evidence.
I wouldn’t be surprised if David’s appearance is due to his not being able to perceive his reflection in a mirror. His blindness is no doubt due to being unable to see objects by virtue of them reflecting light emitted from other objects – the Sun, for example.
Poor David.
Cheers.
Thanks for pointing that out, Mike. I missed it.
I answered it here:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2018/09/my-tucker-carlson-interview-last-night-and-calling-out-bill-nye-james-hansen/#comment-321671
JDH,
You’re most welcome. David also keeps banging on about his claim that photons must be absorbed by matter they encounter.
He seems to be capable of disbelieving his own eyes, and refusing to acknowledge that photons of visible light can pass through glass unaltered, it seems. Or radio frequencies being received in a windowless dark room from a distant transmitter!
GHE worshippers have difficulty accepting that light is light – regardless of wavelength, it travels at the speed of light. It has no rest mass, and does not accelerate or decelerate – strange stuff, light.
But hey, GHE worshippers don’t need ordinary physics. They just invent their own as they go along. Stupidity, ignorance and delusion in varying proportions, as desired. What fun!
Cheers
Gordon Robertson
Your post:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2018/09/my-tucker-carlson-interview-last-night-and-calling-out-bill-nye-james-hansen/#comment-321491
In it you claim: “Again!!! Clausius was not aware of the mechanism of heat transfer via radiation between bodies of different temperatures. Cut the guy some slack, will you?”
And then this: “Why then would he suddenly make such a claim with regard to radiation. BECAUSEâŚHE DID NOT KNOW HOW RADIATION WORKED!!!
HE THOUGHT HEAT WAS FLOWING EITHER WAY AND IT WAS NOT!!!”
I am getting convinced you do not know what you are talking about. I did some research on timelines of discovery.
Clausius wrote his book “Mechanical Theory of Heat” in 1879.
Infrared was discovered in 1800:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infrared
Atomic Theory was in good development long before this book was written.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_theory
Clausius would be fully understanding of electromagnetic radiation by the time he wrote his book.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetism
The investigation started in earnest in 1820 and Maxwell wrote his material in 1873. I do not know where you are getting the information about what Clausius knew about radiant energy.
Gordon Robertson
Clausius: “Again as regards the ordinary radiation of heat, it is of course well known that not only
do hot bodies radiate to cold, but also cold bodies conversely
to hot ; nevertheless the general result of this simultaneous
double exchange of heat always consists, as is established by
experience, in an increase of the heat in the colder body
at the expense of the hotter.”
I will assume he knew exactly what he was talking about.
So he says there is a simultaneous double exchange of heat.
He describes heat as the internal energy of an object. That is what changes with transfer.
The hot object is losing heat (the atomic vibrations are converted to IR and the energy is lost) by EMR emission. The cold object is also losing heat by EMR emission. Both lose heat by EMR emissions from their surface. They also both gain heat from absorbing EMR from each other. So they are both losing and gaining heat. The reason the hot object cools and the colder object warms is because the hot object is losing more heat through emission than it gains by absorbing from the cold. The cold object gains more heat from the hot object than it loses from its emission. Makes logical sense. Not sure why this is hard for you to understand.
Thanks. Both blackbodies radiate. Both BBs absorb. Gordon denies reality.
DA, there is no such thing as your imaginary black body that absorbs every photon. Desperate clowns just make up things like this.
Learn some physics, or remain a clown.
Which photons are not absorbed by the Sun?
Open a physics book.
I’ve read far more physics books than you have.
So how about answering my question.
If you have read all these physics books, perhaps you had better answer your own question. You see that way, you are actually making a point.
Sorry, pseudoscience papers do not count. Read some REAL physics.
Ger*an is still avoiding a legitimate question.
Which photons are not absorbed by the Sun?
You are still avoiding answering your own question, thus making a point.
DA, your hero, Ger*an, must have really spoon-fed you. My teaching technique is more like, make the student do his own work.
I will offer a hint, however: Study photon emission/abso*rp*tion, and thermodynamics.
Ger*an, you are still avoiding the question. By pretending it’s beneath you.
No shortcuts, DA.
Study the hints provided.
Don’t be afraid to learn.
Still avoiding, G*.
It’s clear you have no answer. Again a waste of time on you.
Is this where you throw a tantrum because you’re not getting your way?
No. This is the point when I make it clear that you can’t answer a direct question about physics, so you spend your time diverting and insulting to cover up for that.
Which photons are not absorbed by the Sun?
DA,
Obviously, any that are reflected won’t be absorbed, but you don’t believe that light can be reflected.
Any that don’t interact with the matter comprising the Sun won’t be absorbed. As you don’t believe that a cooler body cannot raise the temperature of a warmer one, you will be exceptionally confused.
I assume your question is a pointless and irrelevant gotcha, but feel free to explain why you ask such a question. Do you not understand the relevant physics?
Maybe you are just thick.
Cheers,
Clearly DA has no interest in learning. Reality is not a “happy place” for him.
Neither are there perfect reflectors, perfectly frictionless surfaces, perfect insulators, perfect conductors, hey I could go on, but do you have a point you are trying to make?
Yes, but the point went over your head.
Maybe next time….
Well, I am fairly tall, must have been a high point.
Might want to add in the fudge factor, emissivity, to make it real.
For CO2 it is quite low 0.0017!
What does that mean for the greenhouse effect?
Norman, what’s the source for your Clausius quote?
(A link would be even better.) Thanks.
DA,
Google is your friend. Too lazy, as well as stupid, ignorant, and as thick as two short planks?
The source of the quote is in a book by Rudolf Clausius, and I’m sure you can find it if you try really, really, hard.
You don’t need to thank me. I’m always happy to help those less fortunate than myself.
Cheers.
David Appell
https://archive.org/details/mechanicaltheor03claugoog
Chapter 12 page 295
To post the quote had to load the text version of the book.
Thanks.
Norman: How about a page number?
David Appell
It would be page 295 but the page number is not shown. You can go through the link to the first page of Chapter 12 to read Clausius statement I posted.
Here is the Clausius statement
“Heat can never pass from a colder to a warmer body without some other change, connected therewith, occurring at the same time”
The other change connected therewith, occurring at the same time is the heat passing from the warmer body to the colder body.
Therefore let it be known that heat can transfer from a colder body to a hotter body.
bob says: “The other change connected therewith, occurring at the same time is the heat passing from the warmer body to the colder body.”
Nope. The “other change” being referred to is more energy being added to the system, either as heat energy or work energy.
Therefore let it be known that heat can NOT transfer from a colder body to a hotter body, without additional energy being added to the system.
Therefore let it be known that heat CAN transfer from a colder body to a hotter body, without additional energy being added to the system as long as the process increases universe entropy.
There, corrected JD, this is perfectly consistent with 2LOT and proved by Maxwell-Boltzmann in the late 1800s. Means Clausius wording was later improved and not the last word on the physics of heat in the 1850s or so. Shows JD does NOT understand the physics of heat and therefore does not understand the nature of atm. thermo.
This is to be expected from JD; a commenter who believes toy trains do not turn in turns.
Ball4 is the most dishonest troll here. He uses a full bag of tricks, including deception.
He likes to refer to “experiments” that are wrong or irrelevant. And, as above, he mentions well-known scientists, books, and studies, claiming they support his nonsense, hoping no one will check him out.
Other trolls have learned his techniques.
(Expect him now to reword my comment. Just another of his tricks.)
“..hoping no one will check him out.”
I always know JD cannot check out my comments because M-B distribution of particle velocities is far beyond JD level of accomplishment. Stick to commenting on toy trains, JD, as 2LOT and atm. thermo. use science for big boys.
quod erat demonstrandum
As for the greenhouse effect the additional energy being added to the system which allows heat to be transferred from the cold atmosphere to the warmer earth is the Sun, stupid.
No bob, the Sun is a constant. You do not get to count it as “additional energy”!
Thermodynamics is hard to understand, huh?
b,
I suppose you can only transfer heat from ice to water (raising the temperature of the water), if you involve the magic of CO2?
Otherwise, you would be claiming that heat from air at -1 C, could raise the temperature of the ground at say, +1 C, to say +2 C. And, of course, the loss of energy from the air would result in the air cooling even further – who can say where the cooling would stop? Unless you invoke the magic of CO2, of course. Then you can claim you can get extra energy from nowhere!
Nope. Conservation of energy, and all that. Even adding energy won’t necessarily raise temperatures. Add as much ice as you like to your drink. You have added energy, but your drink doesn’t get hotter, does it?
Maybe the Laws of Thermodynamics still apply. So sad, too bad.
Cheers.
Nope JD,
The sun is a variable star, besides, earth’s orbit is not a perfect circle so the amount of energy from the sun varies as the earth orbits the sun.
The sun heats the surface of the earth, which radiates some of that energy outward, which warms the atmosphere, some of which is absorbed by CO2, water and other greenhouse gases. Which in turn radiates some of that energy back down to the earth’s surface.
I took thermodynamics in college and actually passed, one of two courses administered during junior year, which asked the question, are you sure you want to be a chemist?
JDHuffman says:
No bob, the Sun is a constant. You do not get to count it as additional energy!
The sun constantly pours energy into the surface/atmosphere system on Earth.
And heat continually escapes out the TOA.
So the surface/atmosphere isn’t a closed, isolated, adiabatic system.
Hence the bald statement of the 2nd law, heat cannot be transferred from cold to hot, does not hold.
It’s the same as with a refrigerator: a refrigerator transfers heat from cold to hot, with the help of a motor powered by electricity. It also doesn’t violate the 2LOT, because a refrigerator isn’t a closed, isolated, adiabatic system.
DA erroneously claims: “Hence the bald statement of the 2nd law, heat cannot be transferred from cold to hot, does not hold.”
We have to understand, DA believes he can make up physics.
He enjoys being a clown.
Yeah, and the teacher in that class was rather tough grading exams.
If you wrote a definition of the 2nd law like you just did JD, you wouldn’t get any points and the GOD of partial credit would just laugh at your answer.
No credit given for half assed answers.
bob, here’s what I was referring to:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_constant
You completely missed the point. Even if the solar “constant” actually varies somewhat, it is not adding any more energy to the Earth other than “solar”. You may have squeaked through some “kitchen” thermo class, but you don’t understand thermodynamics.
And, I did not write a definition of the 2Lot. Maybe you are just confused, again!
“If you wrote a definition of the 2nd law like you just did JD…”
No, the sun is adding energy to the system allowing the colder atmosphere to add energy to the warmer surface. It’s not additional energy.
And the school I went to and received a chemistry degree from ranked in the top ten for Chemistry, and thermodynamics would be part of any Chemistry curriculum.
And if you haven’t described the second law of thermodynamics as preventing the transfer of heat from a cold body to a hot body, then you have my apology.
But you still don’t understand thermodynamics.
Gordon Robertson says:
The hotter body gives up heat when heat is converted to EM and that EM can be converted back to heat in a cooler body. The same is not true in the opposite direction.
Gordon thinks heat disappears into thin air.
And then magically reappears somewhere else!
That’s a dumb way to think of heat.
But Gordon is forced to believe this stupidity because he can’t accept the reality of radiative transfer.
How perfectly stupid.
David Appell thinks glass absorbs all photons (light) that hit it. He believes windows let photons (light) through by magic.
David Appell doesn’t believe in reflections.
David Appell believes he can boil water using a few kilowatts of ice power.
If anyone agrees, they are probably stupid and ignorant enough to worship the hidden and mysterious, inexplicable GHE.
How perfectly amazing!
Cheers.
David,
to respond to your question from above; because, because, because, because, because…..
More exactly, what difference does it make to you?
and, to be like you I DEMAND an answer to this question: Why are you continually rude to those who disagree with your religion?
Lewis
As many people here know, Gordon is a rank idiot when it comes to science.
He is the best example of the Dunning Kruger effect I have encountered. Why not say it?
And David, you are a troll. Probably the best example I have ever encountered. Why not say it?
Go ahead, say whatever you want. I’ve been a writer for 20 years. My skin is very, very thick.
And how many years have you been trolling here?
DA admits “My skin is very, very thick.”
DA, some people call it “blubber”.
Not only is David’s skin very, very, thick.
So is David generally. Refuses to believe in reflections, does not accept light (photons) can travel through glass without being absorbed.
Thick as thick can be.
Cheers.
Actually David,
You are very thin skinned. A bit insecure would be a more apt description.
Lewis, I’m just out of patience for idiots. Like Gordon Robertson.
And you still never discuss any science here.
Very insecure.
Lewis,
Gordon *chooses* to lie.
Even when he knows his lie is not the truth.
He utterly does not care — he lies anyway.
He’s been caught doing this many times by now.
Gordon is a liar.
Many people here know this.
I doesn’t matter if you don’t. We do.
David, please stop trolling.
The cold front will cause heavy rainfall in the east of North America.
https://images.tinypic.pl/i/00971/n06ysqmlx4w1.png
Emboldened by Salvatore’s prediction, I am going out on a limb and calling bs on the Stefan-Boltzman equation, namely, the Stefan portion.
Stefan is described in wiki as j* = fi.T^4. Where
fi = 5.67 x 10^-8 W/m^2K^4
The derivation of fi is (2pi^5.k^4)/(15c^2.h^3)
That is one heck of a fudged proportionality constant if I’ve ever seen one. I understand the pi part for the surface area but I have always suspected the b for Boltzmann’s constant, the h for Planck’s constant, and the inclusion of the speed of light.
Planck admitted that he fudged ‘h’. It works in places with atomic level particles but its fudged all the same. It’s the basis of quantum theory but no one has ever been able to demonstrate a physical meaning for it. As Feynman claimed, it works, but no one knows why.
Here’s what the equation is saying essentially. When the electrons in the atoms of a mass collectively jump to lower energy levels, the mass cools, and they emit a radiation that has a strength to the 4th power of the heat already in the body. Temperature is a measure of heat.
There is something seriously fishy going on here. One could easily interpret j*, the total energy radiated, as the energy lost from the body due to a conversion from heat to EM. That would be fine in principle but not to the degree of T^4. They obviously had to allow for that huge number by using a proportionality constant, fi, with a 10^-8 factor in it.
Supposing the surface of an electric light bulb was 100C. The equation above is claiming that the total energy radiated is:
j* = fi. (373k)^4.
= 5.67 x 10^-8 W/m^2K^4 (19.36 x 10^9)K^4
= 109.78 x 10^1 W/m^2
=1097.8 W/m^2
So, this bulb is radiating 10 times the power for which it is rated.
If you touch the glass on the bulb it will burn your fingers. If you hold your fingers 1/16th of an inch from the glass, right where the radiation field is strongest, it will have no significant effect on your fingers.
I have no doubt made an error in my calculations, it’s late and I’m bleary eyed. I am calling bs all the same on the inference surrounding S-B.
You cannot measure the EM radiated in W/m^2. It simply makes no sense. They are going to have to come up with a different and more realistic set of units.
When EM is considered as near-field EM, the EM surrounding a conductor carrying a current, it is expressed in Webers, not watts/m^2. Stefan and Boltzmann based their work on Maxwell’s equations for electromagnetic fields which he in turn based on the magnetic field produced electrically by Faraday.
Maxwell claimed a radiation pressure which I think is bs as well. How can something with no mass produce a pressure?
Apparently there is a controversy over the application of Maxwell’s equations to far-field radiation such as EM radiated from a body into space. Maxwell got something wrong that he was never able to explain.
I have just learned that Weber offered an alternative explanation to Maxwell that was completely ignored, yet his theory is applied to near field EM.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weber_(unit)
Gordon, it was late for you, and I’m only on my first cup of coffee, so this should be good!
Here are some quick comments:
“So, this bulb is radiating 10 times the power for which it is rated.
No, the units are different. “Flux” is not power. Consider “pressure”. A man may weigh 100 kg. And the area of the bottoms of his shoes may be 600 cm^2. So he exerts a pressure of 0.17 kg/cm^2. He didn’t lose weigh! The units are different.
“When EM is considered as near-field EM, the EM surrounding a conductor carrying a current, it is expressed in Webers, not watts/m^2.”
Don’t confuse “magnetic field” with “photons”. They are different. Think “magnetic field” and “current”.
The S/B Law is pretty well established. So many flaws exist in the AGW/GHE hoax, you don’t to worry about S/B.
Dont confuse magnetic field with photons. They are different.
Magnetic forces are due to photons.
Laughs are due to clowns.
Again, an insult/joke instead of a rational, scientific response.
By now I know what that means.
It means you bore people with your utterly relentless onslaught of comments, and they prefer to ridicule you than chase you down every rabbit hole your mind wants to wander into.
So don’t read my comments. Problem solved.
Or, they could ridicule you. Problem solved.
Ridicule usually comes from those who have no intelligence response.
Intelligence response! You are a hoot.
“Or, they could ridicule you. Problem solved.”
So you encourage trollish behavior? So long as its from your team.
Well, David Appell is a troll, so it is hard to know how to deal with him. I try politely asking him to stop trolling, but no luck so far. Dont worry, I wont be easily discouraged.
DREMT is like church leaders telling parishioners to behave morally, but then does nothing about pedophile priests–cuz their on his team.
When Nate has nothing else, he goes to the bottom.
He spends a lot of time there….
N, JKRATM.
DREMT,
You bring this on yourself with your squishy ethics.
Just stop pretending you have any moral authority.
Nate, just keep ranting at the mirror.
DA…”Dont confuse magnetic field with photons. They are different.
Magnetic forces are due to photons”.
More alarmist pseudo-science. A magnetic field is real, photons are imaginary, developed to particalize EM. No one has ever detected photons.
A magnetic field, wrt EM, is a property of an electron in motion. Any time an electron moves, it produces a magnetic field. The electron itself is a particle with mass that carries a negative electrical charge. The electrical charge interacts with something to produce a magnetic field.
The combined electric and magnetic field is electromagnetic energy, one field traveling perpendicular to the other. A quantum of EM, whatever that might be, is allegedly a photon, even though no one has ever detected or measured one.
Gordo, Your deviant physics is showing again. EM radiation is photons, a basic discovery in physics proven years after Maxwell.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photon
I would be out of a job if we couldn’t detect photons.
In fact our whole industry is based on being able to detect two photons simultaneously and then drawing a line between the two and building a map of successive coincidences.
swannie…”The photon is a type of elementary particle, the quantum of the electromagnetic field including electromagnetic radiation such as light, and the force carrier for the electromagnetic force (even when static via virtual particles). The photon has zero rest mass and always moves at the speed of light within a vacuum”.
I warned you about accepting Wiki articles verbatim. This one is crap:
“The photon is a type of elementary particle, the quantum of the electromagnetic field including electromagnetic radiation such as light, and the force carrier for the electromagnetic force (even when static via virtual particles). The photon has zero rest mass and always moves at the speed of light within a vacuum”.
A photon is NOT an elementary particle. Particles have mass and the idiot who wrote this claims his type of particle has no mass.
There is proof anywhere that photons exist, let alone have mass.
A photon is a contradiction. It is claimed to have momentum yet momentum is defined in physics as mass x velocity. In that case, momentum = p = mv = 0.v = 0.
Einstein declared late in his life that some people thought they knew whether EM was a wave or particles, and he claimed they are wrong. No one knows the exact composition of EM.
EM is ‘something’ emitted by an electron in motion. An electron has mass and it is a particle. It also carries a negative charge. When it emits EM, it does not lose mass, therefore where would the EM pick up mass to be a particle?
bobgroege…”I would be out of a job if we couldnt detect photons”.
What do you use to detect them, a photon detector? [/sarc off]. Seriously, how do you detect an individual photon. You cannot even detect an individual electron or an atom.
EM detection relies on electrons in atoms absorbing it and converting it to heat. EM in communications relies on an antenna, a conductor, to detect it. The measure of the EM is an electrical current set up in the conductor when electrons absorb it. However, in communications, EM is considered a wave front.
There is no way to detect EM directly, never mind the theoretical photon.
Gordo, You are quick to denigrate the Wiki article, ignoring the facts presented therein. The development of those theoretical constructs are the result of efforts to explain experimental results. As time passed, the experiments became more precise and thus able to discern more detail about the natural world. The result was the wave-particle duality that you disagree with. As Richard Feynman noted, wave theory can not explain all the experimental results, whereas particle theory can. He therefore concluded that EM radiation was a particle phenomenon.
In your categorical rejection, you also are ignoring the 117 references in the Wiki, which track the important steps in the historical developments of theoretical physics. If you can read German, you might want to go back to the original source(s) of the theory, that is, if you really want the world to accept your deviant physics.
Of course to detect photons, we use crystals!
And diodes and photomultiplier tubes.
All based on how radiation interacts with matter, the photoelectric effect, compton scattering and pair production.
Seems to me you are also deficient in electronics, which I thought was supposed to be your trade.
E. Swanson says:
As Richard Feynman noted, wave theory can not explain all the experimental results, whereas particle theory can
Uh, I don’t think Feynman would agree that the particle view can explain the double slit experiment.
Gordon Robertson says:
What do you use to detect them, a photon detector? [/sarc off]. Seriously, how do you detect an individual photon. You cannot even detect an individual electron or an atom.
Individual electrons and atoms can be detected, and individual photons, too.
Just look for their energy deposits.
This is done every single day in many labs all across the planet.
Even the human eye can see single photons:
“People can sense single photons: Experiment suggests that humans are capable of perceiving even the feeblest flash of light,” Nature 19 July 2016.
https://www.nature.com/news/people-can-sense-single-photons-1.20282
David, From Richard Feynman from “QED, The Strange Theory of Light and Matter: (1985),
Chapter 2:
Thanks — good stuff.
I’m suspect Gordon will ignore all of it.
Yes, you are suspect.
Which language of light has been the more useful in science – particle or wave?
In a letter to American Journal of Physics, 1986 Vol. 54, p 969, M. Psimopoulos and T. Theocharis ask the rhetorical questions: “What new discoveries have (i) the particle or photon aspect of light, and (ii) the wave aspect of light, given rise to?
Answer: (i) we are not aware of any; (ii) holography, laser, intensity interferometry, phase conjugation.” To this list add radar, GPS – all of interferometry, on which much of the science of measurement is based, and interference filters, which have many applications.
JD…”the units are different. Flux is not power”.
Appears we are in agreement. IN S-B, they are measuring EM in W/m^2. That’s a measure of heat over a surface like the Earth’s surface. If a surface area is rated at 100 W/m^2, that’s a measure of the heat ON the surface. After conversion to EM, the heat is gone, lost in conversion, and it can no longer be regarded as heat.
As you say, it’s now a flux that should be measured in lines per unit area. The ‘gauss’ is the unit of measurement for magnetic flux density but if electrons moving through a conductor produce a magnet flux density of so many gauss there is also an accompanying electric field.
If that EM field acts locally, it is treated differently than when it is emitted to space (far field) as in the case of a communications antenna. Why is all EM not measured in similar units, but instead, given the units of heat?
S-B is claiming, after the heat is converted to EM, that it too can be measured in W/m^2. I disagree, it’s just plain wrong.
As I have said in other posts, Stefan and Boltzmann thought heat traveled through space, subsequently they gave EM the units of heat. It’s not heat, it a flux field representing an electric and magnetic field which has no mass but an alleged momentum.
With regard to pressure, gas pressure is the average force exerted per unit area by individual atoms/molecules on the walls of a container. How the heck does EM, with no mass, exert a force?
Gordon says: “If that EM field acts locally, it is treated differently than when it is emitted to space (far field) as in the case of a communications antenna. Why is all EM not measured in similar units, but instead, given the units of heat?”
Gordon, far-field could be treated the same, if desired. For example, if you had an antenna with a cross-sectional area of 1 cm^2, and the spectrum analyzer indicated 100 mW, that would calculate to a flux of 1000 Watts/m^2.
(You take a lot of flak from those unable to think for themselves. And, you seem to enjoy it, which makes them even madder! They have no tolerance for independent thinking. Keep up the great effort!)
JD…”(You take a lot of flak from those unable to think for themselves. And, you seem to enjoy it, which makes them even madder! They have no tolerance for independent thinking. Keep up the great effort!)”
You too. ☺
Gordon,
You are confusing rest mass with mass.
It happens
“rest mass” ??
That’s a new one. From the pages of pseudo-science…along with “backradiation”.
bobdroege…”You are confusing rest mass with mass.
It happens”
Bob…there are a lot of theoretical physicists out there who confuse their theoretical world with reality.
Mass is mass, at rest or otherwise. In the world of theoretical physics, anything is possible, like space-time curvature, black holes, and Big Bangs.
Mass has to occupy space otherwise it is not mass. That’s why photons are theorized to be mass-less. EM occupies no space as far as anyone knows.
There are people who think we will be able to sail through space one day using sails driven by EM. Good luck to them. There are people who believe time can dilate. Bless their souls. Everyone seems to need a good delusion now and then but I have given mine up.
In quantum theory they are talking about particles like electrons being able to exist in different places at the same time. When that nonsense began circa 1930, driven by Neils Bohr, Einstein and Schrodinger were sane enough to step aside from the lunacy.
Unfortunately, Einstein became embroiled in it again with his theory of relativity. He gave properties to time it does not have, like a physical effect on matter. We invented time by sub-dividing the period of the Earth’s rotation to a second, therefore if time can dilate, as Einstein claimed, the Earth’s angular velocity would have to change too.
That’s why Schrodinger produced his cat conundrum about a cat being alive, dead, or both dead and alive. He was poking fun at those kinds of quantum theorists but in their arrogance they received his conundrum as being supportive.
Modern science is full of thought experiments that are nothing more than pseudo-science.
Apologies..there is such a thing as “rest mass”.
Carry on.
Mack…”rest mass ??
Thats a new one. From the pages of pseudo-sciencealong with backradiation”.
What they really mean by rest mass is the tendency to resist force. A mass at rest will resists a force, something we call inertia. When the body starts moving, its resistance to the force decreases. However, it gains what we call momentum, which causes a resistance to it slowing down. No one knows what constitutes inertia or momentum.
The key is that a mass is required and a mass must occupy space. All the basic atomic particles, like electrons, protons, and neutrons have mass but someone DEFINED a photon as a particle of electromagnetic energy that has momentum but no mass.
I think that is plain silly scientifically but if it helps people visualize actions at an atomic level, there’s no harm.
Here’s how silly it can get. In semiconductor physics, it is claimed that the holes vacated by electrons as they move from negative to positive actually have mass, and they treat these holes as a particle-based current moving in the opposite direction.
It’s akin to someone digging a hole in the ground then digging a hole next to it, filling in the first hole with dirt from the 2nd. If that person proceeds in a line, digging and filling in, some theoretical physicist observing the action will conclude that the hole has both mass and momentum. If he digs really fast, the physicist will conclude the holes are dilating.
A hole is a hole for cripes sake.
The scientist who invented the concept, Shockley, was quick to point out that the concept of a hole is for visualization only, that a hole is imaginary. Yet people speak freely of holes as if they form a positive current through a p-type semiconductor.
Someone circa 1925 hypothesized that electrical current in a conductor was due to the movement of positive charges. That would mean atomic nucleii would move through a conductor while electrons stayed in place. That is, unless there is a mysterious positive charge flowing in electrical conductors that no one has ever measured or observed.
It’s absurd and it has been known since around the same time that it is the smaller and moveable electron that is the basis of current. However, the paradigm has become so entrenched that it is still taught in electrical engineering courses at universities.
What’s new? They are now teaching a hypothesis of global warming put forward over a century ago that was never proved. It still hasn’t been proved.
When I held my nose and studied this crap at university, they tried to claim that the holes in semiconductors had mass. In other words, when an electron moved out of a valence orbit position around an atom to another atom, the hole it left behind was a form of particle with mass.
As the electrons moved right, the holes appeared to move left. It’s an illusion.
Very few people challenge this nonsense and that’s why the GHE and AGW exist today.
Then again, I’m going to have to learn to stop getting my facts from wiki.
Thanks for that reply, Gordon. It really is quite astonishing about this theoretical physics having, in some ways, not really advanced a hell of a lot. I would have thought that, in my lifetime, they would have at least sorted the wave/particle theory out.
Hope the weather is not too cold, there in Vancouver.
Gordon Robertson wrote:
…but someone DEFINED a photon as a particle of electromagnetic energy that has momentum but no mass.
Not a definition — that’s what experiments show.
Now you’ll tell us Nature is all wrong and only you are right….
Gordon Robertson says:
When I held my nose and studied this crap at university, they tried to claim that the holes in semiconductors had mass.
So wrong.
It’s like you didn’t learn a single thing.
Semiconductor holes *act* as if they have mass.
“For electrons or electron holes in a solid, the effective mass is usually stated in units of the rest mass of an electron, me (9.1110−31 kg). In these units it is usually in the range 0.01 to 10, but can also be lower or higherfor example, reaching 1,000 in exotic heavy fermion materials, or anywhere from zero to infinity (depending on definition) in graphene.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effective_mass_(solid-state_physics)
Mack says:
It really is quite astonishing about this theoretical physics having, in some ways, not really advanced a hell of a lot. I would have thought that, in my lifetime, they would have at least sorted the wave/particle theory out.
There’s nothing to “sort out.” If you ask if a quantum particle is a wave, it behaves like a wave. If you ask if it’s a particle, it behaves like a particle.
In truth, it is neither. It is a…quantum particle. It’s a wave function. That’s it. To understand it, you have to apply the rules and laws of quantum mechanics to it.
It’s your imagination that is lacking, not the particle’s. You’re trying to (figuratively) shove it into a hole that it won’t go in, and never will.
bobdroege says:
You are confusing rest mass with mass.
As most physicists think of it, mass is rest mass. Period.
It’s the kinematical laws of motion that change at high velocities, not the mass. particle mass = m0 = constant.
DA says…”It’s your imagination that is lacking, not the particle’s”
Fair enough, it’s a particle then..a quantum PARTICLE. Great DA, many thanks, end of story.
Gordo wrote:
So, Big Guy, how does your deviant physics explain what happens with this well known old scientific instrument?
Is Gordon going to need a restraining order?
ES
That’s the first time I’ve ever seen that “solar driven radiometer” ES. My guess is that sunny side of the vane would get hotter than the shade side…the air in that vicinity.. expand..rise..or something…and push the vanes round.
Not the vanes being bombarded with the “mass” of photons.
I hope the restraining order is no longer needed for Gordon.
That depends on whether E Swanson can get over his deviant obsession. Earlier on he was trying to get Gordon to give him his name and address details.
Optical tweezers is a technology that cannot work unless light can exert a force and carries momentum.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Optical_tweezers
It uses laser light to grab and hold and manipulate small particles.
as in this video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ju6wENPtXu8
With no respect for reality, fanatics grab lasers to promote their pseudoscience. Of course, they don’t understand any of the relevant physics, but they must also believe that there are lasers in the sky!
Gordon Robertson says:
Maxwell claimed a radiation pressure which I think is bs as well. How can something with no mass produce a pressure?
Because photons have momentum!
p=E/c=hf/c
Gordon Robertson says:
Apparently there is a controversy over the application of Maxwells equations to far-field radiation such as EM radiated from a body into space. Maxwell got something wrong that he was never able to explain.
Really?? What exactly did Maxwell get wrong, and where did you learn such a thing?
Gordon? Calling Gordon….
What did Maxwell get wrong.
It’s a huge accusation to make, so I assume you have proof.
Gordon Robertson says:
Planck admitted that he fudged h.
That’s a pure lie.
Planck proposed E=hf. h is just the proportionality constant.
Planck was correct.
Gordon Robertson says:
That is one heck of a fudged proportionality constant if Ive ever seen one. I understand the pi part for the surface area but I have always suspected the b for Boltzmanns constant, the h for Plancks constant, and the inclusion of the speed of light.
The SB Law comes from integrating Planck’s law over all wavelengths.
That gives the proportionality constant.
It’s an easy calculation.
DA…”The SB Law comes from integrating Plancks law over all wavelengths”.
That’s a neat trick considering S-B came out years before Planck’s Law.
Not difficult to understand — before Planck the SB constant was measured empirically. After Planck it could be calculated directly — but, of course, Planck’s constant was an empirical measurement.
David, the multiple posts are a bit irritating, do you think you could try to collect all of your thoughts BEFORE the compulsive need to share them arises?
I prefer single comments on a single topic.
I’ll keep doing that. But thanks so much for your input.
OK, well it makes you look ridiculous, so by all means carry on.
I will, but again, thanks for your input.
No problem.
Weak jet stream will lower the tropopause over the Great Lakes.
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat_int/gif_files/gfs_hgt_trop_NA_f24.png
Salvatore, are you out there?
Hopefully you’re on a good, relaxing vacation.
When you come back: what do you make of this?
https://www.tropicaltidbits.com/analysis/ocean/global.png
ren, did you notice the sharp upward spike in the Nino34 anomaly?
https://www.tropicaltidbits.com/analysis/ocean/nino34.png
Cold air will plunge into the north-central United States by weekâs end, possibly bringing the first snowflakes of the season to some communities.
https://accuweather.brightspotcdn.com/dims4/default/377d2ce/2147483647/resize/590x/quality/90/?url=http%3A%2F%2Faccuweather-bsp.s3.amazonaws.com%2F5f%2F28%2F93e0c9974173bec12e91cb1eb21e%2Farctic-air.jpg
David Appell
https://climatereanalyzer.org/wx_frames/gfs/ds/gfs_nh-sat5_sstanom_1-day.png
Again ren, did you notice the sharp upward spike in the Nino34 anomaly?
What do you make of this?
https://www.tropicaltidbits.com/analysis/ocean/nino34.png
Just a few days ago, ren was happy to present the Nino34 index when it was slightly negative.
Now he has changed course completely and wishes to ignore the data.
Just a few days ago, DA was happy to ignore the data.
Now he has changed course completely and wishes to present the Nino34 index when it is tending El Nino.
I follow this index every week. It hasn’t done anything interesting until now. Such a sharp upward spike is interesting.
The wind will change direction again.
http://tropic.ssec.wisc.edu/real-time/mtpw2/product.php?color_type=tpw_nrl_colors&prod=ausf×pan=24hrs&anim=html5
And again, and again, and again….
There was a young lady from Spain,
Who did it again and again,
And again and again,
And again and again,
And again and again and again.
Cheers.
The cold front attacks in the east of the US.
http://en.blitzortung.org/live_lightning_maps.php?map=30
Weather.
COLD weather!
Less of it than there used to be.
With any luck….
DA,
Antarctica used to be ice free. It seems to be a lot colder these days.
Carry on with your odd assertions. Maybe you could claim the mythical GHE made the Earth cool for four and a half billion years, then reversed its action!
On the other hand, maybe you deny that climate is the average of weather.
Do you relish being an object of ridicule, or does your fantasy world reject the concept?
Cheers.
The whole world used to be covered in ice (“snowball Earth”) — at least twice.
It’s warmed since then.
Norman apparently quoted Clausius-
“Clausius: “Again as regards the ordinary radiation of heat, it is of course well known that not only
do hot bodies radiate to cold, but also cold bodies conversely
to hot ; nevertheless the general result of this simultaneous
double exchange of heat always consists, as is established by
experience, in an increase of the heat in the colder body
at the expense of the hotter.””
Others might also wish to think about the meaning of “to” in the above quote.
GHE worshippers define “to” as having been absorbed, or affected, or something similar.
On the other hand “to” can also mean towards, but not necessarily having reached or affected the thing to which it is proceeding,
For example, a block of ice may radiate to a pot of hot water, and vice versa. However, the temperature of the pot of hot water is not raised by the radiation from the ice, but the ice certainly absorbs the radiation from the hot water, and its temperature rises as a result.
It once again show the insanity of GHE worshippers, who subtly redefine a meaning to support something which is physically impossible – that is, a colder body can raise the temperature of of a hotter body, without anything else happening concurrently. As Clausius put it – “Heat can never pass from a colder to a warmer body without some other change, connected therewith, occurring at the same time.”
GHE worship – nuttery of the stupid , ignorant, and delusional type.
No GHE. No CO2 heating.
Cheers.
Mike Flynn
Are you dense? People have told you several times what the GHE is and you constantly default to your stupid version of it that no one claims. Why you do this only your programmer knows.
YOU: “For example, a block of ice may radiate to a pot of hot water, and vice versa. However, the temperature of the pot of hot water is not raised by the radiation from the ice, but the ice certainly absorbs the radiation from the hot water, and its temperature rises as a result.”
Why would you think the temperature of hot water would go up by absorbing the IR from the ice.
Please try to think and reason.
I will try to make it easy:
1) The Hot water both emits and absorbs EMR.
Do you understand this? I don’t think you do
2) The ice both emits and absorbs EMR.
Do you understand this? I don’t think you can.
3) The hot water is emitting more EMR than it receives from the ice so it cools.
4) The Ice receives more EMR from the hot water than it emits so it warms.
5) Now have the hot water heated by a constant heat source.
Condition A) surround the heated water with dry ice and measure the temperature of the heated water.
Condition B) remove the dry ice and surround the heated water with water ice. The temperature of the heated water goes up and rises to a new steady state temperature.
The EMR emitted by dry ice is much less than the EMR emitted by the water ice. The heated water receives more energy from water ice than dry ice so the temperature rises. What problems do you have understanding this?
Just one more FAIL for Norman!
The dry ice is colder than the water ice, so it is “cooling” more.
(Norman does not understand thermo. Nothing new.)
JDHuffman
YOU: “The dry ice is colder than the water ice, so it is cooling more.”
Using just radiant energy transfer what do you mean by “cooling” more?
Does the cold dry ice suck more energy from a heated object than water ice? Is that what you are trying to say?
Norman, as usual, you are so tangled up in your pseudoscience that no one can help you.
Upthread, you got caught being unable to discuss the bogus “experiment” you have been touting for months. Now you are trying to convince yourself that your made-up nonsense is valid!
Adding more energy to a system can often cause the system temperature to increase. That does NOT mean “cold” is warming “hot”!
You do not understand thermodynamics. You do not understand 2LoT. And likely never will.
At least you know how to type…..
JDHuffman
So with you, I can expect the usual. Duck and avoid and misdirection.
You seem to never answer anything but you make many declarations.
I will give the odds. Chance for an answer to my questions 0%. Let us see if I am wrong.
Again: “YOU: âThe dry ice is colder than the water ice, so it is cooling more.â
Using just radiant energy transfer what do you mean by âcoolingâ more?
Does the cold dry ice suck more energy from a heated object than water ice? Is that what you are trying to say?”
Norman asks: “Does the cold dry ice suck more energy from a heated object than water ice?”
(Allowing for your uneducated “suck”.)
Eliminating convection and conduction, your pot of hot water would be unaffected by the colder masses. So, the short answer is “no”.
Norman asks: “Is that what you are trying to say?”
Considering convection and conduction, your pot of hot water would be affected by the colder masses. So, the short answer is “yes”.
JDHuffman
You could not conduct an experiment with hot water in a vacuum as it would vaporize.
If you change it to a hot heated solid object in a vacuum then the radiant heat of the different cold surroundings will indeed directly impact the temperature of heated object.
The dry ice will emit less energy toward the hot object than the warmer water ice. This energy will change the steady state temperature the hot object.
If you would experiment you could use the apparatus described by E. Swanson in his test. Do a variation of his vacuum plates.
With the Green plate alter its temperature (put dry ice in a container behind the green plate to keep it very cold). Get a steady state temperature of the heated blue plate. Now remove the dry ice and put warmer water ice in the container. The blue plate temperature will rise because it is receiving more energy from the green plate as it is warmed by the water ice.
JDHuffman
I will give you the support for my claims based upon real physics.
http://www.mhtl.uwaterloo.ca/courses/ece309_mechatronics/lectures/pdffiles/summary_ch12.pdf
Look at page 14 of this document and read Radiation Heat Transfer.
Norman, are you just clowning around, or are you trying to communicate?
Provide a clear sketch of your “thought experiment”, such as this:
https://postimg.cc/image/jcotys8e3/
Otherwise it just looks like you’re tangled in your pseudoscience again.
N,
You wrote –
“The blue plate temperature will rise because it is receiving more energy from the green plate as it is warmed by the water ice.”
And . . . ?
Exposing an object to a higher temperature object generally makes the colder object hotter. Or don’t you agree?
Cheers.
N,
The GHE has never been described. If it had been, I am sure you could paste a copy of the description.
Once again, you don’t disagree with anything I say, but rush off at a tangent. Unlimited heat sources, playing with words, failing to point out that heat sources are capable of raising temperatures if hot enough and possess suitable intensity.
Clausius –
“Heat can never pass from a colder to a warmer body without some other change, connected therewith, occurring at the same time.”
You have many other things occurring, don’t you? Constant heat sources, replacing heated bodies with other bodies, and so on.
Try heating water using ice. Try heating the Earth’s surface using “back radiation”. You can’t, can you? You have to introduce a large heat source ( like the Sun), and start redefining words – cooling becomes heating, more becomes less, and all the rest of the climatological pseudoscientific jargon.
After you have described the GHE, you should be able to explain why reducing the amount of energy reaching a thermometer (by increasing the amount of CO2 between the Sun and the thermometer), makes the thermometer hotter.
I’m sure you can dream up a fantasy involving multiple heat sources, various objects, replacing this with that, without even mentioning the Sun, the Earth’s surface, a thermometer, or the GHE.
No GHE. No CO2 heating. The Earth has been cooling for four and a half billion years. Deny it all you wish – it is unlikely to make much difference.
Cheers.
Mike Flynn
Are you drunk? Your post is incoherent. I really don’t know what you are trying to state. I did give a really simple and clear point and you scrambled it up into a jumbled mess.
You basically say things without meaning.
Now try to pay attention.
The Earth’s surface receives constant energy from the Sun. It reaches a steady state temperature with this incoming energy. You add back radiation from a warmed atmosphere containing GHG and you get another flux of energy to the surface. The surface then warms to a new steady state temperature. Pretty simple. Based upon valid physics. Not sure what you don’t understand.
N,
Maybe you could try disagreeing with something I said, but I doubt it.
Anyway, the Earth’s surface does not receive constant energy from the Sun. That’s why night and day are different, Winter is colder than Summer, and surface temperatures vary between about +90 C and -90 C.
On the other hand, you may believe that the GHE which nobody has ever described, is responsible for these variations, though the magic of CO2, and climatological pseudoscience.
As to simple, you definitely are. The Earth has cooled from its original molten state, it seems. Maybe James Hansen invented the impossible to describe GHE recently?
How are you going with finding a description of the mythical GHE? Maybe you could provide a copy to the IPCC. They seem to think it might have something to do with glass walls and greenhouses! Pretty stupid and ignorant, eh?
Cheers.
Norman continues with his confusion: “You add back radiation from a warmed atmosphere containing GHG and you get another flux of energy to the surface. The surface then warms to a new steady state temperature.”
Wrong!
The “back-radiation” is already within Earth’s system It is not “new” energy. It can no longer cause an increase in system temperature.
Besides, radiative fluxes do NOT add. You can NOT bake a turkey with ice cubes, as others have repeatedly tried to teach you.
But, you reject reality. So it will fun to see your distortions, followed by your immature insults.
Nothing new.
JDHuffman
The only “wrong” thing is your poor reading comprehension.
Here is what I actually wrote: “The Earths surface receives constant energy from the Sun. It reaches a steady state temperature with this incoming energy. You add back radiation from a warmed atmosphere containing GHG and you get another flux of energy to the surface. The surface then warms to a new steady state temperature.”
YOU: “Wrong!
The back-radiation is already within Earths system It is not new energy. It can no longer cause an increase in system temperature.”
It is not part of the system in the initial condition. Once you add an atmosphere with GHG you get back-radiation which would not be there in the first case. Learn to read. It would help you some.
Still wrong, Norman!
Even if your assumption of original warning were correct, that does not allow for any additional warming. Once the atmospheric mass is there, and equilibrium is established, the atmosphere can no longer be treated as a “heat source”.
You’re still just making things up to fit your failed belief system.
JDHuffman
If you add additional GHG you will increase the DWIR which may cause some more warming of the surface than the previous condition with less GHG present. Just increasing the DWIR does not automatically lead to warmer surface. Clouds are a very complex variable. The clouds do emit DWIR but they also block incoming solar energy. The balance is complex and different cloud types have different net radiant effects.
More comedy from my favorite typist, Norman Grinvalds:
“If you add additional GHG you will increase the DWIR which may cause some more warming of the surface than the previous condition with less GHG present.”
Very doubtful 14.7 micron photons could warm a surface averaging 15 C (59 F). But more CO2 would definitely increase IR to space, thereby cooling the planet.
(An ice cube emits photons “hotter” than a 14.7 photon!)
JDHuffman
14.7 micron photons are emitted at all kinds of temperatures. The temperature you refer to would be were 14.7 microns is the peak emitting wavelength of a blackbody spectrum. It has little to do with how much energy a surface will receive from an emitting source.
With Carbon Dioxide emission you have no spectrum or Peak emission. It will emit around 4 and 15 microns only.
http://www.wou.edu/las/physci/ch371/lecture/lecture8/img012.gif
CO2 with temperature will emit at these select frequencies. The hotter the gas the more IR will be emitted. If the CO2 is 10C or 2000 C it will still emit only in those bands. The hotter gas will just emit considerable amounts more IR. The amount of CO2 present increased the emissivity of the gas.
https://www.physicsforums.com/attachments/stefan-boltzmann_equation-005-jpg.162903/
Increase the emissivity and you increase the Power at the same temperature.
Norman, you appear to be de facto disagreeing with me, by rambling in circles.
Or are you just practicing your typing?
JDHuffman
What portion of this post is rambling in circles? Seems logical, straight forward, has supporting evidence. I guess I need to be more like you and just declare things with no support.
That is pseudoscience you know. I think it is funny you reject experimental evidence in favor of your unsupported declarations that go against established physics.
Norman asks: “What portion of this post is rambling in circles?”
The entire thing!
For example, can you state clearly, in 25 words or less, what your point was?
N,
I assume you are not claiming that the surface has become hotter in the last four and a half billion years or so.
Are you claiming that the laws of physics have somehow changed recently?
Feel free to ignore the inconvenient fact that the Earth has actually cooled. Retreat into your fantasy -where Gavin Schmidt is a climate scientist, and Michael Mann won a Nobel Prize.
No wonder you can’t even come up with a useful GHE description! Nor can anyone else.
You had better ignore that inconvenient fact too. Otherwise your head might explode. Eww!
Cheers.
JDHuffman
I think it is a good post with good information.
It is not hard to read and contains good links to support the information I am claiming.
Limiting ideas to short soundbites is what you need. I would rather have an idea explained. I did just that.
Norman, it is just pointless rambling, AKA “typing practice”.
“The atmosphere is an insulator.”
– Mike Flynn, June 18, 2017 at 3:34 AM
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/06/a-global-warming-red-team-warning-do-not-strive-for-consensus-with-the-blue-team/#comment-251624
DA,
Thank you for your support. Obviously (unless you are really, really, thick), increasing the amount of insulation between a heat source and an object, reduces the temperature.
That’s why refrigerators, space shuttles, and firemen’s uniforms use it.
Would you mind posting my words again? Some people still believe the mythical GHE exists, in spite of nobody being able to describe it.
Cheers,
…the transmittance of the atmosphere increases as the amount of GHGs in it drops.
Mike Flynn, May 23, 2017 at 5:16 PM
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/05/uah-global-temperature-update-for-april-2017-0-27-deg-c/#comment-247988
DA,
Once again, many thanks. Obviously (unless you are really, really, really, thick), allowing more energy to reach a thermometer, makes the thermometer hotter.
Arid tropical deserts show how high surface temperatures can go, in the reduced GHG (H2O) environment.
Worth repeating. Would you post my comments a few dozen times more?
Cheers.
Right after posting my comment above I plugged this into Google: “Could the Stefan-Boltzmann equation be wrong”.
Here’s the first hit I got on Google:
http://nov79.com/gbwm/sbc.html
“The Stefan-Boltzmann Constant is in Error
It shows 20-50 times too much radiation at normal temperatures. (NASA Charts)”
I wrote long post and it was blocked. Short post.
The constant applies in a vacuum.
Also in non-existent long post: in vacuum with 3 K sky, it about a limit. Or things can made to lose far more energy compared to vacuum with 3 K sky.
Second try.
Crap, it doesn’t like he*at
gb,
Maybe you have offended the climatological GHE god.
It’s probably annoyed that heat can make thIngs hotter, unlike the mythical GHE.
Cheers.
Gordon Robertson
You have to be kidding me! A crackpot Gary Novak is the source of your nonsense posts. This dude doesn’t have the slightest idea how to calculate. A complete crackpot.
Here is why is is wrong with his posting.
He does not know how to use Stefan-Boltzmann (nor do you).
Gordon, you can stop reading posts by lunatics and crackpots and start looking at real science. Stefan-Boltzmann Law was found by experimentation. You can do experiments today to find it yourself or you can believe a loon on a blog. I suppose you like your lunatics, real experimental science is bogus (according to JDHuffman, real science is declaring things and then they are true, no experimental evidence is required).
Here:
http://www.engr.iupui.edu/~mrnalim/me314lab/lab11.htm
Here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MUAc_pAMNig
Here:
http://wanda.fiu.edu/teaching/courses/Modern_lab_manual/stefan_boltzmann.html
So what experiment did Gary Novak do to prove his goofy claims? None. He just declares things and you believe them.
You and JDHuffman suffer from this form of delusion. You think that science is a matter of you two declaring things and then that makes them true. Two goofballs pretending to be something.
Norman has lost control, again!
His keyboard is likely on fire.
JDHuffman
What portions of my post do you think I lost control in? The part I included you in where you thing a good experiment is bogus? You provide zero proof that the experiment is bogus in any way yet you make this claim. Why? Also you just declare things with zero support for any of it.
You may like that Gary Novak. Makes up whatever he wants. Has no evidence for it at all but I guess if he declares it good it must be.
It was probably the part where you said crackpots and lunatics over and over again. Do you read your own posts, Norman?
Exactly, DREMT.
And if Norman ever reads his comments, he doesn’t (want to) remember them.
He has started mentioning the bogus “experiment” again. But yesterday, he ran when I gave him a chance to discuss it.
Short memory, i guess….
N,
Clausius stated –
“Heat can never pass from a colder to a warmer body without some other change, connected therewith, occurring at the same time.”
Does this “experiment” you keep referring to prove Clausius wrong?
I haven’t seen any reports of imminent changes to the Laws of Thermodynamics, but you may have secret hidden knowledge.
Bad luck, Norman. Still no indescribable GHE. CO2 heats nothing. The Earth has cooled for four and a half billion years. So sad, too bad.
Keep looking for your missing clue, if you find it, you’ll have at least one.
Cheers.
Like a sort of hyper-aggressive goldfish.
Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:
I will stand that those are completely accurate descriptions of Gary Novak physics. That Gordon Robertson was using that as a valid source to support his claims was over the top.
JDHuffman
You keep calling E. Swanson experiment “bogus”
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/bogus
So what is your evidence that the experiment is not a good valid experiment. Is it because you have done your own experiments and shown his is a sham…no you haven’t you are not willing to do any experiment at all but mouth people who do.
Here it is. What is not genuine with his experiment.
https://app.box.com/s/5wxidf87li5bo588q2xhcfxhtfy52oba
E. Swanson details how he set up his experiment.
The results show that back radiation from the green plate along with the EMR from the lamp cause the blue plate to reach a higher steady state temperature than the case without the IR from the Green plate.
Explain what is bogus? You have not even attempted to do so. You declare it bogus but offer no explanation.
“The results show that back radiation from the green plate along with the EMR from the lamp cause the blue plate to reach a higher steady state temperature than the case without the IR from the Green plate.”
What are the measured flux values?
N,
You wrote –
“The results show that back radiation from the green plate along with the EMR from the lamp cause the blue plate to reach a higher steady state temperature than the case without the IR from the Green plate.”
Maybe you could clean up your description a bit.
Assuming that the “back radiation”, the “EMR”, and the “IR” are all light in the infrared portion of the light spectrum, your description reads as follows –
“The results show that IR from the green plate along with the IR from the lamp cause the blue plate to reach a higher steady state temperature than the case without the IR from the Green plate.”
That seems eminently reasonable. Adding extra IR creates a higher temperature. What is novel about that?
In the case where only one heat source is used (the IR which being emitted by the surrounding environment), the plates seem to be at the same temperature. This appears to indicate that the GHE only seems to work when the Sun is shining. There are two difficulties with this proposition as being the cause of global warming –
1. During the night, the surface radiates all of the heat which it received during the day, plus a little bit of the Earth’s internal heat.
2. The hottest places on Earth are the places with the least amount of GHGs in the atmosphere.
A third, and possibly the largest, nail in your coffin of foolishness, is the not unsurprising fact that the Earth has managed to cool over the last four and a half billion years or so.
Carry on dreaming, Norman. Maybe you could dream up a useful description of the mythical GHE. I won’t hold my breath while I’m waiting.
Cheers.
JDHuffman
I do not think radiant flux values were part of the experiment nor needed. The point of the experiment was to verify the concept behind Eli Rabbet’s thought experiment were correct.
The IR emitted by the heated green plate (heated by energy from the blue plate) results in a higher steady state temperature for the heated blue plate. This is given in the temperature graphs.
N,
You wrote –
“The IR emitted by the heated green plate (heated by energy from the blue plate) results in a higher steady state temperature for the heated blue plate.”
Rephrasing your words –
“The IR emitted as a result of IR from the blue plate results in a higher temperature for the blue plate.”
Nonsensical. You can’t use energy emitted by an object to raise the temperature of that object – no matter how much you try to confuse the issue with using different words to describe the same thing.
Even if you reflect 100% of the emitted energy back to the emitting object (by means of a perfect reflector), the object’s temperature will not increase.
If Eli Rabbett believes that this is possible, he is deluded.
So sad, too bad.
Cheers.
And, that’s why the “experiment” is bogus, Norman. All your support is based on your “belief system”.
Beliefs are not science.
Mike Flynn
Try out this online calculator:
http://humcal.com/index.php
I put in a Relative Humidity of 10% in the left column, set the temperature to 120 F and the enthalpy calculated at 68 joules/gram
Then I put in 90% Relative Humidity, set the temperature to 90 F and the enthalpy was much higher at 104 joules/gram.
In your post you state: “2. The hottest places on Earth are the places with the least amount of GHGs in the atmosphere.”
They may have a higher temperature but the air stores much less energy by mass. The GHE is actually working in the high humidity areas with lots of GHG present. The air holds considerably more energy. That may not be a very good line to pursue to try and disprove the GHE.
JDHuffman
You are not making a convincing argument.
YOU: “And, thats why the experiment is bogus, Norman. All your support is based on your belief system.
Beliefs are not science.”
No, that is not a correct point. The experiment shows clearly that the green plate is adding energy to the blue plate. When it is moved up the Blue plate temperature rises as the green plate temperature rises.
The support is not my “belief system”. It is established science.
I have given you the link. Read the material.
http://www.mhtl.uwaterloo.ca/courses/ece309_mechatronics/lectures/pdffiles/summary_ch12.pdf
Your graphic is not supported by the experiment (all the energy of the green plate bounces off the blue plate and goes to the green plate). Your prediction of same temperature for both plates is not validated by the experiment. The plates will never reach the same temperature in this setup. The green plate will never receive as much energy as the blue plate.
If you want you can calculate the fluxes. The material used is given and the temperature is given. You can use Stefan-Boltzmann to get the fluxes. Of course it does not seem easy to find the emissivity of polycarbonate.
N,
Your meaningless demand to follow your pointless link seems to have nothing to do with the fact that temperatures fall at night.
As to your second objection, you don’t disagree with me do you? You just try to divert the discussion to something quite irrelevant.
GHGs don’t raise surface temperatures at night. The surface cools.
Less GHGs result in higher surface temperatures in sunlight.
The Earth has cooled for four and a half billion years years.
There is no useful GHE description. No AGW theory. CO2 heats nothing. Climatological pseudoscience is more related to cultism than science.
Keep praying.
Cheers.
Norman,
The “experiment” is bogus.
Fluxes don’t add.
Horses aren’t rotating about their centers-of-mass as they run.
There is no “missing 150 Watts/m^2”, as DA claims, or “missing 350 Watts/m^2”, as you claim.
“Cold” does not make “hot” warmer.
Typing out your twisted beliefs does not change the laws of physics.
Adding CO2 will not make the planet warmer.
Pigs don’t fly.
And, there is no good chain gang.
Wake up and face reality.
JDHuffman
You made many unsupported declarations and pretend that they are fact. You and Gary Novak think alike. Say things, don’t prove anything and pretend you know things.
When you start providing evidence for some of your declarations maybe someone will listen to your ravings.
At least with the horse on the racetrack. If it is not rotating then how does its head face one direction and then the other direction when it is on the opposite side of the track. You really do not understand what rotation about an axis means. You can read the definition and you still don’t understand it. You get totally confused when you have more than one process going on. The horse is moving around a track at the same time it is rotating. If the horse was stationary you might be able to understand it. At this time it is hopeless to educate you on the meaning of rotation. You can’t understand the concept.
I suppose you will just go right on declaring your beliefs as if they were facts but you will not even attempt to prove even a single one.
Mike Flynn
YOU: “GHGs dont raise surface temperatures at night. The surface cools.
Less GHGs result in higher surface temperatures in sunlight.”
Who made a statement that GHG would raise surface temperature at night? Where does that point come from. I have not seen any poster make a claim that such a thing would happen. I have not stated it.
It depends upon which GHG you are talking about. Water is a complex player in heat transfer. If you had noncondensing GHG and no water vapor, you would have a higher surface temperature with more of these gases present. It is a complex idea and you are not intelligent enough to follow it. Would be a waste of time for me to attempt and explanation. You would not understand what I am saying and get it wrong.
I will let you know, evaporation does remove lots of energy from a surface. On a hot sunny day measure the temperature of water in a puddle vs a dry section of asphalt. You will find the water is much cooler. They both receive the same energy. Water has a high heat capacity and takes more energy to raise in temperature and it also removes energy from the surface via evaporation.
(response #1)
Norman,
You made many unsupported declarations and pretend that they are fact. You, and the other clowns, think alike. Say things, don’t prove anything and pretend you know things.
When you start providing evidence for some of your declarations maybe someone will listen to your ravings.
I suppose you will just go right on declaring your beliefs as if they were facts but you will not even attempt to prove even a single one.
(response #2)
Norman: “At least with the horse on the racetrack. If it is not rotating then how does its head face one direction and then the other direction when it is on the opposite side of the track.”
It’s called “orbiting”. It’s a completely different motion than “rotating on its own axis”. “Orbiting” is pure translational motion about a point not on the horse, such as the center of the track.
Again, here are the definitions of each:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rotation_around_a_fixed_axis
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Translation_(geometry)#Translations_in_physics
The Moon is both orbiting rotating. Just like the Earth is doing.
See this figure; the actual situation is on the left.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tidal_locking#/media/File:Tidal_locking_of_the_Moon_with_the_Earth.gif
Look at the Moon’s axis in this figure. Keep your eye on the Moon’s axis.
See the dark splotch on the Moon move around it? That’s the moon rotating.
Ger*an: if the Moon isn’t rotating, how were astronauts on the Moon able to see an Earthrise?
http://earthsky.org/space/apollo-8-earthrise-december-24-1968-new-simulation
DA, feel fee to study the links I provided above. See if you can learn by yourself.
As for your confusion about “Earth rise”, from the link you provided:
“Earthrise photo — December 24, 1968 — from the crew of Apollo 8. It’s not really an Earthrise, of course.
Learn some physics.
Ever heard of lunar libration? Look it up.
Then look again at the Wikipedia animation, at the Moon’s axis, pointing in the direction of Polaris.
It’s OBVIOUSLY rotating.
No DA! It is “orbiting”, not “rotating on its own axis”.
Study the links mentioned.
norman…”The results show that back radiation from the green plate along with the EMR from the lamp cause the blue plate to reach a higher steady state temperature than the case without the IR from the Green plate.
Explain what is bogus?”
1)It infers a transfer of heat, by its own means, from a colder body to a warmer body.
2)It ignores the proper conclusion, that the green plate is interfering with heat dissipation via convection in the 1st experiment and radiation in the 2nd experiment.
Gordon Robertson
I will try again. I have already asked it and you provided zero evidence for you claim. I am not expecting much from you but I will ask.
YOU: “2)It ignores the proper conclusion, that the green plate is interfering with heat dissipation via convection in the 1st experiment and radiation in the 2nd experiment.”
How does the green plate interfere with heat dissipation of the blue plate by radiation. What mechanism are you proposing? I need more support of you statement. At this time it means nothing to me, just empty words.
Heat dissipation means a cooling process.
https://www.thefreedictionary.com/heat+dissipation
What is the green plate doing to slow the cooling process of the blue plate.
Established physics makes the claim that the green plate does not slow down the amount of energy the blue surface emits, only the temperature of the blue plate determines that rate. Established physics states that the green plate radiates EMR to the blue plate that is absorbed. The two processes.
1) Rate blue plate emits
2) Rate blue plate absorbs from the surroundings
The green plate is adding energy to the blue plate. This does NOT violate the 2nd Law. At the same time the green plate adds energy to the blue plate, the blue plate is adding more energy to the green plate. It is exactly what Clausius said and what all modern science says.
This view easily explains why the blue plate warms. Your words (interferes with heat dissipation) explain absolutely nothing. Just words you put together.
Norman, what are the measured flux values?
Until you have some valid, verifiable evidence, you have NOTHING!
Now, back to your whining and hand-waving….
Gordon Robertson says:
http://nov79.com/gbwm/sbc.html
“The Stefan-Boltzmann Constant is in Error”
Oh jeez — now we crackpots quoting crackpots.
Are we at the bottom yet?
*we have crackpots quoting crackpots.
DA, you reached bottom a long time ago.
Learn some physics.
We are now you are here.
Some people still believe the mythical GHE exists, in spite of nobody being able to describe it.
Here’s the basic mechanism:
https://tinyurl.com/y89h9xam
Svante,
As usual a “mechanism” purporting to explain something you can’t even describe. Your YouTube video is the usual presentation of a bearded balding buffoon, unaware he is proselytising climatological pseudoscience.
In other words, if you are like me, you might persevere to the point where he resorts to the usual pointless and irrelevant analogies involving sinks and water supplies, because he cannot explain how a pane of glass can be a source of energy.
Have you considered trying to find a useful GHE description, capable of being the basis for a testable GHE hypothesis?
It might be more convincing than providing links to nonsensical lectures, based on wishful thinking.
Keep believing.
Cheers.
svante…”Heres the basic mechanism:”
That’s the only evidence for the GHE, a shaggy professor scribbling bad math on a board?
That was the University of Chicago, you get the same 101 at any reputable University.
And therein lies the problem….
Yes you said it before, you know better than NASA and all those conspiring Universities.
Even so, I try to remain humble.
☺
svante…”Yes you said it before, you know better than NASA and all those conspiring Universities”.
Let’s not include all of NASA in the buffoonery. NASA does perfectly good science in other area. It is the GISS division that practices pseud0-science and they are not really scientists but climate modelers.
Gordon Robertson says:
Thats the only evidence for the GHE, a shaggy professor scribbling bad math on a board?
“First Direct Observation of Carbon Dioxides Increasing Greenhouse Effect at the Earths Surface,” Berkeley Lab, 2/25/15.
http://newscenter.lbl.gov/2015/02/25/co2-greenhouse-effect-increase/
=> “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
“The observed increase in RF from CO2 has been directly measured and equal to 1KW per football field in 10 years,” John Mitchell, 9/24/17.
https://twitter.com/RisetoClimate/status/912050284829872128
DA, can you link to some new pseudoscience?
It’s boring debunking the same old trash, repeatedly.
Another unscientific denier, who refuses to confront what science says and who rejects it so his feelings don’t get hurt.
Now see DA, if you knew physics you would be able to quickly reject pseudoscience also.
test
So it’s what I am writing which is blocked. Hmm
gbaikie…”So its what I am writing which is blocked. Hmm”
Post it a paragraph at a time till you isolate the error.
We are now in a period of very low solar activity. We will see how the jet stream will behave now.
http://www.solen.info/solar/images/AR_CH_20180926.png
https://earth.nullschool.net/#current/wind/isobaric/250hPa/equirectangular=-46.51,0.00,188
This pattern is typical of winter weather in North America.
https://files.tinypic.pl/i/00971/jybqvxxjjn9h.png
Hi Svante
I liked your reply to Denis Ables:
“That was quite a well focused gish gallop, but you need to start using the Holocene maximum instead of the MWP, things are changing fast.”
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2013/09/paleoclimate-the-end-of-the-holocene/
Yeah, what can you say? If you refute one point you get ten new ones. Gordon is the master of that. At least this one was focused on paleoclimate, not incoherent like gbaikie.
Scientist are careful so Marcott could only say that we were in the Holocene top quarter based on his material. That was in 2013, UAH has added nearly 0.2 C since then.
The instrumental record was attached at a low starting point, but it doesn’t look like the Roman or Minoan warm period would suffice. Level headed commentators like barry and Nate might disagree.
Is there evidence the Roman or Minoan warm periods were global? Marcott et al say it wasn’t.
I don’t know, but looking at the linked graph they seem to have affected the global average.
The Minoan Warm Period looks more like a pause than a peak, it is higher because it occurs earlier in the general decline.
Our impact is not just the warming, breaking that decline was quite a feat.
svante….”If you refute one point you get ten new ones. Gordon is the master of that”.
I am still waiting for you to refute any point I have made. All I get is glib one-liners, some of them having nothing to do with the point made. For example, when I use the Ideal Gas Law to establish that the 0.04% representing CO2 contributes insignificant heat to the atmosphere you reply that an equally small amount of arsenic in coffee can kill someone.
If you are going to engage in a scientific discussion then please apply science, not a red-herring analogy.
Gordon, citing the Ideal Gas Law is useless when it comes to radiative transfer.
You’ve been told this many times.
Yet you still lie about it.
You are lying on purpose. Purposely lying. You are a liar. You have no interest in the truth. You choose to lie.
You are despicable.
Like David says, the Ideal Gas Law is irrelevant, you have been told before but to no avail.
The warming effect depends on how much radiation the CO2 blocks.
If it blocked all radiation then all that energy would warm the CO2, regardless its percentage. It would warm up and re-radiate in all directions.
Mixed gases can not have different temperatures so the mixture will act as one. That makes your 0.04% even more irrelevant but you don’t need that to refute your claim.
Svante, if CO2 really blocks radiation…
“The warming effect depends on how much radiation the CO2 blocks.”
then how does it radiate in all directions?
“It would warm up and re-radiate in all directions.”
Also, how much solar does CO2 absorb? Does atmospheric CO2 absorb more energy from the Sun than from Earth?
Is this a gotcha, I like them!
It goes goes into and out of a higher vibrational state.
No, CO2 is transparent to the bulk of the solar energy, but its blocking bands are in the bulk of the outgoing IR.
I think David Appell gave us the numbers recently.
No Svante, I have no need for “gotchas”. Reality takes care of that.
For example you couldn’t explain your way out of your own words.
And, you got the answer wrong. Atmospheric CO2 absorbs more energy from the Sun than it does from Earth.
See, no need for me to set any kind of trap. Clowns can’t wait to jump into their own traps.
Atmospheric CO2 absorbs roughly 1 W/m^2 of incoming solar radiation, and 31 W/m of outgoing LWIR.
Assuming:
Direct Sunlight (W/m2) 1360
Surface Temp (K) 284.42
Lapse Rate (K/km) 6
Stratospheric Height (km) 15
CH4 (ppm) 1.7
Relative Humidity (%) 80
Low Cloud (fraction) 0
High Cloud (fraction) 0
–THE CHILL OF SOLAR MINIMUM: The sun is entering one of the deepest Solar Minima of the Space Age. Sunspots have been absent for most of 2018, and the sun’s ultraviolet output has sharply dropped. New research shows that Earth’s upper atmosphere is responding.
“We see a cooling trend,” says Martin Mlynczak of NASA’s Langley Research Center. “High above Earth’s surface near the edge of space, our atmosphere is losing heat energy. If current trends continue, the upper atmosphere could soon set a Space Age record for cold.”–
http://spaceweather.com/
Spotless Days
Current Stretch: 15 days
2018 total: 157 days 58%
2008 Spotless days
Longest stretch: 32 days
Total up to Sep 27 2008: 197 days, 73%
So, a long period spotless is going to occur in the coming couple years?
So – nothing you have observed regarding sunspots is out of the ordinary.
Well, there was some earlier claim of cycle 25 sun spots appearing on the sun- and I have not seen that topic re-visited recently. So could say “I wonder about that”.
But I would like it, if you to give me a clue.
I agree with Bob.
Solar irradiance hasn’t even fallen yet to the lows of the last solar minimum.
Source:
http://lasp.colorado.edu/data/sorce/tsi_data/daily/sorce_tsi_L3_c24h_latest.txt
Since 1600, esp since 1960:
http://spot.colorado.edu/~koppg/TSI/TIM_TSI_Reconstruction.png
–David Appell says:
September 29, 2018 at 8:22 PM
I agree with Bob.
Solar irradiance hasnt even fallen yet to the lows of the last solar minimum.–
Does Bob think it’s going to fall lower. If so when, will it start cycle 25?
In a year or two?
Or as wiki says:
“It is expected to begin in late 2019 and continue through 2030.
However, the sun is showing signs of a reverse magnetic polarity sunspot appearing and beginning this solar cycle. Indeed, the first Cycle 25 sunspot may already have appeared in early April 2018.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_cycle_25
Or:
“SOLAR CYCLE 24 STATUS AND SOLAR CYCLE 25 UPCOMING FORECAST
published: Thursday, April 26, 2018 19:18 UTC
Current solar cycle 24 is declining more quickly than forecast. The smoothed, predicted sunspot number for April to May, 2018 is about 15; however, the actual monthly values have been lower. Will solar minimum be longer than usual or might solar cycle 25 begin earlier? Leading solar and space science experts will convene a meeting in the coming years and attempt to predict solar cycle 25.”
https://www.swpc.noaa.gov/news/solar-cycle-24-status-and-solar-cycle-25-upcoming-forecast
The LIA wasn’t
1) global
2) caused by the Sun.
“Abrupt onset of the Little Ice Age triggered by volcanism and sustained by sea-ice/ocean feedbacks,” Gifford H. Miller et al, GRL (2013).
DOI: 10.1029/2011GL050168
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2011GL050168/full
LIA was period of time which included advancing worldwide glaciers and declining sea level- these are global.
DA…”The LIA wasnt
1) global
2) caused by the Sun”.
1)Despite reports from China, South America and the likes of LIA-like temperatures, DA insists that’s not true.
2)If the LIA is not related to the Sun, how do you explain 400 years of below average temperatures and several solar minima during that period?
Gordon – a low temperature here and then a low temperature there 150 years later does not mean a LIA.
PAGES 2k gathered a large amount of data. What did they get wrong, in your opinion, when they wrote
“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
gbaikie says:
LIA was period of time which included advancing worldwide glaciers and declining sea level- these are global.
What’s the evidence they were global?
With a weak solar wind, the level of galactic cosmic ray increases steadily. This radiation is concentrated in regions around magnetic poles and in regions of the Earth where the Earth’s magnetic field is weakened.
https://files.tinypic.pl/i/00971/14cgnsfl67pu.png
https://files.tinypic.pl/i/00971/norvid9vz195.gif
The cutoff rigidity looks like global temperatures for the autumnal equinox!
ren, what do you make of the sharp upward spike in the Nino34 anomaly?
https://www.tropicaltidbits.com/analysis/ocean/nino34.png
Seems ren can’t reply because his foot is in his mouth. Or both feet.
solar climate sensitivity ~< 0.1 K/(W/m2)
IS GROWTH ALREADY INCREASING AND IS THE TREE LINE ADVANCING?
“Over the Holocene, climate change has influenced the level of the tree line profoundly. Many studies have demonstrated that elevational tree lines were significantly higher during the climatic optimum (Pears, 1968; Kullman, 1981, 1988; Dubois and Ferguson, 1988). For example, in the Scottish Cairngorms, the presence of pine stumps in the peat above the present tree line shows that the tree line was 200 m higher during the Boreal period (50009000 years ago) than it is at present (Pears, 1968). Assuming temperature lapse rates to be 7 C km1, this would imply that the temperature was 14 C higher in that period. In the last century the temperature has increased by about 06 C and is set to increase by 15 C in the next century. This suggests the possibility of a vertical advance of the tree line by 140700 m over the century. ”
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4240388/
14 C higher in that period.
1 to 4 C higher in the period.
Also
about 06 C and is set to increase by 15 C
would be:
about 0.6 C and is set to increase by 1-5 C
140700 m over the century is 140 – 700 m
gbaikie says:
For example, in the Scottish Cairngorms, the presence of pine stumps in the peat above the present tree line shows that the tree line was 200 m higher during the Boreal period (50009000 years ago) than it is at present (Pears, 1968). Assuming temperature lapse rates to be 7 C km1, this would imply that the temperature was 14 C higher in that period.
MAJOR math error.
Major.
balkie: you gonna admit your error? Or just pretend it didn’t happen?
gbaikie was quoting the paper, David. However, in the copy and paste, obviously some numbers were missing decimal points, and hyphens omitted.
David is interested in gotchas and holier than thou statements, not conversation.
Attributes of his insecurities.
Norman has now agreed that temperatures fall at night. In other words, whatever the GHE does, it doesn’t raise temperatures at night.
Basic physics, supported by four and a half billion years of cooling, indicates that at night, the surface radiates away all of the day’s heat, plus a little bit of the interior’s heat. Slow, relentless cooling.
I wrote to Norman –
“Less GHGs result in higher surface temperatures in sunlight., and supported this by pointing out that the highest surface temperatures may be found in arid tropical deserts – ie, those lacking the supposed GHG, H2O.
Norman responded as follows –
“It depends upon which GHG you are talking about. Water is a complex player in heat transfer. If you had noncondensing GHG and no water vapor, you would have a higher surface temperature with more of these gases present. It is a complex idea and you are not intelligent enough to follow it. Would be a waste of time for me to attempt and explanation. You would not understand what I am saying and get it wrong.
I will let you know, evaporation does remove lots of energy from a surface. On a hot sunny day measure the temperature of water in a puddle vs a dry section of asphalt. You will find the water is much cooler. They both receive the same energy. Water has a high heat capacity and takes more energy to raise in temperature and it also removes energy from the surface via evaporation.”
He seemed to miss the fact that “arid” means water is severely lacking. Waffling about the cooling effect of water is irrelevant, where water is absent. He then goes on to claim that having more H2O would make the deserts even hotter. His excuse for being unable to support his assertion is almost predictable – “It is a complex idea and you are not intelligent enough to follow it.”
It seems that the GHE is too complex to describe. The GHGs apparently differ in their actions, so a different GHE is needed for each one. In spite of this, Nature has ignored Norman’s complexity, and the Earth has cooled for four and a half billion years or so.
Maybe Norman could have a shot at describing the GHE in terms of water, and add other GHGs later. I would be intrigued if he could find support for his assertion that the highest surface temperatures should occur where atmospheric water content is highest. Norman claims that water has a cooling effect, you will note.
Another case of climatological pseudoscience – the cooling effect of water causes higher temperatures!
All part of the rich tapestry of life, I suppose.
Cheers.
“It seems that the GHE is too complex to describe. The GHGs apparently differ in their actions, so a different GHE is needed for each one. In spite of this, Nature has ignored Normanâs complexity, and the Earth has cooled for four and a half billion years or so.
Maybe Norman could have a shot at describing the GHE in terms of water, and add other GHGs later. I would be intrigued if he could find support for his assertion that the highest surface temperatures should occur where atmospheric water content is highest. Norman claims that water has a cooling effect, you will note.–
Well, in small greenhouse or parked car, it can make it hotter, but Earth atmosphere is not small and greenhouse effect of the atmosphere does not make earth hotter- though it increases average temperature- or makes nights less cold.
Adding enough atmosphere [any kind of gases] increases the temperature of surface where there is less sunlight or night.
Most of a planet surface is less sunlight and night. Most of surface of the Moon has less sunlight or night, just toss out a number only 20% lunar surface has around 1360 watts per square meter sunlight intersecting a square meter of lunar surface- or much less than 1/2 of sunlit hemisphere. Change that, Probably around 10% and sunlight 1000 watts or more reaching square meter of moon is around 20%.
Earth with it’s atmosphere it diminishes the 1360 watts to about 1050 watts of direct sunlight and 1120 watts of direct and indirect sunlight per square meter where the day is clear and sun is near zenith [say within 30 degree away from zenith or sun is 60 or more degrees above the horizon or at most for any day anywhere- 2 hours a day at most out of a 24 hour day.
Now where I live [southern california] at this time of year the clear skies didn’t give hour or minute of this 1050 watts of direct sunlight and 1120 watts of direct and indirect sunlight per square meter. I would have the 6 hours of peak solar energy and if point at sun, it gives more energy compared other 6 hours of the day [and the level ground gets even less]. The day was fairly warm but dry surface would not have come close to 70 C, and insulated box would not reach 80 C, any time today or tomorrow.
Or no surface is absorbing as much energy as it could 2 months ago. But without atmospheric greenhouse effect my night would be colder- it somewhat nippy last night and with be fairly cool tonight but with less atmosphere, say 1/2 as much atmosphere, the night would be colder- or the atmosphere has warming effect.
But issue is how much is CO2 or water vapor keeping it warmer.
Like the atmosphere, it did not cause my day to be warmer, though might have made the morning warmer. But if you imagine it made my morning say, 5 C warmer, it would not have had much difference to daytime high temperature, though in another month of time when sun is even lower in horizon, a warmer morning could have more significant effect on the daytime high temperature.
Just as would the atmosphere without any greenhouse gases would cause my morning to be warmer and result in warmer daytime high of air temperature.
But I don’t claim to know how much greenhouse gases “warm” earth but I would say it’s less 33 K, and probably less than 15 C and water vapor doing most of it. In terms of radiant effect- not what water does in terms of lapse rate, evaporation and latent heat and keeping earth surface cooler so earth radiates [loses] less energy to space. Etc.
gbaikie says:
…but I would say its less 33 K, and probably less than 15 C and water vapor doing most of it
What calculation gives the < 15 C value?
–What calculation gives the < 15 C value?–
We have to go over the idea of a Ideal thermally conductive blackbody which reflects 30% sunlight.
Which in comparison to earth would be 33 K cooler than earth's average surface air temperature.
Now we have agreed the earth is not like a blackbody and it's not like a ideal thermally conductive blackbody.
And it seems reasonable that Earth is more dissimilar to an Ideal thermally conductive blackbody that reflects 30% of sunlight as compared a blackbody or Ideal thermal conductive blackbody.
Though rather than dissimilar, you could say it's weird and sick animal that should be put of it's misery.
Let's use the ideal thermal conductive blackbody [which doesn't reflect sunlight] and say roughly rotating bodies at 1 AU should be around 5 C.
So say have bare rock planet spinning really fast and it's 5 C.
The polar region are going to be colder than equatorial regions.
So we will have two regions- one region is near equator and the two regions near polar making up region two. And total area of two regions near polar regions equals same area as the middle region nearest equator.
And total area is 510 million square km- so equator region is 265 million square km and each polar region has 132.5 million square km which combined is 265 million square km.
And say average temperature equatorial region is 20 C and polar regions average is -15 C, giving global average temperature of 5 C.
[Or pick any number you think it should be]
Average daytime temperature of equatorial region is say 60 C and night is -40 C, giving average day equatorial temperature of 20 C.
Now we going to add 1/4 of earth atm. Air is thin, higher the mt Everest and where airliners fly. No clouds and sunlight not reflected or reduced much travel thru such thin air.
The bare rock of surface would be only slightly cooler due to atmosphere, in equator, and air would warm up at noon to about 30 C.
And at this point we can measure air temperature rather than the temperature of the rock surface.
With rock surface the first few inches of surface is warmed during day and below these few inches it will cooler than surface, and at night the first few inches will cool and be colder than temperature below the top few inches. And at some depth in the rock the swings in temperature will be around 20 C. And could depend on type of rock.
And when add 1/4 atmosphere, the rock surface would not heat air up to it's highest noon temperature- average of 60 C- and it's not possible for rock to cool the air unless it's cooler than the air.
So roughly it could only cool 30 C, once it's cooler than 30 C.
And possible rock surface could be 30 C at sunset [they tend to stay warm after the point sun can't warm them].
You might argue the warm air can't warm night time cold rock, but hard to argue the warm equatorial air will warm the cooler air of polar region. So equatorial warm air is less dense than colder polar region air, and colder air falls toward equatorial region and warmer air replaces the cold air flowing toward equatorial [from both polar regions]. And warmest and least dense air is in regions in sunlight.
The main thing going when add atmosphere is the rocky surface can absorb sunlight within the rock and can heat air above the rocky surface and more heat can absorbed per square meter.
Now double atmosphere so it's 1/2 atm- the sunlight will be more reflected by atmosphere and less direct sunlight reaches the surface- rocks are warmed less during the day.
Now this was rotating fast, slow it down, rocks get more time to warm up and night time has larger difference in temperature [cooler] but you more atmosphere which keep night air warmer.
Let's add a lot more air so it's 2 atm, now atmosphere will reflect more sunlight and rock surface is heated less during day.
Now add water, water unlike rock will absorb indirect sunlight, and will absorb more direct sunlight than rocks, though you also added a greenhouse gas and you will get clouds, which make atmosphere reflect more sunlight, but clouds also can have warming effect particularly in polar regions. And to increase the average global temperature above 5 C, you need to warm polar regions.
If add ocean, ocean currents can bring heat poleward.
Now add your greenhouse gas warming effect. Which roughly should be 15 K or less.
tl;dr
What calculation gives the < 15 C value?
gbalkie wrote:
Now double atmosphere so it’s 1/2 atm
What????
That’s asinine.
You ramble on and on and make no sense whatsoever. Why do you expect anyone to believe a single sentence you write???
“You ramble on and on and make no sense whatsoever. Why do you expect anyone to believe a single sentence you write???”
So you saying it didn’t make any sense to you.
Let’s try something different which might might make sense to you.
Does an Ideal thermal conductive blackbody which reflect 30% of the sunlight, make sense to you?
Does it work for Mars.
How does it work for Earth.
And always wondered how you make transition from uniform temperature of -18 to average global temperature of -18 C.
Earth has average temperature of 15 C, but it would weird if Earth had uniform temperature of 15 C.
But suppose Earth had uniform temperature of 15 C, it would be very strange. And maybe a bit less strange if one had uniform daytime temperature and uniform nighttime temperature, say 20 C daytime and 10 C nighttime. But perhaps more realistic in some sense if instead it was 16 C day and 14 C night.
Or suppose one had this Ideal thermally conductive blackbody which reflects 30%, making a world at uniform temperature -18 C, what happen if you could turn off the thermally conductive part- and still had the reflecting and blackbody thing going.
Do we assume the planet then has average temperature of -18 C?
gbalkie wrote:
Does an Ideal thermal conductive blackbody which reflect 30% of the sunlight, make sense to you?
A blackbody doesn’t reflect anything.
By definition.
See what I mean about your confusion?
gbalkie wrote:
Earth has average temperature of 15 C, but it would weird if Earth had uniform temperature of 15 C.
Nobody says this.
Get a freakin’ clue, would you?
Yes, a blackbody does not reflect anything. That was gbaikies point, that saying the Earth is an ideal thermally conductive blackbody, yet one which reflects 30% of the incoming sunlight, does not make sense.
“…This pattern is completely consistent with the extremes, the thundery hot summers and cold winters of the Little Ice Age which coincided with the Maunder Minimum when sunspots were few or completely absent for 60 years. Zharkovas research group is predicting another Little Ice Age beginning right now, today, or at the end of Cycle 24. So think many others who study the sun and think it trumps carbon dioxide (Shaviv, 1998).”
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/09/28/essay-solar-cycle-wave-frequency-linked-to-jet-stream-changes/
It might trump CO2.
But the effect from rising CO2 levels has been immeasurable.
And lots of people assume that lower Solar activity will have a measurable effect, and I think it has had a measurable effect.
Or confident that within 2 decades from now, solar cycle 24 and 25 will be assign some effect upon global temperature- maybe -.2 C or something, I don’t expect complete agreement, but expect numbers will given and argument made to support the number- unlike CO2.
Or it will have a fingerprint.
gbaikie says:
And lots of people assume that lower Solar activity will have a measurable effect, and I think it has had a measurable effect
We don’t assume, we calculate.
What is your calculation for solar climate sensitivity? Show your work.
You denying there is no predictions that lower solar activity which we currently having will have no effect upon global temperature.
Will you forsake your religion, if it does have measurable effect?
gbaikie says:
You denying there is no predictions that lower solar activity which we currently having will have no effect upon global temperature.
I never said that. In fact, I wrote that it was nonzero.
Either read better or stop lying.
Or in other words, if any cooling effect, you can’t use it, as adjustment to explain any lack of the expected warming of models.
And of course can’t use it as part of reason for the pause?
Btw what is your current main justification of why the models are failing so badly?
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2018/09/my-tucker-carlson-interview-last-night-and-calling-out-bill-nye-james-hansen/#comment-321994
“David Appell says:
September 28, 2018 at 8:35 PM
gbaikie says:
You denying there is no predictions that lower solar activity which we currently having will have no effect upon global temperature.
I never said that. In fact, I wrote that it was nonzero.”
I don’t know where you wrote “nonzero”- such a word was apparently not used on this blog post page- but now it’s entered a total of 3 times.
And four times: Both effects of CO2 and lower solar activity is nonzero effects, but lower solar activity should be easier to measure, therefore a more measurably effect than CO2.
Low solar activity is similar to a volcanic eruption- a measurable effect on global temperatures and nonzero effect [now, it’s five times].
gbalkie – I never wrote “nonzero.”
That’s why you can’t find it.
gbalkie says:
Both effects of CO2 and lower solar activity is nonzero effects, but lower solar activity should be easier to measure
So what do the measurements say?
If the Sun’s output drops by 1 W/m2, how much does the Earth’s surface temperature drop, all else being equal.
It’s a number. Give it.
And don’t just “give it.” Cite it. Show the work that proves the value you give.
It might trump CO2.
Not even close.
This exact question was studied a few years ago by Feulner and Rahmstorf (GRL 2009), Song et al (GRL 2010) and Jones et al (JGR 2012), and it was found that anthropogenic greenhouse gas warming easily swamps any cooling from a Maunder Minimum-like sun. Cooling by 2100 would only be, at most, 0.3 C below IPCC projections. We will not be entering another Little Ice Age.
“On the effect of a new grand minimum of solar activity on the future climate on Earth,” G. Fuelner and S. Rahmstorf, Geo Res Lett vol. 37, L05707 2010.
http://www.pik-potsdam.de/~stefan/Publications/Journals/feulner_rahmstorf_2010.pdf
“Increased greenhouse gases enhance regional climate response to a
Maunder Minimum,” Song et al, Geo Res Lett vol. 37, L01703 (2010)
http://www-cirrus.ucsd.edu/~zhang/PDFs/Song_et_al-2010.pdf
“What influence will future solar activity changes over the 21st century have on projected global near-surface temperature changes?” Gareth S. Jones, et al, JGR v 117, D05103 (2012) doi:10.1029/2011JD017013, 2012.
http://www.leif.org/EOS/2011JD017013.pdf
gbaikie says:
But the effect from rising CO2 levels has been immeasurable.
I get tired of people like you, who pretend to be smart and keep showing off, who then say stupid things like this, as a result of your own ignorance.
“Observational determination of surface radiative forcing by CO2 from 2000 to 2010,” D. R. Feldman et al, Nature 519, 339343 (19 March 2015).
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v519/n7543/full/nature14240.html
Press release:
“First Direct Observation of Carbon Dioxides Increasing Greenhouse Effect at the Earths Surface,” Berkeley Lab, 2/25/15.
http://newscenter.lbl.gov/2015/02/25/co2-greenhouse-effect-increase/
Your link:
“However, despite widespread scientific discussion and modelling of the climate impacts of well-mixed greenhouse gases, there is little direct observational evidence of the radiative impact of increasing atmospheric CO2.”
As said GHE is pseudo science and imagine what follows:
…Here we present observationally based evidence of clear-sky CO2 surface radiative forcing that is directly attributable to the increase, between 2000 and 2010, of 22 parts per million atmospheric CO2.”
Amounts to proof- and it doesn’t.
Amounts to proof- and it doesnt.
That’s perfectly contradictory. And perfectly incomprehensible.
Not an easy achievement. Congratulations.
No reply??
Strange.
Obviously gbaikie did not mean it in the way you have interpreted it. He probably did not reply since you would have just creatively misunderstood that response as well.
Surface radiative forcing is not the greenhouse effect, you moron. Where is the temperature data? Where is there anything in this paper that attributes these measurements to increases in global temperatures?
SkepticGoneWild says:
Where is there anything in this paper that attributes these measurements to increases in global temperatures?
What?? Are you kidding???
Read the paper again.
More BS from our resident BS artist.
Look, some nights are warmer than others so this statement
“Each night, the surface and and atmosphere lose all the heat received during the day.”
is nowhere near correct,
As would be expected from Flynn
From your pseudoscientific link –
“Both series showed the same trend: atmospheric CO2 emitted an increasing amount of infrared energy, to the tune of 0.2 Watts per square meter per decade. This increase is about ten percent of the trend from all sources of infrared energy such as clouds and water vapor.”
CO2 can only emit what it absorbs. The Sun’s output is not dependent on the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. Each night, the surface and and atmosphere lose all the heat received during th day.
Clouds and water vapour are not “sources” of energy, infrared or otherwise.
The authors are stupid, ignorant, gullible and besotted by the worship of the invisible GHE.
Ice can emit 300 W/m2, which makes your impossible “accumulation” of 0.2 W/m2 per decade look really, really, bizarre.
Climatological pseudoscience in all directions. How are you getting along with a useful definition of the GHE? Not too well, I assume. Oh dear, the audience is starting to lose faith in your illusions. Maybe you could try science, for a change?
Cheers.
By how much does the radiation of ice increase per decade?
“IN its normal state, the Earth-atmosphere system absorbs solar radiation and maintains global energy balance by re-radiating this energy to space as infrared or longwave radiation. The intervening atmosphere absorbs and emits the longwave radiation, but as the atmosphere is colder than the surface, it absorbs more energy than it emits upward to space. The energy that escapes to space is significantly smaller than that emitted by the surface. The difference, the energy trapped in the atmosphere, is popularly referred as the greenhouse effect, G.”
– A. Raval and V. Ramanathan, Observational determination of the greenhouse effect, Nature v342 14 Dec 1989, pp 758-761
https://www.nature.com/articles/342758a0
https://www.nature.com/articles/342758a0.pdf
This is just gobsmackingly incorrect
“CO2 can only emit what it absorbs.”
Nope, CO2 can acquire energy from collisions with other atoms or molecules.
And then it can get rid of that energy by radiating at the appropriate wavelength.
“The difference, the energy trapped in the atmosphere, is popularly referred as the greenhouse effect.”
Still funny!
“The authors are stupid, ignorant, gullible”
It is indeed a pity that just because Mike has no credentials or training in the field, his important and well-reasoned arguments will be ignored and have no impact on the course of science.
It boggles the mind that these people have been awarded PhDs and are even employed as scientists no-less at such prominent institutions.
That they could repeatedly publish their findings in such authoritative journals as Nature is simply unbelievable.
Hopefully the scientific community will open an investigation into how this could have happened.
Mike, perhaps in preparation for this imminent investigation, you could present your evidence to us.
There’s that mysterious “us” again.
+1, Nate.
-2, David.
just let me say that I agree with Nate and David
Goes without saying, thats why I found it funny when David agreed.
http://www.forest.sr.unh.edu/richardson/RichardsonJSF.pdf
Any math errors here?
Explain the relevance of this link.
I’m not going to read it without you saying why and how it matters.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2018/09/my-tucker-carlson-interview-last-night-and-calling-out-bill-nye-james-hansen/#comment-322039
JD…from earlier.
“Gordon, far-field could be treated the same, if desired. For example, if you had an antenna with a cross-sectional area of 1 cm^2, and the spectrum analyzer indicated 100 mW, that would calculate to a flux of 1000 Watts/m^2”.
Going back to the 18th century, when Count Rumford first did mechanically-induced heat measurements, heat was related to mechanical input by horsepower. He designed a brass cylinder to go around a blunted drill, I presume so the drill would not drill straight through the brass.
He set up a rig whereby the cylinder could turn on the drill, creating friction, and he drove the rig with two horses. He also built a wooden cylinder around the brass cylinder and filled it with water. He noted that after a couple of hours, the water had heated to the point where it boiled.
Rumford produced a rough estimate of the heat produced by the mechanical power. It was not till 1840 or so that Joule officially related the equivalence of mechanical power and heat.
The point is, from the beginning, the watt has been related to the mechanical equivalence between heat and work. Circa 1870, Stefan, presuming heat was flowing through space as radiation, and he assigned watts to radiation.
Unfortunately he seems to have been wrong. Heat can only be related to mass and once that mass loses heat via radiation, heat is lost during conversion.
Since its inception in relation to horsepower, the watt has been redefined in joules, but what the heck is a joule?
I am going to go further out on the limb, which I am likely sawing off from the inside, and claim that area in space cannot be measured in w/m^2 unless we are talking about a convective heat flow.
Radiation cannot be measured in watts, but like work, there is some kind of equivalence between EM and heat. Also, like heat and work, they cannot have the same units, only an equivalence.
You mentioned an antenna. An antenna is a conductor that has a measurement related to the wavelength of the radiation it is expected to capture. The absorp-tion of an antenna depends critically on it’s length.
You don’t need a spectrum meter to measure the current induced by EM in an antenna, a grid dip meter will do. It’s nothing more than a capacitance and inductance forming a resonant circuit. The peak of the resonant circuit is tuned to the frequency (wavelength) of EM being captured and the meter on the dip meter register the highest current induced by the EM at that frequency.
Please note that EM is detected in mV at an antenna because the meter measures current induced in the antenna by EM. The mV applies to the electrical current, not the EM. When EM is radiated from a surface, the w/m^2 refers to the heat lost at the surface, not the EM.
In a similar situation, if you had a magnetic field and a conductor passing through it, you’d want to know the magnetic field strength, which is not measured in watts.
To measure field strength directly you’d have to check how much mechanical force was created by the effect of the field on a metallic mechanical object. There really is no way to measure magnetic field strength directly.
I suppose you could claim that for most instruments. A mercury thermometer converts the kinetic energy of air molecules to a mechanical internal force in the mercury. In other words, the atoms of mercury gain energy and force each other apart.
I am in general agreement with Gary Novak, who Norman has written off as a crackpot. The guy has a degree in biology and has published a paper.
http://nov79.com/gbwm/tmp.html#sbap
He begin this article by claiming:
“It’s extremely strange that radiation was calculated, when there is no method of converting radiation into temperature”.
I think he’s right in principle, even though it is possible to convert radiation to heat. You can measure the frequency given off by a body of a certain temperature in the visible spectrum. However, there is no method for converting EM to temperature IN SPACE or air, since EM is not heat and temperature is a measure of heat.
As I have claimed, you can produce an equivalence but EM should not have the same units as heat.
GR,
There is precisely zero correlation, per se, between radiation intensity, in W/m2, and temperature.
Ice at -1 C may be emitting 300 W/m2. A Leslie cube, filled with water at 100 C, may also be emitting 300 W/m2, and CO2 might require a temperature in excess of 1000 C, to emit at that same intensity.
If you measure 300 W/m2, what does it tell you about the GHE? Nothing at all, that’s what!
Climatological pseudoscience – never has so much been wasted by so many for so little.
Cheers.
Mike…”Climatological pseudoscience â never has so much been wasted by so many for so little”.
Agreed.
“between radiation intensity, in W/m2”
Radiation intensity is not measured in W/m2 Mike.
Never has so many readers time been wasted by so few unconvincing comment writers such as Mike and Gordon. However, Mike Flynn is convincing that the existence of a testable hypothesis for earth atm. GHE is easily proven as in Mike’s own words “the data shows”.
Gordon, as an exception to most of his comments, does write convincingly at times that EMR is not heat which has no physical existence in an object.
Ball4,
Sorry. My bad.
I’m just following the standard climatological pseudoscientific redefinition protocol.
If you don’t like me using “radiation intensity” (technically incorrect, as you point out, but just as valid as “forcing”, or “back radiation”, I suppose, what would you prefer?
Just “radiation” suits me, but climatological pseudoscientific GHE worshippers might not think it sciency enough. I apologise if this is the case.
Now, what relation do you suppose exists between the radiation expressed in W/m2 from the sources I have mentioned, and temperature? None? Why am I not surprised?
Maybe you could point out a useful description of the GHE (other than the invisible one which exists only in your fantasies).
I am not aware of using the words “the data shows” which you attribute to me. If you are unable to back up,your assertion, all you have done is to reinforce your appearance of stupidity and ignorance.
Carry on, Ball4. Still no GHE, is there? No AGW theory, no CO2 heating. No science – just delusion and fantasy.
Cheers.
“..what would you prefer?”
Mike commenting on atm. science consistent with what “the data shows”. Search this page for those words to refresh Mike’s usually poor memory as perhaps Mike has simply forgotten his pointing out “a useful description of the GHE.”
“Still no GHE, is there?”
Sure there is a GHE, a GHE theory, and CO2 heating all according to Mike Flynn because that is what “the data shows” according to Mike.
MF wrote:
Maybe you could point out a useful description of the GHE….
“IN its normal state, the Earth-atmosphere system absorbs solar radiation and maintains global energy balance by re-radiating this energy to space as infrared or longwave radiation. The intervening atmosphere absorbs and emits the longwave radiation, but as the atmosphere is colder than the surface, it absorbs more energy than it emits upward to space. The energy that escapes to space is significantly smaller than that emitted by the surface. The difference, the energy trapped in the atmosphere, is popularly referred as the greenhouse effect, G.”
– A. Raval and V. Ramanathan, âObservational determination of the greenhouse effect,â Nature v342 14 Dec 1989, pp 758-761.
https://www.nature.com/articles/342758a0
https://www.nature.com/articles/342758a0.pdf
From DA’s pseudoscience: “The difference, the energy trapped in the atmosphere, is popularly referred as the greenhouse effect”
“…trapped in the atmosphere…”
Still funny, after all these years!
As usual, Ger*an replies with silly jokes and bluster, as a way to divert attention from the obvious fact that he doesn’t have a rational answer rooted in science.
No DA, the silly jokes and bluster is all from your pseudoscience. I’m just able to bring some reality to you.
You keep proving my point. Over and over.
You have no responsible “point”, DA.
But since, like most trolls, you will not stop, you can have the last work on this sub-thread.
Enjoy.
Ball4, please stop trolling.
Mike and Gordon,
There is nothing wrong with the Stefan-Boltzmann (S/B) Law. The Law has a solid mathematical derivation, from both thermodynamics and quantum physics. There have likely been 1000’s of empirical verifications, both in lab and in the field. We can be as confident with the S/B Law as we are with the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. But, as you both have pointed out, problems arise when the Law is misapplied.
1) The “radiative heat transfer” equation we see so often in pseudoscience (the one with two Ts) is NOT the S/B Law. It is a corruption of the Law. It is based on imaginary (black body) surfaces. This invalid equation leads to such nonsense as the blue/green plates, so loved by climate clowns.
2) The S/B Law relates radiative flux to temperature. So, radiative fluxes absorbed by a surface MUST be treated as “temperatures”. Temperatures do not add, so radiative fluxes do NOT add. Ten separate liters of water, each at 10 degrees C, poured together will not add to 100 C. (Combining merely results in the same 10 C.) Ten square meters of ice (300 W/m^2) will NOT add to 3000 Watts! (Combining merely results in the same 300 W/m^2.)
Objecting to the mis-applications of the S/B Law indicates valid support of science. Whenever you see mis-applications of the S/B Law, tell the perpetrators to “learn some physics”!
“Whenever you see mis-applications of the S/B Law, tell the perpetrators to “learn some physics”!”
Learn some physics.
JD missapplies the S-B law by adding mass (ten litres of water) and adding surface (ten square meters). JD misses that there really is 3000 watts radiated from ten square meters at 300 W/m^2. JD’s faulty physics is expected from a commenter who tries to tell us race horses do not turn in turns.
Clown Ball4 jumps in to mis-represent and make false accusations.
Next will be his mention of scientists, books, and “experiments”, all in an effort to distort and mislead.
Indeed. 10 square meters of ice that is radiating 300 W/m2 is radiating a total of 3000 W.
I think Ger*an is confused because he thinks the fluxes add to 3000 W/m2 instead of 3000 W.
Yes, thats obvious as JD erroneously writes: “so radiative fluxes do NOT add” when JD really means radiative fluxes per unit area do NOT add. JD is easily confused and easily shown to write confusing comments since JD needs to learn some physics.
Either climate-clowns DA and Ball4 can’t read, or purposely misrepresent, my words:
“…radiative fluxes absorbed by a surface…”
I wonder which it is….
If it’s a 10 m2 absorbing surface, then the surface absorbs a total of 3000 W, or an average of 300 W/m2.
DA knows how to use a calculator.
Now, if he could just learn some physics.
Learn some physics JD like DA is attempting to help you with. Learn that I quoted JD verbatim from the nearby context. Here study this:
..radiative fluxes absorbed per unit area surface.. do NOT add.
..radiative fluxes absorbed by a surface.. do add.
Do try to get physics right JD, though your flailing is so humorous that the entertainment value would thereby be reduced.
Ball4, all of your twisting and spinning is not working. Maybe if you tried some of your other tricks, like mentioning historical scientists (appeal to authority).
Or, even funnier, some of your bogus “experiments”. Those were REALLY funny.
Ger*an: Why don’t you state exactly what you mean by “radiative fluxes don’t add,” which you haven’t done already. Mostly you just call people names.
Give an example. Be detailed. Show the math.
DA,
1) Why are you so obsessed with Ger*an? You should not let anyone have such an effect on you. Consider consulting a therapist.
2) If you don’t want to be known as a “clown”, don’t be a clown. It’s just that simple.
3) You now ask for an “example”. Perhaps you were unable to understand the example provided here:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2018/09/my-tucker-carlson-interview-last-night-and-calling-out-bill-nye-james-hansen/#comment-322068
Ger*an: Unlike you, I don’t live on this site, so I don’t read every comment.
But I did read this comment. In fact, I already addressed it.
And it doesn’t answer anything.
It’s a perfect example of what I’m talking about — vague, no details, no math. Your water example is completely misapplied — mixing water is about specific heats and volumes and has nothing to do with radiative transfer.
So, try again. Give a SPECIFIC example where radiative fluxes “don’t add.” Give details. Show the math.
DA, I know you despise reality, but it’s good for you, like exercise and dieting.
You DO live on this site. You are the most predominant troll. Responding to my last comment in 12 minutes is just one example.
THAT is reality.
My “water example” was not about radiative transfer. It was about explaining that temperatures don’t add. Either you don’t understand, or you purposely try to obfuscate.
Learn some physics.
“Temperatures not adding” is very different from “radiative fluxes not adding.”
Can you explain the latter? With details and examples and math? Or we will get more of your usual bullsh!t?
DA, I hate to repeat myself, but:
“The S/B Law relates radiative flux to temperature. So, radiative fluxes absorbed by a surface MUST be treated as “temperatures”.
Funny how reality is always the same, huh?
(Learn some physics.)
The S/B Law relates radiative flux to temperature. So, radiative fluxes absorbed by a surface MUST be treated as temperatures.
It relates the flux of the EMITTER, not the absorber.
fail.
DA, at equilibrium, an absorber is an emitter. It emits what it absorbs.
Learn some physics.
Only 8 minutes since you responded to my last comment. But, in your head, you ‘don’t live on this site”. Your hero might say “hilarious”.
But, Mike Flynn and I would say, “Carry on”.
None of this argument requires being at thermal equilibrium.
Try again. Specify exactly what you mean by “radiative fluxes don’t add.” Be specific. Give examples. Show your math.
Wow, only 6 minutes for you to respond. Quick!
But, you told us you do not live at this site.
So, time must be wrong, to fit your fantasy world.
DA, learn some physics. Face reality. Get a therapist.
Yet another of your jokey replies that avoids the subject being discussed.
David Appell
Yes you see that JDHuffman (previously g.e.r.a.n) is a complete phony. Rather than attempt to answer any questions he insults and diverts or makes a negative comment about a poster.
He does it often. You find if you try to reason with him or use logic it does not matter. He is a troll. His goal here is to annoy and get a reaction. His partner in crime DREMT supports his corrosive and unscientific nonsense.
I would like to ignore this one completely. A total waste of time. You will find that when you ignore this one, he will jump in your posts to other people with an intentionally offensive comment.
Norman, explain how I support JDHuffman.
Another response within 6 minutes! Super speedy.
DA, for a clown that says he doesn’t “live”, you sure check in often.
I’m not avoiding the subject, I’m the one that brought it up!
I just have no interest in playing your diversionary games. I always address responsible comments.
Understand what I wrote. Face reality.
And, learn some physics.
Norman, your comment is devoid of reality. No need for me to respond.
Get some credibility, grinvalds.
Mike,
Please show your workings on how you can get a precisely zero correlation between anything.
I could be wrong, but using excel and the formula for correlation, I can’t get r = 0, undefined yes, but zero, nope.
Maybe an astute observer could provide two short series that do have zero correlation.
A semi proficient math geek awaits.
Gordon reports: “Please note that EM is detected in mV at an antenna because the meter measures current induced in the antenna by EM.
Correct Gordon. And the measurements can be indicated on a spectrum analyzer in a variety of units, such as mW, dB, and even dBm.
mW mV
This site craps out again.
mW does not equal mV
Reading comprehension, DA.
Reading comprehension.
GR says:
Radiation cannot be measured in watts, but like work, there is some kind of equivalence between EM and heat. Also, like heat and work, they cannot have the same units, only an equivalence.
Crackpot physics.
Heat and work certainly have the same units — Joules.
Even high school students know this. But perhaps not in Canada.
“The joule (/dʒuːl/; symbol: J) is a derived unit of energy in the International System of Units.[1] It is equal to the energy transferred to (or work done on) an object when a force of one newton acts on that object in the direction of its motion through a distance of one metre (1 newton metre or N⋅m). It is also the energy dissipated as heat when an electric current of one ampere passes through a resistance of one ohm for one second.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joule
However, there is no method for converting EM to temperature IN SPACE or air, since EM is not heat and temperature is a measure of heat.
Stick your hand in front of a laser and you’ll quickly understand that EM is heat, i.e. the transfer of energy.
Boltzmann’s constant should have been set to 1 (which theoretical physicists do. Also c=hbar=G=1.). Then it’s clear that temperature has units of energy, like heat.
My laser pointer does not emit heat David. The transfer of energy is not heat either nor is heat any amount of EMR from a laser. Heat is a measure of the KE of massive particles in an object. A laser can increase that measure to the melting point of a substance under the right conditions.
“At the macroscopic level, heat is the transfer of energy from the high temperature object to the low temperature object.”
https://www.physicsclassroom.com/class/thermalP/Lesson-1/Methods-of-Heat-Transfer
A laser can burn skin, just as a hot gas can.
Both contain heat. The heat of the gas is due to the kinetic energy of its particles (molecules), and the heat of EM is due to the kinetic energy of its particles (photons).
A photon gas contains heat just as well as a gas of air does.
This is all just a question of semantics, with no useful purpose, and I don’t see any reason not to consider EM as heat. Scientists certainly do.
David, no thing transfers in their example. There is no heat in the high temperature object nor the low temperature object. One object simply has more thermodynamic internal energy which can increase and decrease in the example.
The writers: “Temperature is a measure of the average amount of kinetic energy possessed by the particles in a sample of matter.” Not even wrong, definitely not clear. This is mixed units as T is in degrees and KE is energy units. Better to write heat is a measure of the average amount of kinetic energy possessed by the massive particles in a sample of matter. Then units match on both sides of the equals sign. Temperature is never heat.
The writers: “Heat is not something contained in an object”. They get that physics right. Logically if the object does not contain heat, then heat cannot transfer out of that object. The authors are logically confused over the physics of heat. They cannot succeed in giving heat corporeal existence no matter how hard they try. Tests proving that were done in the mid-1800s.
A clear understanding of atm. thermo. necessitates a clear understanding heat is a measure of the average amount of kinetic energy possessed by the massive particles in a sample of matter.
Ball4 says:
The writers: Temperature is a measure of the average amount of kinetic energy possessed by the particles in a sample of matter. Not even wrong, definitely not clear. This is mixed units as T is in degrees and KE is energy units.
Come on, this is trivial stuff.
The temperature of an ideal gas is the average kinetic energy of its molecules (in units where k=1).
kT==m*avg(v2)/2
Temperature should have always been in energy units. Boltzmann’s constant is just a number to convert temperature into energy. Temperature T almost always comes with a k in front of it.
A clear understanding of atm. thermo. necessitates a clear understanding heat is a measure of the average amount of kinetic energy possessed by the massive particles in a sample of matter.
That’s what freshman are taught.
If you stick your hand in steam, a gas of massive particles, you will get burned.
If you stick your hand in a laser beam, a collection of massless particles with energy, you will get burned.
THERE’S NO DIFFERENCE!
You’re insisting on some semantic difference that it totally arbitrary and, in my opinion, is confusing and contributes nothing to understanding the subject.
“THERES NO DIFFERENCE!”
I can use a clear physical understanding to countermeasure the laser light. Suppose I wear a thin reflective aluminum glove because I can then affect the physics. A difference arises! One that David will not understand with current thinking.
Laser light is a collection of massless particles. Steam is a collection of massive particles. There is a difference.
The light is absorbed & changes the internal thermodynamic energy of the object. The steam particles change velocity and direction, are not absorbed, and that process changes the internal thermodynamic energy of the object.
These are very different processes; anyone not thinking about them clearly is not thinking about the physics and atm. physics clearly. These are NOT semantic issues at all, they are basic physics issues.
An example: JD thinks it is funny that heat can be trapped. I do too. But clearly in the atm. there is a process where light is absorbed and a process where particles change velocity and direction. These enable a constant earth avg. surface T higher than without them. It is clear that many cannot sort these out and thus quit laughing. So be it, JD is entertaining to laugh at not with.
Ball4 says:
I can use a clear physical understanding to countermeasure the laser light. Suppose I wear a thin reflective aluminum glove because I can then affect the physics. A difference arises!
Same as if you wear an oven mitt.
No difference.
The oven mitt won’t work with the laser and the aluminum foil wrap won’t work with steam. You do need to understand there is a difference; you do need to understand heat is only a measure. Just like the difference is critical to understand atm. thermo.
Now you’re picking and choosing what works and what doesn’t.
Heat is heat. It burns. Why insist there is a difference? What does that get you?
Of course heat is heat, a measure is a measure. Plan your different countermeasures from getting burned correctly only if you clearly understand the physics of laser EMR and steam & that neither is heat.
Wow, neither steam nor EM is heat?
Yet either can burn you.
Interesting.
That’s correct David. Heat is only a measure. Heat has no physical existance unlike steam and EMR.
Nobody in the world thinks “heat has no existence.”
You don’t either. Stick your hand in a pizza oven, then tell me heat has no existence. Stick your hand in front of a laser beam, then tell me heat has no existence.
Your obstinacy has driven you to wild and ridiculous claims.
“Nobody in the world thinks “heat has no existence.””
The authors you picked write heat has no existence. so somebody does. In fact, ALL modern thermo. text book writers agree with them.
Authors: “There is nothing material about heat. It is neither a substance nor a fluid that is conserved.”
If I stick my hand in a hot pizza oven, if I stick my hand in front of a military strength laser, it will feel a measure of the absorbed or conducted kinetic energy not heat since there is nothing material about heat. Heat is neither a substance nor a fluid that is conserved.
If I stick my hand in a hot pizza oven, if I stick my hand in front of a military strength laser, it will feel a measure of the absorbed or conducted kinetic energy not heat since there is nothing material about heat
What does “material” mean?
What says only “material” things have an impact?
You think your hand in front of a laser won’t experience heat. Then what burns your hand?
ball4…”JD thinks it is funny that heat can be trapped. I do too. But clearly in the atm. there is a process where light is absorbed and a process where particles change velocity and direction. These enable a constant earth avg. surface T higher than without them”.
You have not explained why the average surface temp is warmer. You can’t because you don’t believe heat exists. You talk about internal energy, which is both heat as the motion of particles (atoms/electrons) and the work they do while vibrating.
If you add heat to a solid, the particles vibrate harder and do more work and the body gets hotter. It has more heat. Yes, bodies have heat.
That’s why both JD and I are laughing over the notion that heat can be trapped since trapping heat involves trapping atoms/molecules, as in a real greenhouse where the glass actually traps molecules of hot air.
There is nothing in the atmosphere can trap molecules of hot air, ergo neither CO2 nor WV can trap heat. Heat can rise as molecules of air and it’s far more likely that any GHE effect is due to heated molecules of air at the surface rising. Since most of those molecules (99%) are nitrogen and oxygen, gases that cannot release heat easily, the atmosphere warms and stays warm naturally.
DA…”What does material mean?”
Bally is confused. He does not think heat has a material form even though it is defined as the kinetic energy of molecules. Temperature is the average kinetic energy of molecules and it is a relative measure of heat.
Any moving mass has energy. If a boulder falls from a cliff it has mechanical energy. If an electron moves it has both electrical and magnetic energy. It also has thermal energy as apart of an atom.
“(Ball4) does not think heat has a material form even though it is defined as the kinetic energy of molecules.”
You miss my point entirely Gordon, it is you that is confused by writing incorrectly. Gordon left out the word measure, heat is defined only as a measure of the avg. KE of molecules and atoms (which are material). The authors of David’s link are correct as you will find in any modern thermo. text:
“Heat is not something contained in an object”.
“There is nothing material about heat. It is neither a substance nor a fluid that is conserved.”
“which is both heat as the motion of particles”
No Gordon, you are confused, heat is only a measure of the KE in particle motion.
“If you add heat to a solid”
You are confused Gordon, one can’t add a measure of something to a solid, one can’t add something that isn’t material to a material object.
You correctly would write “If you add energy to a solid” and that energy can have many different forms.
“It has more heat.”
To convince a reader you know what you are discussing: its measure of KE of particles has increased.
And so forth, Gordon is confused about the basic science of the atm. and is thus unconvincing in comments about atm. thermo. This is not unique to Gordon & is the reason a serious commenter has to actually pass relevant basic science of meteorology courses to comment convincingly.
Gordon Robertson says:
He does not think heat has a material form even though it is defined as the kinetic energy of molecules.
A photon gas also has a temperature.
The cosmic microwave background radiation (photons) has a temperature of about 3 K.
A photon gas has a temperature:
internal energy U = constant*volume*T^4
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photon_gas#Thermodynamics_of_a_black_body_photon_gas
Black holes also have a temperature:
T = constant/mass
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hawking_radiation#Emission_process
Gordon Robertson says:
There is nothing in the atmosphere can trap molecules of hot air, ergo neither CO2 nor WV can trap heat.
This graph shows you’re wrong:
https://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/schmidt_05/curve_s.gif
Ball4 says:
you do need to understand heat is only a measure.
What does this mean, specifically?
Read your own source for the meaning, heat is only a measure as in the authors: “There is nothing material about heat. It is neither a substance nor a fluid that is conserved.”
So a gas at 700 K contains no heat?
Right. Read what your own authors write.
Do you realize how absurd it is to claim that a 700 K gas does not contain heat??
If a 700 K gas contains no heat, how does it burn you?
Your own authors are not absurd, the 700K gas contains no heat: “There is nothing material about heat. It is neither a substance nor a fluid that is conserved.” The gas burns you because the measure of its internal thermodynamic energy is high enough to do so. The physical process is KE of the gas molecules transfer their KE to your skin which is high to burn you. This is well known David, again, read what your own authors write. ALL modern text book authors write the equivalent.
The gas burns you because the measure of its internal thermodynamic energy is high enough to do so.
That “internal thermodynamic energy” is what we call heat.
Obviously.
The measure of thermodynamic internal energy is what is called heat. This measure does not have a material existence. Read what your own authors write again, a few times.
So you could fall headfirst into the sun, stark naked, and yet would not experience any heat.
Absolutely amazing.
That’s true according to the authors you picked and many others. You feel plenty of conducted KE and plenty of absorbed EMR but no heat as your own authors agree with me: “There is nothing material about heat. It is neither a substance nor a fluid that is conserved.”
I never said heat was “material.” Whatever that means.
I said you would experience it if you put your hand in front of a laser beam.
But, despite how obvious that statement is, you won’t agree.
What DOES “material” mean, anyway?
I agree with the authors you picked and modern text book authors.
“There is nothing material about heat. It is neither a substance nor a fluid that is conserved.”
Heat is well defined as a measure; you cannot be burned by that which is not material.
What does “material” mean?
You have backed yourself into the absurd corner that if you fell into the Sun you would not experience heat.
That’s just goofy. Amazing you can’t see that.
ball4…DA….”So a gas at 700 K contains no heat?”
Bally…”Right. Read what your own authors write”.
********
Internal energy = internal heat + internal work. That’s how Clausius defined U = internal energy.
Externally, Q = U + W where Q = external heat, W = external work and U = internal heat + internal work.
With heat in a body, there could be no work since at T = 0K, atoms cease to vibrate. The higher you raise the temperature from 0K, the hotter the atoms get and the more they vibrate, producing internal work. If you add enough heat, the material will fall apart.
You are seriously misguided Bally.
Why don’t we discuss heat in terms of heat energy, like normal folks versed in thermodynamics.
Heat is energy and energy can be transferred, trapped and conserved.
Interesting, the GHE defence team is starting to make more use of the bobdroege avatar. They dont normally have that one saying very much.
Gordon: Internal energy = internal heat + internal work. Thatâs how Clausius defined U = internal energy.
Clausius p.255: “quantity U is the sum of thermal content and the ergonal content”. Thermal is short for thermodynamic internal.
Gordon is wrong that Clausius used the word “heat” in his classic definition of U thus it is Gordon that is seriously misguided. Clausius also defined heat as only a measure of something.
—-
Bob, again “heat” is defined in modern thermo. science only as a measure of energy. Heat has no material existence in an object. Heat is not the energy itself, energy is conserved, heat is only a measure of that energy and thus is NOT conserved.
This confusion over the word “heat” leads to endless unconvincing comments on atm. thermo. Anyone using the term is immediately suspect as engaging in a misuse of the term.
DREMT,
The greenhouse effect needs no defense, same as an apple falling from a tree and hitting Newton on the head, allegedly.
Exposing some posters here as frauds will get boring in a while and I will stop, maybe for a while.
If the GHE needs no defense, why is there a dedicated team of people working to defend it month after month after month? The poor GHE appears to be the most fragile and insecure thing. It must be defended continuously! None of you would ever let a comment against it pass without response.
Ball4,
Let’s discuss your quote
“Bob, again heat is defined in modern thermo. science only as a measure of energy. Heat has no material existence in an object. Heat is not the energy itself, energy is conserved, heat is only a measure of that energy and thus is NOT conserved.”
Yes, I will agree that heat is a measure of energy.
But then you go off the rails, saying heat has no material existence in an object.
This is bull, heat exists as in the case of CO2, as the amount of vibration in the CO2 molecule for an example.
And then further, yes heat is not conserved, just as kinetic energy is not conserved, potential energy is not conserved, flow energy is not conserved, and I will stop there.
Do I need to cite the first law of thermodynamics to you, you seem not to have an understanding of same?
DREMT,
Just trying to teach some science.
Teaching science being part of my professional duties, when I am not running an accelerator, making anti-matter, calculating correlation factors, detecting 511 Kev photons, or other mundane tasks.
It’s what I do.
Yes, many of the team claim such things. Its strange that there are so many academics working together, dedicated to the defense of something that they claim does not need to be defended. Its almost like its a job.
Bob, kinetic energy is always and everywhere conserved, PE is conserved, energy flows are conserved (this what a control volume is used for). 1LOT is about as universal as it gets though I see you have some doubts. Please create or destroy some KE in a test to disprove 1LOT if as you write KE is not conserved. Energy can only be transformed, not created nor destroyed.
“This is bull, heat exists as in the case of CO2, as the amount of vibration in the CO2 molecule for an example.”
An amount does not exist, the CO2 itself is material, an amount is calculated. Heat is a measure of massive particle KE, heat has no physical existence â again David’s authors get it right & agree with all modern text authors:
“Heat is not something contained in an object.”
“There is nothing material about heat. It is neither a substance nor a fluid that is conserved.”
Take a baseball and throw it straight up.
As it leaves your hand it has kinetic energy, you know 1/2mv^2
When it reaches the top of its path, it stops for an instance, and has no velocity, thus no kinetic energy, it goes from lots of kinetic energy to none, therefore kinetic energy is not conserved.
You wouldn’t even pass a first high school level course in physics.
Bob, draw a control volume around your baseball.
Leaves your hand with 1/2mv^2 KE in there, set PE =0 at the initial height of your hand. The control volume has an air drag force crossing it draining out the KE and a gravity force crossing it also draining out KE. At the top, mgh + air drag drained out will exactly equal the missing KE from the control volume, the KE will be conserved. Exactly the opposite of what you wrote: “just as kinetic energy is not conserved”.
If you can actually do this test and discover more PE + air drag at the top than the measure of initial KE leaving your hand THEN you will be correct as KE was not then conserved and you will disprove 1LOT.
Do what your thermo. teacher told you, use a control volume at the start and you have a better chance to pass the test, KE is thus conserved & 1LOT will hold.
Ball4,
Total energy is conserved.
Kinetic energy is transferred to potential energy at the top of the ball’s flight and then transferred back to kinetic energy as it drops back down.
Kinetic energy is not conserved.
I can’t believe I have to explain this to you.
Sure, by 1LOT total energy is conserved Bob, some is transformed. Consider the control volume again.
At the top CV is filled with PE and energy of air drag that crossed in at the exact same quantity as the KE that crossed out when the ball left your hand. At the bottom, the CV is again filled with the exact same original KE plus air drag energy that crossed in over the cycle and no PE which crossed out.
Exactly zero KE was destroyed, it is all accounted for by 1LOT so your “kinetic energy is not conserved” is incorrect. I can’t believe I have to explain this to you. If you actually run the test, no KE will be unaccounted for within measurement error. This has been well known for couple hundred years.
I guess I’ll just have to quote the first law for you
“The first law of thermodynamics is a version of the law of conservation of energy, adapted for thermodynamic systems. The law of conservation of energy states that the total energy of an isolated system is constant; energy can be transformed from one form to another, but can be neither created nor destroyed.”
Dummass, kinetic energy is not conserved.
But it can be transferred to potential energy, flow energy or other forms of energy.
Just learn some Science or join the Clown Team.
There you have it Bob: “energy can be transformed from one form to another, but can be neither created nor destroyed.”
Now you have it right, just avoid the notion that “kinetic energy is not conserved”. Per 1LOT KE can only be transformed into another form of energy, KE can neither be created nor destroyed as shown by your baseball example.
GR says:
Since its inception in relation to horsepower, the watt has been redefined in joules, but what the heck is a joule?
They’re not units of the same thing — one is of energy, the second is of power.
735.50 J/s converts to 1 horsepower.
1 J/s = 1 W
Did Gordon really write that? And he claims to be an engineer. What engineer doesn’t know what a Joule is.
Gordon is not necessarily an engineer. Much of Gordon’s writing makes good engineers wince.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2018/09/my-tucker-carlson-interview-last-night-and-calling-out-bill-nye-james-hansen/#comment-322058
Now *this* I can easily believe.
bob…”Did Gordon really write that? And he claims to be an engineer. What engineer doesnt know what a Joule is”.
I know what a horse is, as in horsepower, I want to know the meaning of a joule in physical reality. Is it a small furry animal?
The point is that power related to work was initially defined as the work a horse could do and all other terms like watts, joules, etc., were derived from the horsepower.
It’s the same with time. We knew the Earth rotated regularly so we set up a mechanical device to indicate the period from sunrise to sunset. We arbitrarily called that one day then we subdivided it into hours, minutes and seconds.
The second has become an established unit of time but there are many confused about what it means. The second does not measure an independent phenomenon called time, it measures a fraction of the distance the Earth rotates. It measures a distance around the circumference of the Earth, the distance the Earth will rotate during the sub-period we have used to define the second.
Einstein claimed time could dilate but that would mean the Earth would have to change its angular velocity.
All is not as apparent as it appears and even a so-called genius can be wrong if he does not pay attention and allows his mind to become entwined in metaphysical thought experiments.
Ball4, far from genius calibre, has allowed himself to be convinced that heat does not exist as a real entity.
Glad to be of some assistance, though I doubt it will be of any use.
The International System of Units
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_System_of_Units
It might help if you could speak the language.
GR says:
Einstein claimed time could dilate but that would mean the Earth would have to change its angular velocity.
No, Gordon, not at all.
{eye roll}
DA…”Theyre not units of the same thing one is of energy, the second is of power.
735.50 J/s converts to 1 horsepower”.
*************
No…not converts to, 746 watts = 1 hp. They are one and the same. Both measure power which is the rate of doing work.
“Converts” = unit conversion.
It’s a very commonly used word for this process.
.
âśâ âśâ âśâ âśâ
âśâ âśâ âśâ âśâ
âśâ âśâ âśâ âśâ
âśâ âśâ âśâ âśâ
.
A new article, called “It is worse than we thought â by Latitude”.
https://agree-to-disagree.com/it-is-worse-than-we-thought-by-latitude
A detailed bar chart, shows information about 8 latitude bands.
⢠90N to 66N â [the Arctic] â approximately 4% of the Earth
⢠66N to 38N â approximately 15% of the Earth
⢠38N to 18N â approximately 15% of the Earth
⢠18N to Equ â approximately 15% of the Earth
⢠Equ to 18S â approximately 15% of the Earth
⢠18S to 38S â approximately 15% of the Earth
⢠38S to 66S â approximately 15% of the Earth
⢠66S to 90S â [the Antarctic] â approximately 4% of the Earth
There are 5 temperature categories. Each temperature category shows how much the âtheoreticalâ temperature has increased, since 1880. These are:
⢠red â the temperature has increased by more than 2.0 degrees Celsius
⢠orange â the temperature has increased by between 1.5 and 2.0 degrees Celsius
⢠yellow â the temperature has increased by between 1.0 and 1.5 degrees Celsius
⢠green â the temperature has increased by between 0.0 and 1.0 degrees Celsius
⢠blue â the temperature has increased by less than 0.0 degrees Celsius (i.e. the temperature has cooled)
Red and orange can be used to see how much of each latitude band is above the IPCCâs temperature targets, of 1.5 and 2.0 degrees Celsius.
Yellow, green, and blue are all below the temperature target of 1.5 degrees Celsius. However, yellow can be used to see how much of each latitude band is near the 1.5 degrees Celsius temperate target.
Colors don’t have a temperature.
EM waves don’t have a temperature.
OK, now I get it, and I retract my earlier comment. Sorry Sheldon.
Colors don’t have a temperature.
EM waves don’t have a temperature.
gbaikie says:
LIA was period of time which included advancing worldwide glaciers and declining sea level- these are global.
What is the evidence they were global?
Ger*an:
Look again at the Wikipedia animation, here on the left. Look at the Moons axis, pointing in the constant direction of Polaris.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tidal_locking#/media/File:Tidal_locking_of_the_Moon_with_the_Earth.gif
Now tell me the dark splotch on the Moon isn’t rotating around that axis.
It very obviously is.
Ger*an
The earth rotates about its axis and revolves around the sun, two different properties with different values and units.
Jupiter rotates and revolves.
Saturn rotates and revolves.
Mercury rotates and revolves, even though it is tidally locked with the Sun at a 3:2 resonance, unlike the moon witch is tidally locked with a 1:1 resonance.
So the Moon rotates on its axis once for every time it orbits the earth.
bob, you read and understand pseudoscience quite well. It’s reality that confuses you.
Does a race horse “rotate on its own axis” as it runs the track?
Or do you not understand orbital and rotational motions?
“Does a race horse “rotate on its own axis” as it runs the track?”
Yes. A race horse turns in the turns. By inspection, and a little deeper, by 1LOT energy balance but doing that is far beyond JD’s ability.
Poor clown doesn’t even understand “rotating on its own axis”. He believes the horse orbiting the track is the same as “rotating on its axis”!
He must enjoy being a clown.
The race horse turns in the turns JD, which is why they call them turns. I know this is beyond JD’s ability to understand, as is even basic thermodynamics.
The horse “turns” in orbit. He is NOT “rotating on its own axis”.
If the horse stopped on the track, and rotated 360°, an observer inside the track would see all sides of the horse. When the horse is “orbiting”, the observer only sees one side of the horse.
Reality is so hard when it doesn’t fit your beliefs, huh?
(I will have to end this, as clowns cannot. So, you get the last word.)
“The horse “turns” in orbit.”
Thank you JD, a decent concession. Try to stick with that correct understanding of physics.
From the horse’s point of view, he faces throughout 360 degrees as he rounds the track — first north (say), then west, south, then east, back to north again.
That’s rotation.
JD
“If the horse stopped on the track, and rotated 360, an observer inside the track would see all sides of the horse.”
Yes if the observer (a movie camera) is stationary, looking at the horse.
“When the horse is orbiting, the observer only sees one side of the horse.”
But the observer (camera) must now be rotating to see this.
Furthermore how about a stationary observer in the stands. In both cases he sees all sides of the horse.
Yes the horse rotates on its axis, in other words it spins, it starts facing one direction and as it makes one circuit of the track, it faces all directions of the compass.
bob, the horse “turns” in orbit around the center of the track. He is NOT “rotating on its own axis”.
If the horse stopped on the track, and rotated 360°, an observer inside the track would see all sides of the horse. When the horse is “orbiting”, the observer only sees one side of the horse.
Reality is so hard when it doesn’t fit your beliefs, huh?
(I will have to end this, as clowns cannot. So, you get the last word.)
I still play records on a “turn” table, which spins records.
I guess only in your world do the words spin and turn mean different things.
“the horse “turns””
Yes, stick to that JD and you will go far.
The moon’s
Sidereal rotation period is
27.321661 d (synchronous)
from wiki
So the moon rotates on its axis, wiki says so.
I am reminded of the fantastic nature of an Ideal thermally conductivity blackbody model.
So it makes surface at 1 AU in vacuum at time when sun is at zenith have a surface temperature of about 5 C. And at midnight the surface is at 5 C.
The magic is not making the surface at midnight be 5 C- that is easy- or utterly mundane.
It’s making the surface at noon be at 5 C which is the magic.
Broadly we classify refrigeration as active or passive- active is putting energy into a system to cause cooling- pumps, etc.
And passive is not using energy to cause cooling.
And one should imagine the ideal thermally conductive blackbody as a passive cooling system, but one could for fun, think of it as an active refrigeration system.
Or the saying “shut the door we not warming the world”- becomes not cooling the world [sort of].
In our modern world, residents use a lot energy to keep things cool- and amount energy to keep a surface at 5 C at noon- would be a lot of energy. And of course it would have to done by a government that is “spending tax dollars wisely” which intends to make sending people moon- very puny in comparison.
Though there is a very easy way to cool surface in vacuum- a small amount of moisture would work. Some might say that is cheating.
Now the greenhouse effect theory rests on an idea of an Ideal thermally conductive blackbody which reflects 30% of the sun.
That model is suppose to represent Earth without greenhouse gases.
So instead 5 C at noon, it’s -18 C at noon.
[water moisture could still do that kind of cold if in vacuum- btw].
Of course this even more fantastic- though keeping midnight surface at -18 C is simpler than 5 C.
So got the ideal thermal conductive blackbody thing working and then it’s time to deploy the reflectors so as to have the Ideal thermally conductive blackbody reflect 30% of the sunlight reaching the planet.
Where to put the reflectors is a top management decision- so if you are scratching your butt, you can do it.
More gobbledygook, tl;dr.
Really, do you wish that people understand your off-topic skreeds? Because your writing is impenetrable.
Any cites in the literature of someone else talking about an ideal thermal conductive blackbody?
Or are you just scratching your butt?
Does wiki count as literature?:
“An ideal thermally conductive blackbody at the same distance from the Sun as Earth would have a temperature of about 5.3 °C. However, because Earth reflects about 30% of the incoming sunlight, this idealized planet’s effective temperature (the temperature of a blackbody that would emit the same amount of radiation) would be about â18 °C.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_effect
It’s basic gospel.
It seems the only problem I have with the religious is they don’t even know their basic gospel- lazy.
And I would say cuts into the joy of their religion.
Yes, but it ceases to be ideal when you consider the fact that the earth reflects a portion of the incoming light.
Though wiki does continue with a pretty good description of the greenhouse effect, though it doesn’t provide the equations needed for full understanding.
“bobdroege says:
September 30, 2018 at 2:15 PM
Yes, but it ceases to be ideal when you consider the fact that the earth reflects a portion of the incoming light.”
Ideal refers to thermally conductive- mostly.
Ideal blackbody is about 120 C at 1 AU and moon is somewhat close to Ideal blackbody.
But Moon is sphere and not vaguely spherically thermally conductive. Put Moon at Earth GEO, and it gets a 24 hour day and inches towards being closer to an Ideal thermally conductive spherical body. But the insulative properties of lunar surface [the inches of lunar dust] is near opposite of something conductive.
So bare rock Moon at GEO distance of Earth with 24 hour day adds a say a foot distance towards Ideal thermally conductive.
And solid copper- huge difference, and diamond about 3 times better.
Hello world!
Dr. Roy’s bot is still blocking me but at least I can post the “C” programming message!
those 150 W/m2?
Nobody blocks you here, GC alias PM!
You simply tried to send messages containing character sequences the host’s message scanner doesn’t like and therefore are put into the waste bag.
If for example you were entering a message containing ‘absorp-tion’ without the minus sign, the message would silently be rejected.
The same holds for the legendary d-c sequence due to Mr Do-ug Cot-ton.
Now I will try posting one paragraph at a time:
Since September 23 I have been trying to respond to Gordon Robinson but the “moderator bot” here has resolutely blocked me. I don’t give up easily so this is another attempt to avoid things that may upset Dr. Roy’s bot.
There is no moderator here. Your comments aren’t getting through because you violated a secret rule that is secret, or you used a word that is forbidden even though it’s necessary for the communication of science.
Roy doesn’t care, so stop complaining. Try changing your username, or your words. Keep guessing mew words until you fall onto your keyboard from exhaustion.
@Gordon Robertson,
“If your giga-watt laser is focused on a mass with a temperature lower than the temperature the laser can produce in the mass, then the laser will warm it. If the mass has a temperature greater than the temperature produced by the laser, it will not warm.
How would you test it?”
What’s the temperature of a GW laser?
How do we know if it’s > or < a target mass?
Lasers don’t work by blackbody radiation.
It’s true that a CO2 laser which can melt steel, cannot heat the steel beyond a certain temperature, but that has nothing to do with the wavelength of the light produced by the laser.
Great question! That is why I proposed using a “Hairy Laser” to deliver the photons. Let’s assume that the laser delivers energy at a wavelength of 10.6 microns which would be the peak wavelength radiated by a body with a temperature of 288 Kelvin (15 degrees Centigrade). Fortunately, “Hairy Lasers” at that wavelength are affordable.
At Coherent Radiation Laboratories in Palo Alto, California I witnessed an experiment that directed IR photons at 10.6 microns onto a fire brick. While the laser was “Hairy” by 1970s standards its output was only 100 Watts and it produced a spot of ~1 mm when focused onto a fire brick four inches from the output window.
Fire clay bricks melt at about 1,950 Kelvin but it took less than two minutes to make a hole right through it. Low energy photons from a cold body were absorbed by a really hot fire brick!
So you had a good time. Good for you. (I really mean that; I’ve always enjoyed my trips to accelerators.)
But so what? What’s your point?
My point is that heat can be transferred from cold bodies to hot ones using photons.
You seemed to support that idea but if you have changed your mind please explain why.
Yes. How?
I was under the impression that our resident troll supported the idea that heat can be transferred from cold bodies to hot ones.
Apparently I was mistaken. He is asking me “How” despite the experiment I cited that involved melting fire bricks using thermal IR radiation corresponding to a temperature of 288 Kelvin.
Yes, how.
PS: Calling me a “troll” says more about you than me. What about my replies so bothers you?
PS: Knowing an answer is not a reason not to ask the question. Science journalism 101.
GC, your laser requires external energy to organize the photons (reduce entropy). Then, the organized (collimated, coherent) and amplified photons are able to transfer more energy to the target.
There is NO violation of 2LoT.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collimated_light
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laser
I have been visiting accelerators since 1968 when I visited CERN to arrange the removal of the “Mercury” computer as a prelude to installing ICL 2900 series machines.
I visited SLAC (Stanford Linear Accelerator) in 1970 and many years later used their “S band” klystrons to build the Duke university HIGS (High Intensity Gamma Source).
http://www.tunl.duke.edu/web.tunl.2011a.higs.php
Enjoy the video that shows how we used Inverse Compton Scattering which may be the process driving the brightest events in the universe, namely GRBs (Gamma Ray Bursters).
I obtained power supplies, RF resonators and undulators from SLAC, Fermilab, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratories, and BINP (Budker Institute of Nuclear Physics) to build the Duke university FELS (Free Electon Lasres).
That’s cool.
I’ve been to SLAC — a friend who was working there gave me and a friend a tour on a very quiet Saturday a few years ago. And Los Alamos, where I worked for a week as an undergraduate working on a mid-energy experiment.
I wish I could find a way to visit CERN.
GC states: “a wavelength of 10.6 microns which would be the peak wavelength radiated by a body with a temperature of 288 Kelvin (15 degrees Centigrade)”
???
1) If you’re referring to Wien’s Law, the wavelength is not the “peak wavelength”, it is the wavelength at which the most power is emitted (peak of the power curve).
2) The correct temperature for 10.6 μ photon is 273 K (0 $deg;C).
Ooooops!
“0 °C”
Ger*an wrote:
The correct temperature for 10.6 μ photon is 273 K (0 $deg;C)
Single photons do not have a temperature.
DA, maybe if you could ever get Ger*an off your mind, you could do better. Obsessions can be so debilitating.
Maybe you could study some physics, to get your mind off Ger*an?
For example learning Wien’s Law, so you will understand what I was talking about.
Your choice, remain a stupid clown, or learn some physics.
with a 10.6 u photon, we don’t know if it was a blackbody emitted photon, or a CO2 vibration photon, so we don’t know the temperature of the object that emitted that photon.
David Appell
Earlier I did attempt to reason with JDHuffman. He does not know enough physics to reason with. He does not know how to logically think through anything and as soon as someone points out how much of a phony is he goes off on stupid troll tangents. You will never get intelligent comments from this troll. You could not get them when he went as g.e.r.a.n an you certainly won’t now he goes by JDHuffman. Same stupid person pretending he knows things.
He can’t grasp the concept of Wein’s Law but pretends he understands it. He is a funny one though.
Wein’s Law:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wien%27s_displacement_law
Will give you the peak frequency (or wavelength) of a blackbody at a known temperature. It has nothing to do with Carbon Dioxide emission.
You can’t find the temperature of CO2 using Wein’s Law since CO2 emits in only a few bands. You find the temperature of CO2 by knowing its emissivity (based upon it concentration) and measuring the amount of IR it is emitting. You can use the Stefan-Boltzmann Law to then get the gas temperature.
You can tell JDHuffman these things but he does not have enough knowledge of physics to realize he does not know what he is talking about. Unfortunately instead of once him admitting he is wrong he will post some stupid troll comment or some distorted nonsense. As it stands this post has too many words for his feeble reading ability to follow.
You are more correct to ignore him. If you see his posts don’t take the bait. He will consider you a “fish” and real you end then you will spend 10 to 20 comments on a toxic flurry of emptiness. Since he is a troll he will be delighted to see how long he can keep a senseless interaction going. Believe me, I have had enough of these encounters with this troll. Also this one is tireless. He will try and bait you over and over until he hooks you. Read his comments to others. Same stupid troll junk over and over. Like he is using a script or something. Not real original. Mostly he just repeats the material that works and keeps the “fish” swimming.
In one comment:
Uses of the word troll = 6
Uses of the word stupid = 4
Iterations of accusations that commenter does not know physics = 3
Total number of insults = 13
On topic points made = 1
Norman has been practicing his typing, again. His fingers work, but his brain doesn’t. He can’t get anything right, so he has to try to insult, malign, and misrepresent others.
But, he usually provides some comedy relief.
In this example, he tries to act like he is teaching Wien’s Law. But, he misspells it EVERY time!
“He can’t grasp the concept of Wein’s Law”
“Wein’s Law:”
“You can’t find the temperature of CO2 using Wein’s Law”
Adding to the hilarity, he even links to the wiki page, in which it is spelled correctly. It is spelled correctly, right in front of him, but he still can’t get it right!
He has a learning disability, and can not assimilate new information.
It must be frustrating for him.
Wow! That took me a week!
Gordon Robertson, GDHuffman and several others say that heat can’t be transferred from cold bodies to hot ones owing to the the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. Your hypothesis is false and it pains me to tell you that our resident troll (David Appell) is right on this issue.
The simple experiment that I witnessed in 1970 is easy to explain in terms of ancient physics (Stefan-Boltzmann and Max Planck’s quantized radiation).
Thanks, but any statement of the 2LOT makes the adiabaticity clause clear.
Look at a refrigerator — it transfers heat from cold to hot. OMG, how????
Refrigerators and HVAC systems are heat engines. You don’t need someone like me to explain this to you. Sign up for a course at your local community college.
Sure, I’m with you. Just pointing out, to blow some minds here like GR’s and Ger*an’s, that fridges transfer heat from cold to hot.
DA, unplug the refrigerator and see how much “cold” warming “hot” you get.
Someone needs to study and understand 2 LoT….
Remove the energy source from the devise, and see how much “cold” warming “hot” happens.
Study and understand 2LoT!
That’s the WHOLE POINT.
A refrigerator isn’t an isolated system.
The surface+troposphere isn’t either!
See now?
DA, it doesn’t matter if the system is isolated or not, as long as all the energy is properly accounted for.
2LoT applies throughout the known Universe. But, you must ignore it, redefine it, alter it, or somehow pervert it to protect your false religion.
For some reason you believe abhorring reality will make you a hero.
What a funny religion.
Of course the 2LOT applies throughout the universe.
But until you understand it and properly quote it, which includes noting the adiabaticity clause, you will get it wrong, as you do with the GHE.
Sorry DA, you can’t write your own reality.
Learn some physics.
DA…”Look at a refrigerator it transfers heat from cold to hot. OMG, how????”
I have explained that to you at least a dozen times. Heat is transferred cold to hot by compressing a gas to a liquid using external power. You can lift a boulder onto a cliff as well using external power but it will not lift itself.
The heat transfer cold to hot uses a highly compressed, liquified gas to exhale heat to the atmosphere via a condenser (radiator). That cools the liquified gas then it is atomized and allowed to expand in an evapourator (another radiator) where it loses pressure and cools. As it cools, it sucks heat from the cooler environment.
The extracted heat in a low pressure gas goes through a compressor and gets compressed to a high pressure liquid again.
The cooled environment could NEVER, NEVER, NEVER do that on its own, hence the 2nd law.
gallopingcamel,
Gordon Robertson, GDHuffman and several others say that heat canât be transferred from cold bodies to hot ones owing to the the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. Your hypothesis is false…
Heat. Heat is spontaneously transferred only from hot to cold. Your Hairy Laser is not very spontaneous. It provides 100 W per mm2 !!!
You can also heat your bricks by bombarding them with lead pellets at 0 ° C. So what ?
Since the transfer of heat energy from a cold object is an easily observed phenomena, I performed the Rabbets dual plate experiment and confirmed that observation, then something is either wrong with the 2nd law of thermodynamics, or your interpretation of said law.
I am going with your interpretation being of the sky monkey variety.
Fantastic! Another invalid “experiment”.
No details, no actual values, no verification, but plenty of “hand-waving”!
There’s plenty of that in the published literature, no need for me to add to it, my experiment wouldn’t get published for that reason, it’s not new science.
Yet you prefer to remain scientifically uneducated, scientifically illiterate and generally uninformed.
All the handwaving is done by your side.
One of the GHEDT continues to do great work via the recently reactivated bobdroege avatar.
bob says: “All the handwaving is done by your side.”
But bob flees from providing the details about his “experiment”.
“There’s plenty of that in the published literature, no need for me to add to it…”
But bob has no problem making false accusations.
“Yet you prefer to remain scientifically uneducated, scientifically illiterate and generally uninformed.”
bob appears to be in an accelerated program to reach top clown status.
JD, all you have to do is properly quote the second law of thermodynamics.
And say that it doesn’t prohibit the transfer of heat energy from cold to hot.
Otherwise you are provably scientifically illiterate.
bob, 2LoT does not prohibit heat transfer from cold to hot. It merely requires additional energy to allow it to happen.
JD, that’s not even true
Read the translations of Clausius provided by another poster in this thread.
Actually it requires no outside energy.
Just that there is also at the same time, a transfer of hot to cold.
bob, thats certainly an interesting interpretation.
But, I have no real problem with it, since without new energy temperatures within the system would not be increased.
So no violation!
Well, if your system is just two blackbodies at different temperatures, then eventually they will reach the same temperature, but that will be after the heat death of the universe, or a super task for us normal chemists.
The hot object will cool and the cool object will warm, according to Newton’s law of cooling.
Yes, the hotter object will cool, and the cooler object will warm. But, the cooler object is NOT warming the hotter object, as promoted by the climate-clowns.
So, Clausius is a climate clown?
Good to know!
Now bob, how on earth did you ever come up with that?
Are you really that desperate?
Good to know!
Well, because someone else provided a quote where Clausius said there was a transfer of heat from cold to hot.
So if he believed that, then according to you, he’s a climate clown.
Seems you are really desperate to avoid learning some science.
too bad
phi…”Heat. Heat is spontaneously transferred only from hot to cold. Your Hairy Laser is not very spontaneous. It provides 100 W per mm2 !!!”
Thanks, phi.
cam…”Gordon Robertson, GDHuffman and several others say that heat canât be transferred from cold bodies to hot ones owing to the the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. Your hypothesis is false and it pains me to tell you that our resident troll (David Appell) is right on this issue.
The simple experiment that I witnessed in 1970 is easy to explain in terms of ancient physics”
*********
Now you’re being heretical. Do you understand what the 2nd law states in words, that heat can NEVER be transferred by its own means from a colder body to a warmer body? I am surprised that you’d take such a stance since you are on top of things otherwise.
Even in terms of entropy it states the same thing. If you have two bodies at T1 and T2, where T1 > T2, then S = Q(1/T2 – 1/T1). S = 0 or S > 0 in order for the equation to make sense. If you put the hotter body in front you’d get a -ve number, which is not allowed for entropy.
Note that the hotter body, T1, has the negative sign, which indicates direction of transfer.
Even S-B states the same thing. Initially, Stefan, developed j = fi . T^4, but he did it using data from Tyndall, who had electrically heated a platinum filament and observed the colour progression as the filament began to glow. The colours were converted to temperature and that’s where Stefan got the T^4 relationship.
Now, are you trying to tell me that heat can be transferred to that filament from a cooler body???
JD disagrees with me on this, but if you have an environment surrounding the hotter body, it will affect the rate of heat dissipation from the body. There is an alternate form of S-B which JD claims is wrong, and that is cool, but it does related the hotter body to its environment or surroundings.
If the heated filament was surrounded by a narrow diameter cylinder, that was close to th filament but not touching it, the temperature of the cylinder would affect the heated filament by controlling its rate of heat dissipation. Of course, convection and conduction would be an issue in air. In a vacuum, however, with just radiation, it should work the same.
If the temperature of the cylinder was at the same temperature as the filament, the filament could dissipate no heat and it would be at its maximum temperature. If you cooled the cylinder slowly, the filament would become cooler and cooler as its rate of dissipation increased.
That fits right in with j = ebA(T^4hot – T^4cold). If you raised Tcold till it equaled Thot, the radiation would obviously be zero. If T cold became hotter than T hot, the radiation would stop altogether and the filament would start warming as it absorbed energy from the Tcold body.
The 2nd law stands, and heat can never by its own means be transferred from a colder body to a warmer body.
cam…”The simple experiment that I witnessed in 1970 is easy to explain in terms of ancient physics (Stefan-Boltzmann and Max Plancks quantized radiation)”.
Are you going to share the experiment? Or did I miss something?
I only sleep a few hours each day because I am 80 years old which explains why I blog in the early hours under the influence of Glenfiddich.
David Appell struck me as a young, brash opinionated jerk yet he is busy commenting at 0300 hours EST. Maybe he is just another old fart like me.
I find the sleeping habits of old people curious.
I sleep 6 to 7 hours (I’m 66) , my mother in law, 97, sleeps 12.
You sleep little…..
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/06/28/weather-wars-live-climate-debate-turns-nasty-video/
If he is around 80, David is well preserved. I think your first opinion is somewhat correct: somewhat young, brash, opinionated….
Other pictures, thief Peter Gleick and Mann:
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/09/02/climate-scientist-michael-mann-congratulates-identity-thief-peter-gleick-for-receiving-his-carl-sagan-award/
And Gavin Schmidt:
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/08/28/climate-activists-have-long-history-of-ducking-debates-with-skeptics/
And Ben Santer, the I found fingerprints, guy:
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/07/26/ben-santer-climate-change-responsible-for-hotter-and-colder-weather/
One of my favorite images is Al Gore and his monkey.
But don’t have the link. I like it, due to vast amount thought
used in creating it. Or Al wanted the picture released and he went to a fair amount trouble to get it just right. And I would imagine that he now, he has second thoughts about it.
Ad hominem attacks instead of scientific responses says a lot about you and nothing about them. It’s mean, dumb, trite and banal.
Said David, attacking gbaikie.
@David Appell,
“Ive been to SLAC a friend who was working there gave me and a friend a tour on a very quiet Saturday a few years ago. And Los Alamos, where I worked for a week as an undergraduate working on a mid-energy experiment.
I wish I could find a way to visit CERN.”
In the 1980s I used to travel 500,000 miles per year so I was able to visit the labs that I mentioned and many more. In spite of all that traveling I found shorter trips that were more rewarding. For example the Jefferson Laboratory in Virginia has a high power FEL that one of my esteemed ex-colleagues worked on (Steve Benson).
Vladimir Litvinenko was another brilliant colleague who won the FEL prize:
https://www.bnl.gov/newsroom/news.php?a=110224
@David Appell
“Sure, Im with you. Just pointing out, to blow some minds here like GRs and Ger*ans, that fridges transfer heat from cold to hot.”
Thanks for that. I am not trying to win a popularity contest. If the ugly troll gets it right I will support him.
Such heat transference is only done with the assistance of outside energy and an interesting setup of valves, radiators and compressors.
They are most interesting to repair.
Yes, Lewis. And it’s the same with the Earth’s surface/troposphere system — energy is pouring in from the Sun, and in and out through the stratosphere and the TOA.
So the adiabaticity clause of the 2LOT isn’t met, so ‘Cold cannot warm hot’ doesn’t apply to the surface/troposphere system.
The Earth is in thermal equilibrium with the Sun; the troposphere & atmosphere are not in thermal equilibrium.
DA likes to write science-fiction-comedy.
He’s pretty good at it….
Another case when you have no rational or scientific answer, so you reply with jokes and insults.
You’re very easy to see through, Ger*an.
DA, you don’t know science. All you know is your pseudoscience.
Learn some physics.
gallopingcamel says:
September 30, 2018 at 12:51 AM
Gordon Robertson, GDHuffman and several others say that heat canât be transferred from cold bodies to hot ones owing to the the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. Your hypothesis is false and it pains me to tell you that our resident troll (David Appell) is right on this issue.
*
People always referring to Clausius' 2Lot statement mostly ignore Clausius' deep knowledge concerning radiation, especially between bodies of different warmth. Here is an example of this knowledge.
https://archive.org/details/diemechanischewr00clau
DIE MECHANISCHE WAERMETHEORIE
von R. CLAUSIUS
DRITTE UMGEARBEITETE UND VERVOLLSTAENDIGTE AUFLAGE.
ERSTER BAND.
…
Braunschweig, 1887
…
ABSCHNITT XII.
Die Concentration von Waerme- und Lichtstrahlen und die Grenzen ihrer Wirkung.
§ 1. Gegenstand der Untersuchung.
…
Was ferner die in gewoehnlicher Weise stattfindende Waermestrahlung anbetrifft, so ist es freilich
bekannt, dass nicht nur der warme Koerper dem kalten, sondern auch umgekehrt der kalte Koerper dem warmen Waerme zustrahlt, aber das Gesammtresultat dieses gleichzeitig stattfindenden doppelten Waermeaustausches besteht, wie man als erfahrungsmaessig feststehend ansehen kann, immer darin, dass der kaeltere Koerper auf Kosten des waermeren einen Zuwachs an Waerme erfaehrt.
THE MECHANICAL THEORY OF HEAT
THIRD, REWRITTEN AND COMPLETED EDITION.
FIRST VOLUME.
…
SECTION XII.
The concentration of heat and light beams and the limits of their effect.
§ 1. Subject of the investigation.
…
What further regards heat radiation as happening in the usual manner, it is known that not only the warm body radiates heat to the cold one but that the cold body radiates to the warm one as well, however the total result of this simultaneous double heat exchange is, as can be viewed as evidence based on experience, that the cold body always experiences an increase in heat at the expense of the warmer one.
“…the cold body always experiences an increase in heat at the expense of the warmer one.”
That seems pretty clear to me. But in pseudoscience, it get’s twisted to “cold” can warm “hot”!
HuffingMan, It seems pretty clear to me that you refuse to accept the implications of that statement by Clausius. The energy flows from the hot to the cold, but adding an intermediate warm body will raise the temperature of the hot body. That’s what my Green Plate Demonstration showed. My heated Blue plate initially radiated energy to the surroundings, which were, the walls and top of the bell jar. The temperature of the Blue plate reached an equilibrium temperature as steady state was achieved. Raising the Green plate into a position next to the Blue plate resulted in some of the energy radiated by the Blue plate being intercepted by the Green plate. The result was a warming of both the Green plate and the Blue plate.
But, the net flow of energy was from warm to cool, exactly as Clausius and the 2nd Law would require. It’s just that the continued heating resulted in a higher temperature for the new state compared to the previous state. A similar heating occurs in the Earth’s atmosphere as the result of the energy flow from the Sun.
ES believes: “It seems pretty clear to me that you refuse to accept the implications of that statement by Clausius.”
Another perfect example of misrepresenting, twisting, and spinning reality.
Clowns must always resort to such tactics, because they have nothing else.
ES, adding energy, and/or insulation, to a system tends to raise the system temperature.
All you’ve proven is that you can fool yourself and other clowns.
As Mike Flynn would say, “carry on, please”.
Manifestly, it is NOT AT ALL clear to you.
Do you have any facts to go with your opinion, or do you just hate reality?
Ger*an says:
But in pseudoscience, it gets twisted to cold can warm hot!
Cold can warm hot — that’s how a refrigerator works.
You still do not understand the adiabaticity clause of the 2LOT.
DA, you may have it confused with the stupidity clause of pseudo-physics.
Here you do it again — insults when you can’t respond scientifically.
It’s a Ger*an special.
DA, we’ve had this discussion before. You are your own insult. I don’t have to do anything. You believe you can rewrite well-established physics, yet you can’t understand the very basics.
You’re a clown, and you want to blame others.
Your fascination with pseudoscience is not my fault.
Learn some physics and face reality.
La Pangolina: Good find. And very interesting.
“heat radiation”
@La Pangolina,
That last paragraph that you put in italics explains it much better than I did. Cold bodies radiate to hot bodies and vice versa but the NET transfer of energy is from hot to cold.
It is usually difficult to measure the effect of thermal IR from a cold body like planet Earth on a hot body such as our sun. That is why I introduced the “Hairy Laser” to make it easy to show that heat can be transferred from cold to hot.
GC says: “That is why I introduced the “Hairy Laser” to make it easy to show that heat can be transferred from cold to hot.”
GC, be sure to always clarify that a laser is NOT an example of “cold” warming “hot”, as you originally believed.
Otherwise folks will think you still don’t understand thermodynamics.
Yes. If a body absorbs 400 w/m^2, but only emits 300 w/m^2, then it will gain 100 w/m^2 by the exchange.
If we call the 100 w/m^2 “heat”, then this is what necessarily follows:
– heat can only be transferred from warm to cold
– heat is transferred at a rate according to the difference in temperature between the two bodies
– there is no heat exchanged between bodies at the temperature.
******
Sound familiar?
Snape/Artemis and La Pangolina/Bindidon, please stop the sock-puppetry.
So far I’m concerned: stop your arrogant nonsense!
Im just asking you to stop pretending that La Pangolina and Bindidon are two separate people. There is nothing nonsensical or arrogant about it.
“If we call the 100 w/m^2 “heat””
You can call a dog’s tail a 5th leg but that does not make the tail a leg.
Yes. If a body absorbs 400 w/m^2, but only emits 300 w/m^2, then it will gain 100 w/m^2 by the exchange.
If we call the 100 w/m^2 “heat”, then this is what necessarily follows:
heat can only be transferred from warm to cold
heat is transferred at a rate according to the difference in temperature between the two bodies
there is no heat exchanged between bodies at the temperature.
*******
Sound familiar?
Thanks. No more M Flynnstone either.
Automatic prefilling of ‘Name’ and ‘Mail’ fields in the ‘Leave a Reply’ form
Recently, the automatic loading of name and email address into the reply form has been given up by the software driving this blog (and many others around the world).
I see that since then more and more people write their name in a different manner – because they have to write it everytime anew.
Maybe I can help a bit – even those who permanantly insult me, I don’t care about such negative behavior.
Bindidon and I we both use an autofill add-on (on Chrome and Firefox, respectively).
This add-on (Autofill by ‘tohodo.com’, there are plenty of alternatives) allows you for automated prefilling of fields in any web site.
When selecting this reply form and right-clicking, you can choose in the menu the option ‘View source’.
There you see the HTML code for the required name and email address input fields, with the HTML names ‘author’ and ’email’ respectively.
Download the Autofill add-on. On success, you will see it upon right-clicking again; select there ‘Autofill options’.
There you start by creating a new profile with this web site’s main URL: ‘http://www.drroyspencer.com’.
Then you add two text field specifications for ‘author’ and ’email’ by entering your own data.
Save and reload the page: you now should see your data in the fields.
So, it seems we are still talking about blue plates, and spinning Moon, and those believing in Christ, or arguing against Christ have no clue what He said.
As I said the pseudo science of GHE like Marxism is vague- and both seems popular with young or old and confused.
An ideal thermally conductive blackbody is intended to be in a vacuum. And the Ideal thermally conductive blackbody which reflects 30% of sunlight “should” also be in vacuum.
A small bare rock which are rotating fast [and most small space rocks do rotate fast- a day in hours- And we know more about small space rocks, now, as compared to decades ago- when the GHE gospel was written.] these rocks if bare, do have average temperature of about 5 C if at 1 AU.
A small rock can be similar to the model of ideal thermally conductive blackbody- and they of course are in a vacuum.
Larger rocks or moons or planets can’t spin this fast and if in vacuum are lacking the Ideal thermally conductive aspect which can be achieved by a fast rotation.
What planet can do instead of rotating fast to mimic the ideal thermally conductive aspect is to have atmosphere.
So in gospel of GHE, they compare model of ideal thermally conductive blackbody to a planet with an atmosphere- Earth.
Though they don’t specifically say that that Earth spin and it’s atmosphere makes it acts similar to Ideal thermally conductive blackbody. Nor is there any mention of Earth being covered by a ocean.
Both atmosphere and ocean transport heat to the rest of the world- or act like an Ideal thermally conductive body.
Oh yeah, re:
“As I said the pseudo science of GHE like Marxism is vague- and both seems popular with young or old and confused.”
Also your salvation lies in declaring one’s faith in GHE or Marxism- which also habit of Christianity- with Catholic- the book was in latin and people [the faithful] didn’t read or speak that language [and were not suppose to actually read the bible- and instead listen to the priests [who babble].
Sound familiar?
When someone brings up Marxism or communism or Lysenkoism (etc) in a climate discussion, you automatically know their motives aren’t scientific, but driven by their ideology.
When someone brings up Marxism or communism or Lysenkoism (etc) in a climate discussion, you automatically know their motives aren’t scientific, but driven by their political philosophy.
Or philosophy
Def of political philosphy:
“Political philosophy is the study of fundamental questions about the state, government, politics, liberty, justice and the enforcement of a legal code by authority. It is Ethics applied to a group of people, and discusses how a society should be set up and how one should act within a society.”
I don’t have strong opinions such things.
Marxism doesn’t work, communism does work for some situations, but like “true democracies” they tends breakdown in large societies, and I think there are anthropological ideas which explain why this could the case.
One reason I like such things as future Mars settlements is the hope that better governments could be developed. Or it might be like an laboratory in which better types of are tried and could be successful- due various influences. But I have no particular political system framework which I would favor- though Marxism is not going to work as it’s silly religion and ideas which don’t work.
I can’t find a good def of philosophy, but I will use wiki:
“Philosophy (from Greek ĎΚΝοĎÎżĎÎŻÎą, philosophia, literally “love of wisdom” is the study of general and fundamental problems concerning matters such as existence, knowledge, values, reason, mind, and language”
gbaikie says:
An ideal thermally conductive blackbody is intended to be in a vacuum.
Not at all.
A blackbody is defined by its ab.sorp.tion properties. That’s it.
gbaikie said,
“So in gospel of GHE, they compare model of ideal thermally conductive blackbody to a planet with an atmosphere-”
Yes! that is how the 255 Kelvin estimate for the average temperature of planet Earth “sans atmosphere” was derived using impeccable mathematics and risible assumptions about thermal conductivity.
Thanks to better models, better mathematical tools (e.g. FEAs) and Diviner LRE experimental data we now know that the 255 Kelvin figure is wrong. One can make a case for 197.3 Kelvin being correct.
In my opinion the rate of rotation raises the average temperature by about 12 Kelvin. One thing we should all agree on is that the 255 Kelvin estimate is not even close.
Why (physically) do you think rotation raises the Moon’s average temperature. Where is that extra energy coming from?
The moon with no spin, always dark on one side and lit on the other, you take the average of the two surface temperatures (divide by 2).
The moon with such a high rate of spin that diurnal effects are essentially eliminated: to get the avg. surface T you divide by 4.
The difference is partly a matter of diurnal effects (no surface equilibrium reached) and partly the analysis method.
–Hunger Stones and Tree Ring evidence suggests solar cycle influence on climate
by Francis Tucker Manns Ph.D., P.Geo (Ontario) Artesian Geological Research
Abstract
Recent discovery of the relationship between the location of the North American Jet Stream and extreme weather is a breakthrough in the understanding of solar forced climate change.–
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/09/30/hunger-stones-and-tree-ring-evidence-suggests-solar-cycle-influence-on-climate/
Well, I am inclined to think solar min [sun spots] do affect weather.
And weather is more important than “global temperatures”- one should do something about it, perhaps.
Not big fan of controlling weather, but one should elect politicians that aren’t inclined to be as dumb as bricks. That should be the normal thing to do- but it hasn’t been.
Published in a good peer reviewed journal? No, just a blog post.
I would not trust “Peer Reviewed” journals of squishy science to be right more than 5% of the time. In the case of “Climate Science” the figure is probably much lower.
Here is a book that backs shows the dismal quality of most peer reviewed research:
https://www.amazon.com/Scientific-Method-Science-Works-Pretends/dp/1138295353
Given that you won’t read the book here is something from the blurb:
“Sciences like economics, sociology and health are subject to more operating limitations than classical fields like physics or chemistry or biology. Yet, their methods and results must also be judged according to the same scientific standards.”
It should be no surprise that behavioral sciences don’t look good when they are subjected to the standards that apply to “Hard Science”.
From what I’ve seen, deniers whose work isn’t good enough to be published in peer reviewed journals often whine about peer reviewed journals being unfair.
So it goes.
A nice example of “babble” (from Gbaikie’s link):
“…….because of world-wide extreme weather in the northern hemisphere and also globally…”
Germanyâs Energiewende program exposed as a catastrophic failure
âA little more than a year before Germanyâs climate-policy âmilestone 2020â, the auditing body has concluded a catastrophic assessment of the governmentâs energy policy. Germany would miss its targets for both reducing greenhouse gas emissions and primary energy consumption as well as for increasing energy productivity and the share of renewable energy in transport. At the same time, policy makers had burdened the nation with enormous costs.â
The audit further concluded that the program is a monumental bureaucratic nightmare where âThe Federal Government, incidentally, does not have an overall grasp of the costs or any transparency in this respect.â
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/09/30/germanys-energiewende-program-exposed-as-a-catastrophic-failure/
German DNA makes them good bureaucrats- which can make “monumental bureaucratic nightmares”.
I think artifical Intelligence could provide us with better bureaucrats- and potentially even bigger nightmares- or still would not make socialism work.
But not doubt it will be tried.
The Chinese tried to make good bureaucrats by castrating them- I think generally that was sort of in the right direction, but of course, that also failed.
4balls,
“The measure of thermodynamic internal energy is what is called heat.”
You can call a dog’s tail a 5th leg but that does not make the tail a leg.
Then define “heat.”
Go back to the grand master Clausius 1st memoir, p.18: “Assume generally that a motion of the particles (in a body) does exist, and that heat is a measure of their kinetic energy.”
Any subsequent definition of “heat” that isn’t an exact match will not be as useful or precise.
p.225: Let the quantity of heat (alone not including internal work) contained in it be expressed by H.
Thus the symbol for what is called enthalpy was introduced. It is always more precise to use the term enthalpy instead of the obviously confusing term heat.
Clausius isn’t the last word on heat and radiation. His definition is out of date.
The photons in a laser beam have kinetic energy. Hence, heat.
KE(photon)=hf
David, that’s the energy of a photon in a laser beam which, except for a universal constant, is inversely proportional to the wavelength of the associated wave. No mass.
Please, tell us exactly what is outdated in Clausius’ classic def. of heat.
A particle doesn’t have to have mass to carry energy.
A photon gas has a temperature just as well as a gas of air does.
A particle does have to have mass to possess kinetic energy. An interesting distinction between a molecular gas and a photon gas is the equilibrium temperature of a photon gas is not set by the photons interacting with themselves (they don’t) but only by the temperature of the cavity walls containing the photon gas. The photons DO interact with the cavity walls.
No, a photon gas has a temperature because the photons have energy, just as molecules in an ideal gas do. In fact, a photon gas has a very similar equation of state:
PV = (0.9004)NkT
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photon_gas#Thermodynamics_of_a_black_body_photon_gas
That link also explains the constant out front.
David, as I wrote a photon gas has a temperature because the cavity walls have a temperature. Molecules interact with each other establishing an equilibrium temperature, photons do not interact and thus cannot establish an equilibrium temperature amongst themselves only with the walls.
Ball4 says:
David, as I wrote a photon gas has a temperature because the cavity walls have a temperature.
A molecular gas also interacts with the walls of the container. Why doesn’t it transfer energy to them?
The molecular gas of course does also interact with the walls AND with each other.
The three of you (Gordon, David, and Ball4) insist there is a single, correct definition of the word heat. Clearly not the case, so go with what you like and let others do the same.
People from England call french fries “chips”, and potato chips “crisps”. Once that’s understood, there is no confusion.
The trouble is heat is NOT precisely defined in general usage, the term is unique to each writer. If you want to be clearly understood in communication, do not use the term heat. Use enthalpy. If you don’t care to be well understood and actually want to start a food fight, use the heat term. Few will understand your meaning and that includes the writer.
You can’t use “enthalpy” in a general discussion about heat and basic thermodynamics — few people would have a good feel for it.
“few people would have a good feel for (enthalpy).”
Good point. Means few people commenting here have a good feel for atm. thermodynamics. Continue to use heat term to keep them off balance and entertaining.
Except in thermodynamics classes, physicists hardly ever use enthaply — they talk in terms of energy and energy transfer. I realize H is a useful variable for chemists, but it’s not used much in physics.
This is a climate blog (who knew?) and in atm. thermodynamics enthalpies are encountered again and again. So much that their formula was given that name because the variables making up enthalpy occur sufficiently often. Chemist’s “heats of reaction” are really enthalpies of reaction under an assumed name. In the atm. relevant assumed names are latent heats of vaporization, fusion and sublimation which are properly named enthalpies of vaporization, fusion and sublimation. So forth.
In fact, using the term enthalpy in atm. thermo. completely gets around the misunderstanding in using heat as a noun. As I wrote, if you want to be of clear writing use enthalpy, invoking heat term assures your comments will be unclear what you mean but surely more entertaining as a food fight often starts.
Sorry, I think in terms of heat and energy. That was my training. Outside thermo class, physicists simply don’t use enthalpy much if at all. Well, perhaps some material scientists do. I once had a physicists use in in an interview I did about what happens at the base of glaciers to lubricate their flow.
So, I’m interested – *why* do you think it’s better to enthalpy when discussing climate science?
Enthalpy is a particular combination of thermodynamic variables all of which can be easily measured, heat not so much: “Heat is not something contained in an object”.
Meteorologists (like the one at the top of these comments) develop a feel (David term) for enthalpy while training. If these comments were made entirely by accomplished meteorologists (I wish), then lacking this feel would not be an issue.
Snape says:
The three of you (Gordon, David, and Ball4) insist there is a single, correct definition of the word heat.
Then give the definition of “heat.” Justify it. Show why my examples (photon gas, black hole) don’t apply.
David,
Think about what I wrote. Heat is defined in different ways, and none is necessarily more correct than the other. Three examples:
a) the energy transferred as a result of a difference in temperature (my favorite).
b) the random kinetic energy of the atoms, molecules, or ions in a substance or body.
c) the transfer of kinetic energy from one medium or object to another.
None of those are commonly accepted by any modern thermo. text book as each author will agree, like the one David happened to pick:
“Heat is not something contained in an object.”
“There is nothing material about heat. It is neither a substance nor a fluid that is conserved.”
So this is just another example of David’s “few people would have a good feel for it.”
ball4…”There is nothing material about heat. It is neither a substance nor a fluid that is conserved.”
Neither is any form of energy a substance.
With regard to conservation, what do you think the 1st law addresses?
Q = U + W states that heat and work energies must be conserved.
“Neither is any form of energy a substance.”
Sorry Gordon, E=mc^2
+1
Snape wrote:
…atoms, molecules, or ions in a substance or body
Why is your definition limited to these?
Why not allow a photon gas?
The cosmic microwave background?
A black hole?
All of these have a temperature….
“The physics and chemistry education literature has grappled with an appropriate definition for the concept of heat for the past four decades. Most of the literature promotes the view that heat is energy in transit or involves the transfer of energy between the system and surroundings because of a difference in temperature. Given that many undergraduate students are not learning the concept of heat in physics and chemistry alone, the goal of this investigation is to explore the conceptions of heat as presented in textbooks from across the science disciplines. An analysis of the definitions of heat from physics, chemistry, the biological sciences and the earth sciences showed a significant variation in the definitions within a discipline and between the disciplines. Specifically, the physics and chemistry textbooks used energy in transit or transfer of energy definitions (Class I), whereas textbooks from other disciplines typically used definitions which relate heat to molecular kinetic energy (Class II) or they used a hybrid of Class I and II definitions. Although a universal definition of heat across disciplines may not be possible (or even desirable), we suggest that discrepancies in definitions be acknowledged and clearly communicated to students.”
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/09500693.2011.644820
Heat is not a noun:
https://aapt.scitation.org/doi/10.1119/1.1341254
snape…”the physics and chemistry textbooks used energy in transit or transfer of energy definitions (Class I), whereas textbooks from other disciplines typically used definitions which relate heat to molecular kinetic energy (Class II) or they used a hybrid of Class I and II definitions”.
**********
I have stated several times that modern physics, in particular, has lost it’s way and become somewhat daft. I put that down to the fact that theoretical physicists and mathematicians now control physics and they are, in general, daft.
The notion that heat is energy in transit is itself as daft as it gets. Which energy is being transferred? Which energy is in motion? IT IS HEAT FOR CRIPES SAKE. Therefore, heat is defined, by dimwits, as heat in transfer. Or even more stupidly, as heat in motion.
When energy is transferred from a hotter body to a cooler body, is there any doubt that the energy being transferred is heat? If one body has a temperature of 100C and the other a temperature of 25C, is there any doubt whatsoever that the 100C body is hotter than the 25C body?
The 100C and 25C figures merely indicated the degree of difference, based on the boiling point of water at 100C and the freezing point of water at 0C.
Heat has been defined since at least 1850 as the energy of atoms in motion.
WHAT OTHER ENERGY COULD IT BE????
Is it electromagnetic energy, chemical energy, which is largely heat anyway, gravitational energy, mechanical energy, or nuclear energy?
When a boulder falls off a cliff and is in motion, is that heat? When a crankshaft in an engine drives the wheels of a car, is that heat? Does no one get it how stupid this energy in motion argument is in principal?
There is electrical energy, which is also about electrons in motion in a solid. However, that is about the motion of electric charges, not heat. Heat can be transferred by the same mechanism, from atom to atom by valence electrons.
According to our pseudo-scientific definition, the motion of electric charges through a conductor is heat.
In a solid, atomic motion as vibration is directly related to heat. The vibration is kinetic energy but kinetic energy is a generic term used to describe energy in motion.
AGAIN….WHICH ENERGY IS IN MOTION???….IT IS THERMAL ENERGY. EVEN THOUGH THE ACTUAL MOTION OF THE ATOMS TO AND FRO CAN BE DESCRIBED AS MECHANICAL ENERGY (ERGO WORK). Work and heat are equivalent but do not share the same units.
When Count Rumford and Joule found the heat/work equivalence, they called the energy heat. Clausius called heat the energy of atoms in motion. That has withstood 200 years of science till recently when certain idiots began applying philosophy and metaphysics derived from the polluted human mind rather than through the scientific method.
Where people like ball4 get there inability to think is way beyond me. ball4 clearly does not understand what kinetic energy means and that it is a description of energy in motion. In the same way, he doesn’t get it that internal energy is also a generic term what energy is being referenced you need to name it so people will have an inkling of what you are talking about.
The 1st law is Q = U + W. The only energies involved are heat and work and that applies to U as well. U is not a mysterious energy according to Clausius, it is part internal heat, and the other part is the internal work of atoms.
The 1st and 2nd laws are about HEAT. The science which studies heat is thermodynamics, the thermo part meaning heat. Thermo-meters measure heat.
WE ALREADY HAVE A WORD FOR ENERGY IN MOTION, WE CALL IT KINETIC ENERGY. IT DESCRIBES ALL ENERGY IN MOTION.
We are concerned with atoms in motion and their associated energy, and we have a name for that too. It’s called THERMAL ENERGY.
Gordon Robertson says:
I have stated several times that modern physics, in particular, has lost its way and become somewhat daft. I put that down to the fact that theoretical physicists and mathematicians now control physics and they are, in general, daft.
Gordon, I’m curious — do you realize you can disagree with physicists and mathematicians without calling them all idiots?
So far, everything you’ve said about physics — time dilation, special relativity, 2LOT, QM, and surely more — has been wrong.
Calls an entire area of science “daft” is incredibly foolish. I wonder what that does for you.
ball4…”Heat is only a measure. Heat has no physical existance unlike steam and EMR”.
That’s like claiming energy is just a measure, yet it can produce work and drive all forms of action.
You are seriously hung up on the notion of generic energy, like kinetic energy and internal energy as being real yet one form of energy, thermal energy, is just a measure to you.
You claim steam is real yet you fail to understand that steam is comprised of large droplets of water as compared to the atoms that make it up. The energy does not come from the droplets of water, it comes from far deeper at the atomic level.
You use the term EMR. Why? Is it not apparent that EM is radiation and in itself is a form of energy? EM cannot exist in any other form than radiation. The R on EM is not necessary.
EM is produced by electrons in atoms. That applies to molecules as well since they are nothing more than aggregations of atoms with electrons. Molecules are atoms bonded by electrons.
Electrons are particles that carry an electric charge. When they move, whether through space or between energy levels in atoms, they produce a magnetic field. The electric filed and magnetic field of an electron produces electromagnetic energy.
In the production of EM, heat is lost in the atom. There is no debating that fact, it is the basis of quantum theory. When atoms absorb EM via electrons, the atomic mass heats. There is no debating that either.
Your claims about heat are just plain wrong.
Furthermore, heat is not a measure, temperature is a measure. It is the measure of the relative levels of heat, aka thermal energy. Thermal energy is the name for the internal energy in atoms to which you refer.
“That’s like claiming energy is just a measure..”
No Gordon, energy is not just a measure, energy is a 1LOT conserved entity. Heat is not material, not an entity, heat can be anything you or anyone else defines as heat since heat does not exist in an object. The heat term has become meaningless. Might as well call what ever you want heat to be a “gordon” with units of “gordons” and causing temperatures to rise in an object “gordoning” the object.
“..thermal energy, is just a measure to you.”
No sir, read what I’ve written. Thermal (short for thermodynamic internal) energy is H (enthalpy) and Clausius started that bandwagon, go argue with his writing if you must argue this point. If you don’t have a feel (David term) for enthalpy you have no feel for atm. thermodynamics which is of course evident in most of Gordon’s comments.
“You use the term EMR. Why? Is it not apparent that EM is radiation..”
Use EM in a sentence: Electromagnetic is not produced by electrons in atoms. Now use EMR: electromagnetic radiation is produced by atomic & molecular structure motion.
I’ll stick with the proper EMR.
“In the production of EM, heat is lost in the atom. There is no debating that fact”
No Gordon, the fact is atoms do not contain heat, nothing does, the link by David is correct as it agrees with all modern text book writers, an exception is Gordon whose claims about heat are mostly just plain wrong.
“Heat is not something contained in an object”.
“There is nothing material about heat. It is neither a substance nor a fluid that is conserved.”
Gordon: “heat is not a measure”
Clausius: “heat is a measure”
Go argue with the grand master Gordon, I’ll prefer to agree with Clausius and the experiments run in his day and age proving Clausius’ view.
Ball4,
“The measure of thermodynamic internal energy is what is called heat.”
“Heat is not a noun”
*********
The measure of something is a noun.
Ball4
From the link you provided:
https://aapt.scitation.org/doi/10.1119/1.1341254
“Rid your vocabulary of the noun “heat”. If you want a name for Q (but who needs it), call it “energy transferred by virtue of a temperature difference”.”
****
My favorite.
ball4…”Rid your vocabulary of the noun heat. If you want a name for Q (but who needs it), call it energy transferred by virtue of a temperature difference.”
Q is part of the first and second laws of thermodynamics”
Q = U + W
S = integral dQ/T
The first equation is about the equivalence of heat and work, not some mysterious or generic energy and work.
Thermodynamics is the study of heat, not energy in general. There are other disciplines who study other forms of energy. In chemistry they study chemical reactions and the HEAT transferred between chemicals during a reaction. They have the word enthalpy to describe the total heat content of a body.
Geoscientists and physicists study gravitational energy, and astronomers study the EM energy from stars. Mechanical engineers study mechanical energy.
People who study thermodynamics are studying heat and its properties.
You can wish away Q as much as you like but it has already been established for at least 200 years that Q means heat. Clausius called it heat, Carnot called it heat, Joule called it heat, and anyone with a lick of sense calls it heat.
Yes Gordon, Q was originally assigned and used as a symbol for heat by Clausius and Q/A heat flux.
The problem Clausius ran into was that he was eventually stymied in his attempts to find the carrier for this flux. That is, Q/A in a gas could not be decomposed into the product of the number density of molecules times their speed, times the quantity of heat each molecule carries. Clausius did find it possible, once molecules and kinetic theory became established, to specify the flux of kinetic energy (KE) because each molecule has a definite KE. So then science had found a well-established KE flux and there was no longer a need to re-label Q/A as a heat flux. Science moved on, the caloric theory had its time & place, was useful for a while but science moved on. I don’t use slide rules anymore they also had their time & usefulness maybe Gordon still does use them.
What’s more, molecules carry not only translational KE but rotational & vibrational KE (leading to quantum theory relevance) & of course PE. Thus total energy flux became a well-defined physical quantity and wherever Clausius’ bandwagon of heat flux was encountered science replaced that with energy flux. Gordon is just stuck in the past on heat flux AKA “gordon” flux.
Gordon
“I have stated several times that modern physics, in particular, has lost its way and become somewhat daft.”
*****
I have stated several times that you, in particular, are too daft to comprehend how daft you are.
And it was trolling the first time.
snape…”I have stated several times that you, in particular, are too daft to comprehend how daft you are”.
That’s what the kids in school called James Clerc Maxwell….Daftie Maxwell. I have noticed you think a lot like a school kid.
Sunspot number: 14
What is the sunspot number?
Updated 01 Oct 2018
Spotless Days
Current Stretch: 0 days
2018 total: 158 days (58%)
http://spaceweather.com/
The spot doesn’t look like it’s close to the sun’s equator.
So, not a solar cycle 25, spot??
Guesstimate for September UAH … +0.05
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/09/30/weekly-climate-and-energy-news-roundup-330/
THIS WEEK: By Ken Haapala, President, Science and Environmental Policy Project (SEPP)
“…
âThe realization that human activities might change the global climate was not new. Already at the end of the nineteenth century Svante Arrhenius, professor of chemistry at Stockholmâs HĂśgskola (University), deduced that the global mean temperature might increase by 5°Câ6°C if the carbon dioxide concentration in the atmosphere were doubled.â
This claim is not correct. As discussed in last weekâs TWTW, in his 1895 paper Arrhenius wrote:
ââŚtemperature of the Arctic regions would rise about 8 degrees or 9 degrees Celsius, if the carbonic acid [CO2] increased 2.5 to 3 times its present value. In order to get the temperature of the ice age between the 40th and 50th parallels, the carbonic acid in the air should sink to 0.62 to 0.55 of present value (lowering the temperature 4 degrees to 5 degrees Celsius).â
In his later 1906 paper Arrhenius revised his estimates, writing:
âIn a similar way, I calculate that a reduction in the amount of CO2 by half, or a gain to twice the amount, would cause a temperature change of â 1.5 degrees C, or + 1.6 degrees C, respectively.â
…”
Exactly, see e.g.
https://tinyurl.com/yc4vl6zf
So Arrhenius was too high the first time, and two low the second time. Take the average.
(Not serious.)
gallopingcamel says:
September 30, 2018 at 9:02 PM
Yes! that is how the 255 Kelvin estimate for the average temperature of planet Earth ‘sans atmosphere’ was derived using impeccable mathematics and risible assumptions about thermal conductivity.
gallopingcamel, I love to learn. For me until now, the equilibrium temperature (ET) of a planet moving around a star looked like this:
ETplanet = Tstar * (Rstar/2 * Rplanet-orbit)^1/2 * (1 – planet-albedo)^1/4)
This – and nothing else identifiable with any “risible assumptions about thermal conductivity” – leads to a temperature of 255 K when putting the numbers for Earth and Sun into the formula AND assuming an albedo of 0.3 as is actually the case for our blue planet.
This latter assumption might indeed be questionable, as there is no reason to think that an albedo mainly driven by clouds keeps unchanged when no clouds are present.
– An Earth having never had any atmosphere containing clouds certainly had no oceans, and thus will have a surface like that of the Moon, and thus a similar albedo (0.12) leading to an ET of 270 K.
– Conversely, an Earth having turned from the actual state into that of a harsh snow and ice ball will have a very high albedo, possibly over 0.5 (ET: 234 K), even up to that of Enceladus (0.99), leading to an ET of no more than 88 K.
Any ET between the two extremes should be possible.
*
Thus my question to you:
What exactly is wrong with the good old formula above? Could you provide a link to a paper explaining why it has become obsolete inbetween?
Here is one:
https://springerplus.springeropen.com/articles/10.1186/2193-1801-3-723
LP, you must have been hoping all of the mistakes in your bolded equation would cancel out.
Physics doesn’t work that way, sorry.
(But, your humor is appreciated.)
He left out a pair of brackets. But as you referred to ALL of his mistakes, perhaps you would care to share the rest. You can bring in your sock puppet to answer for you if you like.
Good one! Do that one again, as Bond this time. Then later you could try it as Bob, or Des.
Hi JD, looks like you took up my offer.
Your request is somewhat moot though – if you look at my name you’ll see I posted as all three.
Anyway – still waiting on your answer.
Nah, Bobdesbond isnt my favourite. Try Des again, that was a good one.
Sorry Bobdesbond, it is not my job to correct all clown mistakes. I just point them out.
As I just did with you.
Thanks for your admission that there was only one mistake in his formula. I guess that makes one mistake apiece. I guess also, by your definition, that makes you a clown.
des, as a starter, check the units. He’s got “temperature” on one side of the equation, and “temperature * distance” on the other side!
That’s the same mistake, caused by leaving out the brackets.
The count is still ONE.
So, all mistakes are due to the first mistake, which is not really a mistake!
des “defines” his new algebra to fit his pseudoscience.
Incredible!
Kindly point out where I said it “is not really a mistake”.
g.e.r.a.n/JD defines his own straw man to defend his BS claim.
Incredible!
Sheesh des, I’m trying to help you out here. I know you’re trying to cover for another clown. You don’t want there to be any mistakes. So, have it your way.
Why live in reality when you can live in your imaginary world?
Clown, You mean the imaginary world where you pretend that you didn’t make a mistake by claiming that he made more than one mistake? You COULD just admit that you were wrong.
des, previously you claimed I only found one mistake:
“Thanks for your admission that there was only one mistake in his formula.”
Now you are claiming I found more!
Let me know when you quit arguing with yourself.
I’ll go with the winning side….
That’s what you got out of my comment?? You need to see someone about your poor comprehension skills.
Mistakes: LP 1, JD 2
2 to 1, and LP has conceded.
I’ll have to buy myself another round, I guess.
(Hey, the name/email just auto-filled! Win-win!)
Yes, he conceded to the ONE error that he made, which was essentially a typo.
As you accept that concession, you admit to being wrong about multiple errors.
I want to see the rule bookâŚ.
Why do you need a rule book when you always make up the rules on the fly? Rules that you always seem to be exempt from.
des, re-read this very sub-thread. You’re the one making the rules, and then keeps changing them.
Nice projection!
So you don’t believe that one “rule” should be that you actually understand the contents of a paper before extolling its virtue?
Huffman you are a grand genius.
ETplanet = Tstar * (Rstar/ (2 * Rplanet-orbit))^1/2 * (1 planet-albedo)^1/4)
Aw shucks….
La Pag: Yes, your equation is correct.
For those interested, it’s derived in Pierrehumbert’s textbook, section 3.3:
http://cips.berkeley.edu/events/rocky-planets-class09/ClimateVol1.pdf
Jesus what a lot of redundant, unnecessary trash!
Above all, ‘Dr Roys Emergency Moderation (???) Team’, do you really believe I would trust in a paper written by Nikolov and Zeller but signed with such stupid fake names as Volokin & Rellez?
Das fehlte noch.
La Pangolidon, yes, I would expect you to judge a paper on its merits rather than dismissing it based on something like that.
DREMT,
Right on! That N&Z had to resort to such tactics tells you all you need to know about the corrupt “Peer Review” process.
The Climate Mafia exists to scratch each others backs so as to make their “Junk Science” appear respectable.
I hope La Pangolina will take the time to read the Volokin & ReLlez paper, even though their answer does not quite agree with mine when the rate of rotation is changed!
Ned Nikolov was a bit miffed at me for a while because I am enamored of the Robinson & Catling model:
https://diggingintheclay.wordpress.com/2014/04/27/robinson-and-catling-model-closely-matches-data-for-titans-atmosphere/
gallopingcamel says:
That N&Z had to resort to such tactics tells you all you need to know about the corrupt Peer Review process.
Oh please. Lots of contrarian papers get published, if they’re good enough. McKitrick & Christy have a paper just published in AGU’s Earth and Space Science. Explain that.
The truth is that the N&Z paper isn’t good at all, and is nothing but a curve fitting exercise with no physics. That’s why it was rejected and why N&Z had to lie to get it published.
Wrong paper, you are thinking of the second one.
OK. But they did lie to get a publication. That’s unethical even if you turn yourself in later.
Regardless, their paper is junk because their physics is junk. It’s only in denier circles that is gets any traction. The scientific community hasn’t given it a second thought.
A sound debunking, in your imagination, Im sure.
Actually I’ve thought alot about the N&Z paper. I’ve blogged about it, and discussed on Twitter and Disqus.
The paper really is junk, in several ways. The authors, esp Nikilov, simply don’t listen to criticism, which they’ve gotten from many people. He ignores it all and is more interested in PR.
No advance on my previous comment.
DREMT
Nice self-referential statement there!
There was still no debunking, so my response to David remained unchanged.
Which itself was no advance on your previous comment, which was no advance on your previous comment, … ad infinitum.
Check base case … yep, your first comment on this site said nothing useful.
Hence, by induction, you have contributed nothing useful to discussion on this site.
I linked to a paper, which provided La Pangolidon with exactly what he asked for. That had value.
La Pangolidon rejected that paper based on something other than its merits, which I pointed out. That had value.
David Appell referred to the paper as a curve-fitting exercise. He was thinking of the second paper by N & Z, not the one I had linked to. I pointed that out, he stood corrected. That had value.
David Appell simply said it was junk. He provided no debunking. I pointed that out. That had value.
David Appell repeated another similar comment, with no debunking. I pointed that out, again. That had value.
I have now thoroughly corrected your erroneous statements. That has value.
You mean the paper you linked to whose authors used fake names?
So you are repeating La Pangolidons rejection, based on something other than the merits of the paper.
Please explain these “merits of the paper”.
Nope.
Got it – you don’t understand the mathematics in order to judge its merits.
Got it, thats your method of asserting there is a flaw without having to explain it.
You wouldn’t know if it were flawed now would you.
Bobdesbond, please stop trolling.
Hahaha … at least you have your kiddie games to fall back on when your little foray into science fails, as it always must.
How is it that you dont see you are a troll, BDB? You seriously think that there is nothing you do here that wouldnt constitute as trolling? Look at your comments on here. Try to be objective. Try to have the ability to be self-critical.
How is it that you don’t see you are a troll, DREMT? Do you seriously think that there is nothing you do here that wouldn’t constitute as trolling? Look at your comments on here. Try to be objective. Try to have the ability to be self-critical.
(You really should invest in a mirror.)
I do see, BDB. Thats part of it: I hold up the mirror for you guys. Each of you criticize in me what you see in yourselves. Some criticize the hypocrisy and bias (oh, you never tell so and so to stop trolling), because that is what they dislike in themselves. Their own hypocrisy and bias. Some criticize my trolling, because they dislike how they troll themselves. When talking to someone like you, BDB, I simply respond at the level you engage at. And you absolutely hate it.
What amuses me most is how that part of it sails over your self-absorbed little heads.
When talking to someone like you, DREMT, I simply respond at the level you engage at. And you absolutely hate it.
Perfect.
Thanks. Sorry I can’t repay the compliment.
You’re welcome.
There is nothing wrong with your formula which has multiple sources in peer reviewed papers. For example:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4447774/
Den Volokin is Ned Nikolov and Lark ReLlez is Karl Zeller. Their paper cites the following prior papers:
Hansen et al. 1981, Peixoto and Oort 1992, Wallace and Hobbs 2006, Marshall and Plumb 2008; Pierrehumbert 2010; Schmidt et al. 2010, Schulze-Makuch et al. 2011; Lacis et al. 2010, 2013, Kopp and Lean 2011, Loeb et al. 2009, Stephens et al. 2012, Wild et al. 2013
There is a problem when one finds that the average temperature of our Moon is 197 Kelvin rather than the predicted 255 Kelvin.
The 255 Kelvin temperature would be correct if the entire Moon was at a uniform temperature whereas that is clearly not the case. The Diviner LRE found temperatures as high as 395 and as low as 30 Kelvin.
At least six people including this camel have produced mathematical models which correspond closely with the actual lunar temperatures as measured by the Diviner LRE (Lunar Radiometer Experiment).
I spent 18 months discussing this problem with Scott Denning, Ned Nikolov and many others. We agreed that the 255 Kelvin estimate was incorrect and we came up with three independent models that correspond closely with the measured average temperature of the Moon (197 Kelvin).
Then we tried to estimate the effect of speeding up the Moon’s rate of rotation by a factor of ~27 so as to match Earth’s rate of rotation. Ned Nikolov said there was no effect while Scott Denning and I found a significant effect:
https://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2017/06/06/extending-a-new-lunar-thermal-model-part-iii-modelling-the-moon-at-various-rotation-rates/
I would be happy to provide all my data files and the code that produced them……..the dog did not eat my homework.
How about presenting your physics — the equations? Your spreadsheet locked my computer up, and besides its of little use without knowing the physics involved. So far you’ve avoided showing your physics.
“We agreed that the 255 Kelvin estimate was incorrect..”
Not in their published paper, where N&Z report their “careful examination of the published data” ~255K is from Apollo thermometer measurements p. 5, last para.
“There is a problem when one finds that the average temperature of our Moon is 197 Kelvin rather than the predicted 255 Kelvin.”
Not from N&Z paper where there is no problem, they report 255K is measured from (sparse) Apollo thermometer readings. The 197K is a brightness temperature and is only as good as the assumptions for (unknown) moon surface emissivity, reflectivity in the Diviner radiometer instrumentation. Thus, global 197K is only an assumption.
This 197K could be corrected to the actual surface thermometer readings by adjusting the emissivity, reflectivity assumptions to sparse reality of 255K. However, there is no global reality established as yet as there are no moon global surface thermometer readings.
My model taxes my laptop (HP 2000) to the limit so I am not surprised you had some problems.
My “Physics” is the same as everyone else’s. Here is a summary of my model:
1. One incoming radiation channel representing sunlight.
2. One outgoing radiation channel representing thermal IR.
3. A heat source at a constant temperature of 240 Kelvin representing the basalt bedrock.
4. Fifty layers each 10 mm thick composed of regolith with thermal properties varying according to the Vasavada, 2012 paper.
In order to calculate heat transfer and temperatures one needs to solve thousands of differential equations so I used a free (Student) version of Quickfield:
https://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2014/04/18/a-new-lunar-thermal-model-based-on-finite-element-analysis-of-regolith-physical-properties/
Then all that remains to be done is to tweak the parameters such as conductivity, specific heat, Albedo and emissivity. Simple trial and error. This can be tedious when you only have a laptop.
Dr. Spencer,
Why do you allow Appell posting privileges? Is it just for everyone else’s entertainment value?
No need to respond Roy. Just a rhetorical question.
Which posting privilege?
That of naming anybody ‘idiot’, ‘stupid’, ‘ignorant’, ‘dumb@$$’ for example?
Ball4 says:
“The 197K is a brightness temperature and is only as good as the assumptions for (unknown) moon surface emissivity, reflectivity in the Diviner radiometer instrumentation. Thus, global 197K is only an assumption.”
There are many “Assumptions”. While Vasavada suggested that more work be done to improve estimates of the Moon’s emissivity it is wrong to suggest that the emissivity is unknown. For example my model assumed a simple (non-Lambertian) emissivity of 0.95 to minimize the RMS error between my model and Diviner data.
With emissivity = 0.95 the night side RMS error was less than 0.1 Kelvin (close enough for government work).
Any other value sharply increased the RMS error so I would claim that my “Assumption” is likely to agree with the real emissivity if they get around to measuring it. Until then you can my figure a “Prediction”.
When building my model, the paper I relied on more than any other was this one:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1029/2011JE003987
GC wrote:
“For example my model assumed a simple (non-Lambertian) emissivity of 0.95 to minimize the RMS error between my model and Diviner data.”
This is called a “fudge factor.”
“it is wrong to suggest that the emissivity is unknown.”
gc, what is the particle diameter of about 20-25% of the moon’s surface?
Vasavada, 2012 talks about particle size without going into details.
For my model the bulk properties of regolith were enough. Considering that regolith is powdered basalt the surface layer is a really good insulator:
Basalt conductivity = 1.69 W/K/m
Regolith surface layer conductivity = 0.001 W/K/m
“Vasavada, 2012 talks about particle size without going into details.”
Never the less it is a hint for you. Few years ago, I was interested enough to go down that rabbit hole. All with google-fu with whatever I could find free on the internet. Earlier, I had read about a meteorology Prof. that gave his grad. students tubes of unknown material with which to measure each sample’s emissivity. One of the tubes had a fine powder and the Prof. chose the avg. particle diameter to be of the order of the wavelength of illumination. The emissivity would be instrument measured greater than 1.0 due to effects of diffraction. He was testing which students would be brave enough to turn in a report with a higher than 1.0 emissivity of a real material.
As I recall from a few years ago, you can find research from the testing of the Apollo return samples for an estimate that ~20-25% of the moon’s surface has been pounded to powder with the diameter on the order of the wavelength of illumination of interest. I tried to find if the Diviner instrument designers and returned data analysis compensated for these implied diffraction effects. There wasn’t much available on instrument design & analysis; I concluded I’d have to talk one on one with an expert on those devices and gave up the search.
I would suggest to you that in fact it is NOT wrong to suggest the moon’s global surface emissivity is to a great extent very much unknown due global diffraction.
The 197K brightness temperature could just be an artifact of the effects of moon global surface powder diffraction and that N&Z are more correct when they report moon global ~255K as thermometer measured from (sparse) Apollo readings. The real emissivity, reflectivity may be that which returns global ~255K as a correct brightness temperature not 197K.
Maybe you have one on one contacts and can go down that rabbit hole a bit further.
@Ball4,
You are probably onto something. The Moon is “Non-Lambertian” for incoming radiation which is a fancy way of saying that the proportion of energy absorbed varies with the angle of incidence.
When trying to model the day side temperature assuming that the Albedo is ~0.3 one can get a decent match between your model and observations when it comes to average temperature. However the RMS error will be large unless you assume that Albedo varies with the angle of incidence.
To get a really good fit, Vasavada assumed that 39% of the incoming energy is absorbed at grazing incidence compared to 89% at normal incidence (see Vasavada, 2012, equation (1) on page 9).
So why does the regolith behave in this strange way? It may be that the particle size of the surface basalt dust is comparable with the wavelength of sunlight that peaks at 500 nano-meters.
One man’s “Fudge Factor” is another man’s “Prediction”.
I can predict with confidence that the emissivity of the Moon on the “Night Side” is = 0.95 +/-0.01 given the low RMS error between model and measurements.
When it comes to the “Day Side”, my model RMS error is much greater than for the night side and part of the error may turn out to be related to IR emissivity rather than Albedo. It seems reasonable to suppose that the emissivity of regolith may be a function of temperature.
Getting back to Dr. Roy’s interview on “Tucker Carson” he identified the real problem. Propaganda generated by James Hansen, Al Gore, Bill Nye, Neil deGrasse Tyson and many others.
You won’t find the “Fake News” and “Fake TV” giving any prominence to rebuttals of the propaganda that they churn out. Let me know if you find Bill Happer, Richard Lindzen, Roy Spencer, Judy Curry, Ryan Maue, Anthony Watts, Nir Shaviv or Indur Goklany featured on the front pages of our newspapers.
The rebuttals don’t hold up to scrutiny. Because the science of AGW is sound. Stop making excuses and stick to the science — where is *it* wrong?
http://co2coalition.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/Happer-ICON-lecture-9-12-17-Slides.pdf
https://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2015/10/benefits-of-co2.pdf
David Appell says;
“The rebuttals dont hold up to scrutiny.”
That sounds like an “Ex Cathedra” argument to me. Why should we believe you or the Climate Mafia?
Just using the phrase “climate mafia” tells me you aren’t serious, aren’t motivated by science, and just another standard denier.
And you still haven’t found that 150 W/m2 yet.
Um where is Sept UAH? Is the doc ok? Just so everyone knows I went and checked my local glaciers and they’re just fine. Still not retreated to their Holocene average..
GC
*the parameters are like Eli’s blue plate.
Given that radiation increases exponentially with temperature, shouldn’t a plate at 244 K emit more radiation than the combined emittance from two plates at 122 K?
If so, isn’t this where all the confusion about averaging fluxes comes from?
******
I haven’t needed to use math since my freshman year of college……how much would a “plate” at 122 K emit?
I don’t want to sound picky but according to Stefan-Boltzmann radiation increases according to temperature raised to the fourth power rather than exponentially.
All that stuff about plates is above my pay grade so I decline to comment.
cam…”I dont want to sound picky but according to Stefan-Boltzmann radiation increases according to temperature raised to the fourth power rather than exponentially”.
There is something fishy about that relationship. The constant of proportionality all but cancels the 4th power.
The 4th power actually came from the estimated temperatures of an electrically-heated platinum filament as it glowed different colours as the current increased. Based on those colours, another scientist converted them to the expected colour temperature.
But what is really being measured? Colour temperature is actually a reference to the light given off when a body is heated till it glows in the visible spectrum. It’s telling you that electrons are getting really excited in the platinum atoms (in Tyndall’s experiment) and radiating higher and higher frequencies of EM.
The colours represent heat (ergo colour temperature), however, not EM. It’s the heat in the body producing the colours and the power, measured in watts. This issue needs to be thought out better by scientists willing to lay aside the math and look at the physical reality.
GR says
“This issue needs to be thought out better by scientists willing to lay aside the math and look at the physical reality.”
That’s my problem…….I can’t set aside the math even though I know it is a human construct rather than reality.
cam…”Thats my problem.I cant set aside the math even though I know it is a human construct rather than reality”.
I would not call that a problem, I love math and it’s a great tool. I have been studying the human mind for some time re awareness and I find we humans tend to get stuck in mental grooves due to conditioning.
It never hurts to drop it all and simply say, “I don’t know”. If you mean it, the statement immediately clears the mind from conditioning and offers the opportunity for insight.
I urge you to try explaining things in words rather than through math, especially following a declaration that “I don’t know”. Write yourself an essay explaining a theory and resist the urge to gloss over gray areas.
I know this makes me sound hypocritical because I usually write as if I do know. I don’t, it’s just my way of talking.
Knowledge can be helpful but it can also block insight.
Linus Pauling could have been awarded a third Nobel for discovering the shape of the DNA molecule. He was very close but he allowed himself to get hung up on a particular approach.
He was supposed to go to England to meet the X-ray crystallographer, Rosalind Franklin, who produced the first x-ray images of the DNA molecule. All the credit went to Crick and Watson, who had to later consult with Pauling to see what it all meant. They were friends of Pauling’s son.
Had Pauling made that meeting he would have immediately gotten the shape. However, the idiots running the McCarthy witch hunts withheld his passport, suggesting he was a communist sympathizer because he spoke out against nuclear radiation.
His wife chided him later for failing to allow himself to take a wider view of the issue rather than focusing on one aspect.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rosalind_Franklin
Ok. I guess, “increases non-linearly” is what I should have said.
I’m also curious what temperature a plate would need to be to emit 200 w/m^2.
244 K.
snape…”âm also curious what temperature a plate would need to be to emit 200 w/m^2″.
No plate obviously emits anything measured in w/m^2. That’s a fallacy originating in the 19th century when it was believed heat could be radiated directly through space. The reference of w/m^2 is obviously to the heat on the surface of the emitting body.
As I have argued, EM cannot be measured in w/m^2 since a watt is a measure of heat that came from the equivalent amount of work done to produce it. When work is done on a body, the temperature of the body rises and temperature is obviously a measure of relative heat levels.
The same cannot be said for EM. It’s known that an electron must drop an energy level to emit EM but in quantum theory the electron is not claimed to move as would be required in work. It’s in one energy level one moment and without any time changing, it is suddenly in another energy level. The transition cannot be measured using time.
Even though heat is converted to EM, I think it’s a stretch to claim there is a work equivalent, that can be measured in watts, between an electron’s energy level change and the energy level of the EM produced.
Obviously there is a relationship but I think another unit should be derived for EM. With electromagnetic fields in electric motors or transformers, the near-field EM is not measured in watts. In fact, the EM power is referred to as imaginary while only power produced in a pure resistance is referred to as real power.
As I pointed out before, if you have a light bulb where its glass is radiating from a glass temperature producing 100 watts, you cannot touch the glass without scorching your skin. However, if you hold your fingers 1/16″ away from the glass you barely feel the heat.
You cannot claim that the EM radiated by the bulb is anywhere near 100 watts. The air temperature would be much closer than the EM.
This topic needs to be re-investigated by serious scientists, rather than the louts who have blindly accepted this bad paradigm.
Gordon, a Watt is not a measure of heat, it’s a measure of energy usage. Heat is measured in Joules, power (dE/dt) is measured in Watts. 1 W = 1 J/s
There are other ways to generate EM besides an electron changing levels. But you’ve been told this many times, by many people, and you clearly don’t want to really understand the science.
smh
DA…”Gordon, a Watt is not a measure of heat, its a measure of energy usage. Heat is measured in Joules, power (dE/dt) is measured in Watts. 1 W = 1 J/s”
Once more, the origin of the measure of heat, which unlike what you claim, is energy, is the work done to produce heat. It was initially measured in the work done by two horse supplying power to an apparatus that generated heat from a drill turning in a brass cylinder.
No one knew what heat was at the time and they needed units to measure it. They knew the work produced a rise in temperature in water but they had no idea how it worked. So, they gave heat the unit of watts, derived from 1 HP, where 746 watts = 1 HP.
Circa 1840, Joule confirmed the equivalence of work and heat but what value would you give to heat? Joule calculated the number of foot-pounds of mechanical work to raise a pound of water by 1F.
However, 550 ft lbs = 1 hp = 746 watts.
It all began with the HP, then units like watts and joules were defined from that. There is no way to measure energy directly, all we can do is observe its effect on matter.
Heck, we don’t even know what it is.
ball4…”Whats more, molecules carry not only translational KE but rotational & vibrational KE (leading to quantum theory relevance) & of course PE. Thus total energy flux became a well-defined physical quantity and wherever Clausius bandwagon of heat flux was encountered science replaced that with energy flux. Gordon is just stuck in the past on heat flux AKA gordon flux”.
*********
Ah….you’re catching up….good. So, what causes the translational, vibrational, and rotational energies? You would have none of them without the difference in charge between protons and neutrons. When atoms get closer together, the +ve charges on the protons repel other +vely charged protons on other nucleii, but the mobile electron orbits the atoms/molecules and binds them together.
Due to the charge difference, the bonds tend to vibrate and with linear molecules, they tend to rotate as well when they collide with other atoms. All the related energy to which you refer is related to +ve and -ve charges interacting.
There’s more. The electrons can change energy levels within atoms and since molecules are nothing more than atoms bonded by electrons, the overall KE of the atoms/molecules is determined by the electrons and their bonding properties.
Clausius knew all that about atoms bonded by electrons in solids, he just hadn’t heard of electrons yet. He did hypothesize that atoms vibrated in a solid and that the vibration was related to work between the atoms and energy added to the solid to cause the work. He claimed that energy as thermal energy, aka heat.
I would not get too carried off with statistical mechanics and the inferences that come from it. Planck admitted it cannot be visualized therefore you are left at the mercy of rather bizarre mathematical equations, where, for example, entropy has been converted to a statistic.
The observations of Clausius were sound. His work is also corroborated by quantum theory. Bohr hypothesized in 1913, based on his work and that of Rutherford, that electrons change energy levels when they absorb or emit EM. He also specified that electrons require very specific conditions to absorb EM and one of them suggests strongly that electrons cannot absorb EM from a cooler body.
Electrons give up heat when they emit EM and they acquire heat when they absorb EM. That means the atoms heats up as their increased KE translates to a rise in temperature.
I find nothing odd about the subjective explanations of Clausius, or even with the S-B equation. What I find odd is people misinterpreting the 2nd law and the common sense of almost every human on the planet who know innately what heat is and what it means. They all know intuitively that heat only transfers from hot to cold.
Why is it you have been deprived of this insight?
With your insistence on calling heat ‘energy’, which it is, thermal energy, do you not understand that energy flows from regions of higher potential to regions of lower potential. Boulders and water fall from areas of higher potential to areas of lower potential. Why should it not be the same for heat as energy?
I am not worried about the views of Clausius, even though he had not yet heard of electrons and quantum theory, I am concerned about the way physics is being murdered by misguided thought-experiments, such as AGW and all the peculiar pseudo-scientific theories that accompany it.
âThey all know intuitively that heat only transfers from hot to cold. Why is it you have been deprived of this insight?â
Because Maxwell Boltzmann distribution of particle velocities shows your statement is wrong. As Clausius wrote, and is true today, it is well known from testing photons are absorbed in warmer bodies after being born in cooler bodies thus we can observe ice. Gordon has yet to learn this & the M-B distribution insight added after Clausius’ time.
ball4…GR…”….heat only transfers from hot to cold. Why is it you have been deprived of this insight?â”
B4…”Because Maxwell Boltzmann distribution of particle velocities shows your statement is wrong”.
B4…”…it is well known from testing photons are absorbed in warmer bodies after being born in cooler bodies thus we can observe ice”.
1)photons were unknown in the days of Clausius, Maxwell, and Boltzmann. It was Einstein, in the early 20th century who popularized the notion based on Planck theory of quanta.
I have seen no studies that support your claim that photons emitted by cooler bodies are absorbed by warmer bodies.
2)M-B is about real particles, atoms. However, atoms cannot be observed directly, so Boltzmann developed a probability argument based on sheer statistics. There were no experiments by him to support his claims. In fact, his interpretation of entropy statistically removes the 2nd law from the world of observable science.
3)Even though Einstein popularized the term photon, he claimed near the end of his life that no one knew if they existed. So, how could anyone measure the flow of photons from a colder body to a warmer body?
“I have seen no studies that support your claim that photons emitted by cooler bodies are absorbed by warmer bodies.”
You actually have to read the published literature Gordon.
Start with the published experiments Planck used to develop the law – the ones that show photons emitted by cooler bodies are absorbed by warmer bodies.
Wherever there are temperatures there must be fluctuations about those temperatures is all you need to know at your level of accomplishment about M-B distribution. M-B is backed by experiment despite your claim to the contrary.
DREMT, “244 K”
You’re right. Should be, “I’m also curious what temperature a plate would need to be to emit 100 w/m^2.”
About 205 K.
Bill Nye is going to dress up as real scientist for Halloween
https://babylonbee.com/news/bill-nye-dress-real-scientist-halloween/
* the following is based on Eli’s blue plate scenario
-* disclaimer: my math skills suck, and I’m relying on DREMT for a key value.
**********
If one plate emits 200 w/m^2, and its neighbor emits nothing, the average for the two is 100 w/m^2.
Using SB, average temperature is ~ 205 K (according to DREMT).
*******
Average temperature between a plate that’ emits 200 w/m^2 (244 k) and its neighbor that emits nothing (0 K), is 122 K
*****
Takeaway: You need 2 plates at 205 K to produce the same radiation as one plate at 244 K. That’s because rate of emittance is non-linear with respect to temperature. So averaging fluxes to determine temperature is a problem.
Snape, I think what you are getting at is this, from the N & Z paper I linked to earlier:
The SB law is also routinely employed to estimating the mean temperatures of airless bodies. We demonstrate that this formula as applied to spherical objects is mathematically incorrect owing to Hlders inequality between integrals and leads to biased results such as a significant underestimation of Earths ATE.
Sorry, Hölder’s inequality between integrals
DREMT
Yes, I’m trying to simplify the idea to a point where I can understand it.
Thanks for the Halp.
You’re welcome.
To those feeling the need to push up the relevance of Nikolov’s and Zeller’s hint on Hölder’s inequality constraint concerning the calculation of an average temperature, I strongly recommend to carefully read two consecutive head posts of Roy Spencer
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2016/09/errors-in-estimating-earths-no-atmosphere-average-temperature/
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2016/09/the-faster-a-planet-rotates-the-warmer-its-average-temperature/
The main point Roy Spencer so accurately explains is that the discrepancy between the temperature calculation for an airless Moon and that for an airless Earth is not due to an allegedly false calculation leading to the 255 K for Earth, but rather to the difference in their rotation speeds and hence their diurnal behavior.
The higher the rotation speed of the planet, the lower the solar flux averaging error.
He goes from
http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/Model-Lunar-diurnal-cycle-550×363.gif
via
http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/Model-earth-diurnal-cycle-0.1albedo-550×363.gif
to
http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/Model-earth-diurnal-cycle-0.3albedo-550×363.gif
and concludes
Using the S-B equation with a global average absorbed solar flux to compute the global average emitting temperature of the Moon leads to a very large warm bias, as reported by others.
But that lunar bias (about 60 deg. C) is mostly due to the very long period of daylight on the moon, which is 29.5 times longer than on Earth. When the Earthâs diurnal cycle length is used, the warm bias is only about 5 deg. C.
But his conclusion continues with a hint of the fact that the 33 K difference between an airless Earth and today’s situation cannot be solely due to the GHE, but is the result of a total atmospheric effect mixing convection and radiation.
Sounds good!
La P. – with earth natural atm. in place & the earth natural diurnal cycle satellites measure ~240 OLR avg.d over a decade or more. The surface avg.s ~400 OLR. So I would argue the ~33K GHE is accounted for & as observed for the earth given the relevant emissivities & reflectivities which are also well measured.
As Dr. Spencer’s calculations hint, when trying to come up with a GHE for other bodies with atm.s or global surface T with no atm., then the rotation rate w/heat capacity analysis becomes important factor to consider as there are no or very sparse surface kinetic temperature thermometer fields in place. Also no or sparse measured global emissivities & reflectivities calibrated for any other object. The atm. GHE estimates will all depend on various author assumptions & baselines. A survey of the relevant literature shows those assumptions are not in short supply (with conclusions for further work being advised, ha).
NB1: In Roy’s spreadsheet, if you set the sfc. IR emissivity to 1, the 255K is recovered. My view is Dr. Spencer should not have reduced it to 0.98 as that simply implies the planet has either some transmissivity (2%) or less insolation by 2% but his conclusions are still the same.
NB2: I’d also point out N&Zs curve fit would be a decent first estimate for limited number of exoplanets where a case can be made the airless objects have same IR regolith properties as moon and same rotation rates, atm. composition & illumination as the measured dots along their curve.
Thanks Ball4 for this interesting reply.
@La Pangolina,
Thanks for those links to Dr. Roy’s estimates of lunar temperature. Somehow I missed them! They are pretty good as one would expect from a real scientist.
It is relatively easy to model the Moon’s night side temperature and at least six people have done it with an accuracy of better than one degree Centigrade.
It is much more difficult to model the day time temperature. So let’s take a look at Dr. Roy’s day side model (Figure 2):
http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/Model-Lunar-diurnal-cycle-550×363.gif
Setting emissivity to 0.98 and Albedo to 0.1 Dr. Roy arrived at a global average temperature of 212 Kelvin. Actual measurements (Vasavada, NASA, March 27, 2012) show that the average lunar temperature at low latitudes is 212.1 Kelvin.
That is a stunning vindication of Dr. Roy’s model (way better than my model at 213.2 Kelvin). However it is easy to get the average temperature right but it is much more difficult to construct a model that tracks measurements from dawn to dusk. If the model and measured plots are identical the RMS error will be zero.
Here is the lunar equatorial temperature as measured by the Diviner LRE:
https://tallbloke.files.wordpress.com/2014/04/image-376.png?w=550&zoom=2
I wanted to calculate the RMS error between Dr. Roy’s plot and the Diviner measurements but I would need Dr. Roy’s data in Excel format rather than as a .gif file. Visual comparison of the two plots shows that the RMS error is large (>10 Kelvin) compared to my RMS error of 0.66 Kelvin.
……………………….Dr. Roy……..Diviner LRE
Maximum temperature (K)…….385…………..389
Minimum temperature (K)……..95……………93
Dusk temperature (K)……….122…………..210
While Dr. Roy’s model is good for T(Max), T(min) and T(ave) it is totally wrong for T(dusk).
Dr. Roy’s T(dusk) is badly wrong because he failed to model the non-Lambertian properties of the lunar regolith. While the Moon’s Albedo is 0.11 at normal incidence it is 0.61 at grazing incidence.
“Actual measurements (Vasavada, NASA, March 27, 2012) show that the average lunar temperature at low latitudes is 212.1 Kelvin.”
Measurements from orbiting radiometers. More accurate to write assume (not show) that the average lunar brightness nonequilibrium temperature at low latitudes is 212.1 Kelvin since there are so many assumptions in that paper. The near surface equilibrium kinetic temperature would be higher based on the Apollo thermometer data and the known surface particle size diffraction issues.
The table values are only comparable because the emissivities, reflectivities are assumed close to the same. Again, these temperatures are brightness temperatures and are very likely lower than the near surface kinetic temperatures.
Measuring temperature inevitably involves assumptions but IMHO the Diviner LRE measurements are the best available for the Moon.
NASA often publishes lunar temperatures (e.g. average = 197.3 Kelvin) without showing an error range.
Given all those assumptions, can you suggest what the error range might be?
The CERES radiometers show an imbalance of about 6 W/m^2 so they are not accurate by roughly that amount but they are very precise & are calibrated to less than about +/- 0.3 W/m^2 using surface kinetic temperature fields. That’s a starting hint.
Then Vasavada section 6.2.1 discusses significant known sources of moon near surface reflectivity & emissivity error without estimates for magnitude. Of course, without moon wide field surface kinetic temperatures there are unknown unknowns. Not much to work with your answer would need a lot of research. This area of investigation is mostly a dead end with all the exoplanet global median surface T publishing opportunity for the foreseeable future.
Oooops! In the table from yesterday I got the dusk temperatures wrong. Dr. Roy’s plot shows 210 K while the Diviner measurements show 122 K.
gallopingcamel says:
October 2, 2018 at 11:29 PM
I wanted to calculate the RMS error between Dr. Royâs plot and the Diviner measurements but I would need Dr. Royâs data in Excel format rather than as a .gif file.
*
galloping camel, did you read Roy Spencer’s head posts?
The spreadsheet you missed is here:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/simple-radiative-EBM-of-sfc-and-NOatm-with-diurnal-cycle.xlsx
I can’t imagine Roy Spencer ignoring in 2016 what Vasavada & al. published in 2012, let alone the results published in 2009 by the people concerned with the Diviner Lunar Radiation Experiment.
Thanks for that spreadsheet. It contains the chart for the Moon’s day time temperature but the data in the columns does not match the curves in the chart.
Here is a plot that shows the lunar equatorial temperature as measured by the Diviner LRE (green curve) and my model (yellow curve):
https://tallbloke.files.wordpress.com/2014/08/image-417.png
Note the close agreement between measurements (green) and model (yellow).
This chart also show that the rate of rotation has very little effect on day time temperatures but has a significant effect on night time temperatures. Thus rotation rate does affect average temperature.
I am sure Dr. Roy would have no difficulty updating his model to include the non-Lambertian Albedo but given that he is a very busy guy I am sure he has much more important things to work on.
On the other hand I am a retired person with plenty of time to waste.
gallopingcamel says:
October 3, 2018 at 8:38 PM
Thanks in turn Peter Morcombe: for your interesting and impressing work.
On the other hand I am a retired person with plenty of time to waste.
I am sure that doing some work in processing a synthesis between Roy Spencer’s approach and yours certainly wouldn’t result in you wasting your time!
Given that Dr. Roy is using a spreadsheet it should be easy to add the non-Lambertian Albedo. Probably just an hour or two of work.
Dr. Roy has been kind enough to answer my emails in the past so I will ask him for a spreadsheet that was used to prepare the day time temperature chart.
LP
Thanks for the links!
Nichts zu danken!
The average temperature at the Moon’s equator is 212 Kelvin according to Vasavada but the lunar average is 197 Kelvin.
In polar crates that never receive sunlight temperatures as low as 25 Kelvin have been observed.
My model shows a polar temperature minimum of 88 Kelvin while Dr. Roy’s model shows 91 Kelvin. We are not even close.
IMHO this suggests that the basalt bedrock at the lunar poles is much cooler than the 240 Kelvin that is found at the equator.
If I thought anyone would care it would be a simple matter to calculate the temperature of the lunar bedrock at the poles.
Ooops! Craters….not crates. Damn the pickled herrings!
Is NASA publishes lunar temperatures without monitoring?
Great job Doc! I wish they would have given you much more time.
POSITIVE SITE COME UP WITH THE INFORMATION ON THIS POSTING? I’M PLEASED I DISCOVERED IT THOUGH, ILL BE CHECKING BACK SOON TO FIND OUT WHAT ADDITIONAL POSTS YOU INCLUDE. THA NKS TO THIS!
I REALLY REALLY LOVE IT. IT’S SO GOOD AND SO AWESOME. I AM JUST AMAZED. I HOPE THAT YOU CONTINUE TO DO YOUR WORK LIKE THIS IN THE FUTURE ALSO.
THANKS FOR TAKING THE TIME TO POST SUCH VALUABLE INFORMATION. QUALITY CONTENT IS WHAT ALWAYS GETS THE VISITORS COMING.
Thank you for liking, press share
I exactly got what you mean, thanks for posting. And, I am too much happy to find this website on the world of Google