Home/BlogIt 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.
🙂
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 someone’s 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! 😉
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 UN’s IPCC (and other alarmists’) 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, it’s 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 “science is settled”.
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 Nova’s 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. It’s curious that Mann and his cohort did not give more consideration to those study results before presenting their conflicting “hockey stick” 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 “different ballgame”. 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. There’s 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 Greenland’s 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 “models”, or dubious statistical machinations.
One of the “talking points” posed by alarmists attempting to “rebut” 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 “synchronous” 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 “out of synch”.
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 “synchronous” 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 “hiatus” in temperature increase after 2000. That’s in spite of the fact that co2 level has steadily continued increasing since around 1830-1850. NASA, in comparing recent candidate years for “hottest” 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 “global warming” 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 “out of synch” 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
“There’s 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, 501–515 (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 ….” Just tax it”.
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 typhoon’s 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 Probe’s first-of-its-kind water-cooled Solar Array Cooling System (or SACS) was made fully operational. The SACS will protect Parker Solar Probe’s solar arrays — responsible for powering the spacecraft — 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 “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.
_____________________________________________________
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, “massive migrations” will take place with the ultimate outcome a being “blending” of Earth’s races.
“These migrations will erode the geographic barriers that once separated human populations,” Solomon writes. “In 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 — an increase of 49 percent since 2000.” ”
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
.
❶①❶①❶①❶①
❶①❶①❶①❶①
❶①❶①❶①❶①
❶①❶①❶①❶①
.
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 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!”
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, let’s imagine that there’s 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,
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.–
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 you’re 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 object’s temperature at one hour intervals?
– First dot (data point) shows the object’s temperature increased by 1 degree Celsius.
– Second dot, the object’s temperature is now 1 degree Celsius colder than where it started.
– Third dot, the object’s temperature is 2 degrees Celsius hotter than where it started.
What was the object’s 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 object’s 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. Spencer’s 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 Stefan’s 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 5000–10000 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):10,000–25,000
Direct sunlight: 32,000–100,000 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: 0.05–0.3 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 ± 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, Venus’s 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 “greenhouse effect” which you claim is climatological pseudoscientific jargon, used in lieu of “insulation”, 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 “insulation”.
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 Earth’s 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 Earth’s 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 Earth’s 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 −18 °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:
“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 −18 °C”
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 “by the current only” 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 “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.–
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 flammable 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?